Tag: abolition

The Legal Case for Nuclear Weapons Abolition

The legal case for abolishing nuclear weapons is only one of many that can and should be made. Nuclear weapons place the future of humanity, indeed of all life, in jeopardy. They are not even weapons in any traditional sense. They kill indiscriminately. They cause unnecessary suffering that affects present and future generations. They have no legitimate use in warfare. They are instruments of genocide that no sane person or society would contemplate using.

The questions that I will address are these: Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons illegal under international law? Is the United States under a legal obligation to eliminate its nuclear arsenal? The answer to both questions is Yes, and it seems to me remarkable that the U.S. media has been nearly silent with regard to these issues.

A small breakthrough in this area occurred in June 1998 when Max Frankel, the distinguished columnist and former editor of the New York Times, wrote in the New York Times Magazine: “If I and other observers had resisted the nuclear club’s double standard and exposed its hollow assumptions about human nature, the world might by now have devised more effective international controls over atomic weapons. The have-nots might have been appeased if they had been given a major voice in a strong international inspection agency and the right to pry even into the monopolists’ stockpiles — including ours. Instead we have wasted the half century since Hiroshima and provoked a chain reaction that is truly prolific.”

Let me offer a syllogism, an expression of logic: All states are subject to international law. The United States is a state. Therefore, the United States is subject to international law.

Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with the logic that our country is subject to international law. Senator Alfonse D’Amato, for example, was recently quoted in the Los Angeles Times as stating, “To hell with international law….You’ve got a choice to make. You’re either with us or against us, and I only hope for your sake you make the right choice.”

One choice is the rule of law. The other is the rule of force. I would argue that the right choice is international law. It is in the interests of our country and all countries to abide by the rule of law. Either way, we can be assured that other countries will follow our lead.

International law is made in two ways — by treaties, which require the agreement of nations, and by such widespread agreement on issues of law that the law is accepted as customary international law. Both means carry the force of law in the international system.

The treaty which is most relevant to the abolition of nuclear weapons is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which was opened for signatures in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. This treaty seeks to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to states which did not possess them prior to January 1, 1967. The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (U.S., Russia, UK, France and China) are the states recognized in the NPT as possessing nuclear weapons prior to this date.

In return for the non-nuclear weapons states promising not to acquire nuclear weapons, the five nuclear weapons states promised in Article VI of the NPT to pursue good faith negotiations for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and for nuclear disarmament.

When the NPT was extended indefinitely in 1995, the nuclear weapons states promised the “determined pursuit…of systematic and progressive efforts” to achieve nuclear disarmament. For most states in the world, as reflected in their votes in the UN General Assembly, the efforts of the nuclear weapons states in this regard have been far from satisfactory.

The customary international law most relevant to the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons is international humanitarian law. This is part of the law of armed conflict, and was developed to set limits on the use of force in armed conflict for humanitarian purposes. The basic premise is that the means of injuring the enemy are not unlimited. Put another way, all is not fair (or legal) in warfare.

Under international law, a state cannot use weapons that fail to discriminate between civilians and combatants. Nor can a state use weapons that cause unnecessary suffering to combatants such as dum-dum bullets.

In December 1994 the United Nations General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice, the highest judicial body in the world on matters of international law, for an advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. The exact question asked was: “Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?”

The United States, joined by the UK, France, and Russia, argued to the Court that it should not hear the case because this was a political rather than legal issue. The Court, turning aside these arguments, issued its historic opinion on July 8, 1996. It was an opinion of great significance for humanity, but to date it has been largely ignored by the U.S. and its NATO allies. It has also been largely ignored by the U.S. media.

The Court began by unanimously finding that international law does not provide specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, the Court found that international law did not contain “any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such.” Three of the 14 judges — Judge Koroma of Sierra Leone, Judge Shahabuddeen of Guyana, and Judge Weeramantry of Sri Lanka — voted against this position, and issued powerful dissenting opinions.

The Court then went on to state unanimously that any threat or use of nuclear weapons for purposes other than self-defense, in accord with articles 2(4) and 51 of the United Nations Charter, was prohibited. It followed this statement with the unanimous conclusion that a threat or use of nuclear weapons must also meet the requirements of the principles and rules of international humanitarian law.

Earlier in its opinion, the Court had referred to “cardinal principles” of humanitarian law as follows: “The first is aimed at the protection of the civilian population and civilian objects and establishes the distinction between combatants and non-combatants; States must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets. According to the second principle, it is prohibited to cause unnecessary suffering to combatants: it is accordingly prohibited to use weapons causing them such harm or uselessly aggravating their suffering. In application of that second principle, States do not have unlimited freedom of choice of means in the weapons they use.” The Court also made clear that if a use would be unlawful, the threat of such use would also be unlawful.

Based upon its findings with regard to the application of international law to nuclear weapons, the Court reached an unusual two-paragraph conclusion that began, “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.”

The Court continued with a second paragraph stating that the current state of international law and the elements of fact at its disposal did not allow the Court to “conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake.” This indetermination by the Court when “the very survival of a state would be at stake,” must be read in connection with the absolute prohibition of violating international humanitarian law. Thus, even in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, it would be necessary to avoid injuring a civilian population and causing unnecessary suffering to combatants. This would not be possible by means of using nuclear weapons for retaliation against a civilian population.

The vote on this two-paragraph conclusion was 7 to 7, with the President of the Court casting the deciding vote, according to the rules of the Court. However, when you analyze who voted against the conclusion you find that the three judges from Western nuclear weapons states were joined by the three judges who found an absolute prohibition on nuclear weapons. The Japanese judge also voted against this conclusion because he opposed the issue coming before the Court. Thus, a better reading of this vote would have ten supporting the conclusion or going further and arguing for an absolute prohibition, and only the judges from the U.S., UK and France opposing it because they found that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would not be “generally” illegal.

The Court went on to state unanimously: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” In 1996 and 1997 the United Nations General Assembly passed resolutions urging the nuclear weapons states to fulfill this obligation.

In issuing the Court’s opinion, Judge Bedjaoui, the then president of the Court, referred to nuclear weapons as “the ultimate evil” and declared, “Nuclear weapons can be expected — in the present state of scientific development at least — to cause indiscriminate victims among combatants and non-combatants alike, as well as unnecessary suffering among both categories. The very nature of this blind weapon therefore has a destabilizing effect on humanitarian law which regulates discernment in the type of weapon used.”

Judge Bedjaoui also argued that it would be “quite foolhardy…to set the survival of a State above all other considerations, in particular above the survival of mankind itself.”

I will conclude with a few observations.

First, the threat or use of nuclear weapons is illegal in any conceivable circumstance. Therefore, current U.S. and NATO policies relying upon nuclear weapons are illegal under international law.

Second, the U.S. has not been fulfilling its obligation under international law to negotiate the complete elimination of nuclear weapons under strict and effective international control.

Third, the likely outcome of this failure of leadership by the U.S. is the breakdown of the Non-Proliferation Treaty at its year 2000 Review Conference. The nuclear testing by India and Pakistan can be linked to India’s strong opposition to what it has termed “nuclear apartheid,” that is the continued reliance on nuclear weapons by a small group of states that have failed to fulfill their obligations under international law.

Fourth, the U.S. media has not played a constructive role in analyzing this situation, and reporting on it to the American people.

Fifth, current U.S. policies make the American people and the U.S. media unwitting accomplices in policies that threaten the mass murder of hundreds of millions of innocent people. If these weapons are used ever again, by accident or design, history — if there is a history — will judge the American people harshly for not demanding the abolition of these weapons when the opportunity to do so presented itself with the end of the Cold War.

At the outset, I said that the legal case for abolishing nuclear weapons is only one of many that can be made. The legal case is important, but the most important case that can be made is the moral case. To abolish nuclear weapons is to uphold the sanctity of life. I will conclude by quoting Lee Butler, a former commander of the U.S. Strategic Command and an eloquent spokesman for abolishing these weapons. General Butler stated: “We cannot at once keep sacred the miracle of existence and hold sacrosanct the capacity to destroy it. It is time to reassert the primacy of individual conscience, the voice of reason and the rightful interests of humanity.” This cannot be done without the active participation of the media in analyzing and communicating the case for nuclear weapons abolition to the American people.

July 11, 1998
British Medical Association Calls for Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

On July 8, 1998 in Cardiff the British Medical Association passed a resolution stating:

“That this meeting considers it a duty to work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons which are a worldwide threat to public health

1) by condemning the development, teting, production, deployment, threat, and use of nuclear weapons;

2) by requesting that governments refrain from all these activities and work in good faith for their elimination;

3) by calling for commencement of negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention similar to those for biological and chemical weapons.”

July 8, 1998
Resolution on Nuclear Testing by India and Pakistan

The European Parliament,

-having regard to its previous resolutions on nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear testing and the work of the Canberra Commission for a nuclear weapon-free world,

-having regard to the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),

-having regard to the terms of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT),

-having regard to the statements made by the Council of the European Union, the G7, the UN Security Council and the meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council,

A. whereas the signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty have committed themselves to the objective of the elimination of all nuclear weapons,

B. whereas over the past decades the two main nuclear powers have reduced the number of their nuclear warheads and envisage continuing this reduction through a number of bilateral agreements,

C. whereas these reductions do not, as yet, point to rapid progress towards full elimination of these weapons,

D. noting with great concern that India carried out five nuclear tests during the period 11-13 May 1998,

E. noting with great concern that Pakistan then carried out six nuclear tests during the period 28-30 May 1998,

H. noting that a number of countries, including some EU Member States, the United States and Japan, have decided to impose sanctions on both countries in response to these nuclear tests,

I. noting that both countries already allocate a disproportionate part of both their GNP and their budget on military spending and on military, nuclear research and development,

J. whereas the nuclear tests are likely to damage both the Pakistani and Indian economies, in view of their effect on foreign loans and investment, which in turn will affect the already low social condition of the population,

K. emphasizing that in order to strengthen stability and security in the region and in the world as a whole it is necessary for India and Pakistan on the one hand to adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty without any modification thereof, and on the other hand to adhere to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty immediately and unconditionally, thus facilitating its entry into force,

L. noting the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there is an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict international control,

1. Condemns the recent nuclear tests carried out in May 1998 by India and then by Pakistan and expresses its deep concern about the danger to peace, security and stability in the region and in the world as a whole provoked by these tests; remains convinced that the NPT and the CTBT are the cornerstones of the global non-proliferation regime and the essential bases for progress towards nuclear disarmament;

2. Urges the Indian and Pakistani governments to refrain from any further nuclear tests, to adhere to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty without any modification of this Treaty and to adhere to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty immediately and unconditionally;

3. Calls on the Indian and Pakistani governments to give a commitment immediately not to assemble or deploy nuclear weapons and devices, and to halt the development of ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads;

4. Calls on the Indian and Pakistani Governments to start talks immediately to reduce tension in the region, to establish a framework for reconciliation and cooperation and thus to promote peace, security and stability in South Asia and throughout the continent; calls on the Council and the Member States to assist the Governments of India and Pakistan, where necessary and possible, in this process of reconciliation and cooperation, possibly by (co-)sponsoring a regional conference on security and confidence-building measures;

5. Calls on the Council and the Member States to prevent the export of equipment, materials and/or technology that could in any way assist programmes in India or Pakistan for nuclear weapons or for ballistic missiles capable of carrying such weapons;

6. Calls on Member States which have not yet done so to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty immediately, in order to facilitate its entry into force as soon as possible;

7. Calls on the five nuclear weapons states to interpret their Treaty obligations as an urgent commitment to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons;

8. Asks the Council and the Commission to examine ways and means to promote further progress towards the gradual elimination of nuclear weapons and calls on the Council to present a regular progress report to Parliament;

9. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the UN Security Council, the governments of the Member States and the governments and parliaments of India and Pakistan.

June 19, 1998
Nuclear Fears, Nuclear History

Published in Communalism Combat, Bombay

Atul Behari Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif have two things in common. Both of them have ordered five nuclear tests, and both of them justified their orders by claiming that their nuclear weapons are defensive. This argument was invented by the Americans to justify their nuclear weapons, after the Soviet Union started to build its own nuclear weapons. It was such a convenient argument that all the nuclear states started to use it once they built nuclear weapons. Now every country with nuclear weapons claims that its weapons are defensive, it is just other countries’ nuclear weapons that are a threat.

How are nuclear weapons a threat? The first answer given is that an enemy may threaten to use nuclear weapons as way to intimidate or blackmail and so win a war. As the most destructive weapons ever made, nuclear weapons should make states that have them invincible. They should be able to win all their wars. In fact, no one should want to fight such states because they have nuclear weapons.

The facts of the last fifty years tell another story. Nuclear weapons states have elected to fight wars on many occasions. They have lost many of them. Britain fought and lost at Suez, even though they it had already developed nuclear weapons. The United States suffered significant defeats during the Korean war and the war ended with a stalemate. The French lost Algeria, even though they had their nuclear weapons. China’s nuclear weapons did not help against Vietnam. The most famous examples are of course the defeat of the United States in Vietnam, and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan despite having enormous numbers of nuclear weapons. In all these cases, a non-nuclear state fought and won against a nuclear armed state.

Another fact from the last fifty years is that having nuclear weapons offers no protection against nuclear threats. During the Cold War, both the US and the Soviet Union made nuclear threats numerous times, with the United States making around twenty such threats and the Soviet Union making five or six. Even though both sides had nuclear weapons, this did not change the fact they were threatened by the other side. If a state with nuclear weapons is going to make a threat, it will do so regardless of whether the state being threatened has nuclear weapons of its own.

The only other use for nuclear weapons that has ever been claimed is that nuclear weapons are supposed to deter attacks by other nuclear weapons and so prevent war between nuclear armed states. This is what is usually meant by nuclear deterrence. The normal example of nuclear deterrence that is used is between the superpowers during the Cold War. The absence of war between them is widely attributed to both sides having nuclear weapons. This cannot however be proven. All that can be said is that the absence of war coincided with both sides having nuclear weapons. It is not logical to deduce that nuclear weapons prevented a war that would otherwise have taken place. The absence of war between the United States and the Soviet Union may simply have been due to neither side wanting a war. The experience of total war in World War II was so terrible that this may have been sufficient to prevent a major war. It is worth remembering over 20 million Soviets were killed in that war.

The history of the Cold War is in fact the history of the elusive search for deterrence. As the years passed and became decades, the amount of destructive power needed to create deterrence kept on increasing. From a few simply atom bombs, it became hundreds of bombs, then thousands and then came the hydrogen bomb, with a destructive power a hundred times greater than an atom bomb. But, even having a few such hydrogen bombs was not enough. McGeorge Bundy, who was an advisor in the White house during both the Cuban Missile Crisis, has argued that deterrence works only if “we assume that each side has very large numbers of thermonuclear weapons [hydrogen bombs] which could be used against the opponent, even after the strongest possible pre-emptive attack.” It is this kind of nuclear arsenal that is credited by Bundy, and other American supporters of deterrence as being responsible for maintaining the Ñnuclear peaceâ between the United States and Soviet Union. The urge to have weapons that could survive a pre-emptive attack is why both sides developed nuclear submarines and specially hardened silos for missiles. This effort to create deterrence cost the United States at least $4 trillion ($,4000,000,000,000) to develop, produce, deploy, operate, support and control its nuclear forces over the past 50 years.

The Americans were not alone in thinking that large numbers of hydrogen bombs that could survive a nuclear attack were necessary for deterrence.

All five of the established nuclear weapons state have tried to achieve this kind of nuclear arsenal. None of them has stopped developing their arsenals once they built simple nuclear weapons. they have not even relied on large numbers of such simple weapons. They have gone on to build weapons tens if not hundreds or thousands of times more destructive. Even the smallest nuclear arsenal, belonging to Britain, has 200 thermonuclear weapons with a collective destructive power two thousand times greater than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.

There are, however, some important dissenting voices who say that deterrence never worked. General George Lee Butler, who until a few years ago actually commanded all of the United States strategic nuclear weapons has said the world survived the Cuban missile crisis no thanks to deterrence, but only by the grace of God. If General Butler is right, and even the fear created by “very large numbers” of hydrogen bombs was not enough to stop two nuclear states getting ready to go to war then what purpose is served by this fear? What this fear can do is stop peace. Even though the Cold War is over and the Soviet Union gone, the nuclear weapons are still there. The US still has over 10,000 and Russia about as many. The fear now is not the other state, but the others nuclear weapons. As long as there are nuclear weapons there cannot be real peace.

History teaches that nuclear fears cannot be calmed with nuclear weapons. The simple truth is that there has never been a weapon that can offer a defense against being afraid. The only defense against fear is courage and courage needs no weapons to make its presence felt.

June 15, 1998
Why Nuclear Deterrence Is A Dangerous Illusion

In the January-February 1997 issue of the New Zealand International Review, an article by Ron Smith – Director of Defence and Strategic Studies in the Department of Political Science and Public Policy at the University of Waikato, New Zealand – argued against the growing tide in favour of the abolition of nuclear weapons. On the following point I have no dispute with him. He wrote:

“The crucial issue is that of the value of nuclear deterrence in the contemporary world. If it still has value, then that value must be measured against what we take to be the value of a nuclear weapons-free world… We cannot discuss the elimination of nuclear weapons without discussing nuclear deterrence.”

What if nuclear deterrence has no value? I will argue that this is in fact the case; and that the whole doctrine of nuclear deterrence is a dangerous illusion.

Flying With The Bomb
I served in the Royal Navy for twenty years from 1962-82. As a Fleet Air Arm Observer (navigator and weapon system operator), I flew in Buccaneer carrier-borne nuclear strike jets from 1968 to 72; and for the next five years in anti-submarine warfare (ASW) helicopters equipped with the WE-177 Nuclear Depth Bomb (NDB). As one of four nuclear crews in a Buccaneer squadron, my pilot and I were assigned a target from NATO’s Single Integrated Operational Plan, and were ordered to plan to attack it with a free-fall WE-177 thermo-nuclear bomb.

Nuclear Versus Conventional Deterrence Between States
NDBs were withdrawn from the Royal Navy in 1992. By then, new conventional ASW weapons had been developed which were able to neutralise all currently envisaged naval targets. Indeed, as far as the USA is concerned, Ron Smith rightly stated:

“There is nothing it could do with nuclear weapons that it cannot do with modern conventional weapons.”

Therefore conventional deterrence – which is credible – is the military answer to his fear that, without nuclear deterrence, “disastrous wars between the major powers are likely to occur again.”

Modern industrial States, increasingly interdependent on multinational conglomerates, the globalisation of trade and sensitive to public opinion, are increasingly constrained from going to war with each other. But even if this argument is not accepted, there is a fundamental logical objection to relying on nuclear deterrence. Although the risk of conventional deterrence failing is greater, the damage would be confined to the belligerent States – and the environmental damage would usually be reparable. What is at stake from deterrence failing between nuclear weapon States is the devastation and poisoning of not just the belligerent powers, but potentially of all forms of life on the planet. Meanwhile, retention of nuclear arsenals encourages proliferation of the problem, and with it this unacceptable risk.

Falklands War
In my last appointment as Staff Officer (Intelligence) to Commander-in-Chief Fleet, I helped to provide round-the-clock intelligence support to British forces in the Falklands War. I know what a close-run thing that war was. If Argentine aircraft had sunk one of the main troopships before the landing force had got ashore, the British might have had to withdraw. What would Thatcher have done? Polaris had clearly not deterred Galtieri from invading. With victory in his grasp, it is doubtful that he would have believed even Thatcher would have seriously threatened a nuclear strike on Argentina. Yet rumours abounded that a Polaris submarine had been moved south within range of Buenos Aires. If she had so threatened, my assessment was that he would have very publicly called her bluff and relished watching Reagan try to rein her in. And in the last resort, it is likely that the Polaris Commanding Officer would have either refused the order or faked a malfunction, and returned to face the court martial.

Gulf War
My scepticism over nuclear deterrence grew when the Berlin Wall came down; but it took the Gulf War to make me break out of my pro-nuclear brainwashing. As the first ex-RN Commander with nuclear weapon experience to speak out against them, it was very traumatic.

In the run-up to the Gulf War, my military intelligence training warned me that the US-led coalition’s blitzkrieg/punitive expedition strategy would give Saddam Hussein the pretext he needed to attack Israel – an undeclared nuclear weapon State. If thereby Israel was drawn into the conflict, this might split the coalition. If not, he still stood to gain widespread Arab support for being the first Arab leader for years to take on the Israelis.

My greatest fear was that the Iraqi leader would be provoked enough to attack Israel with chemical-headed Scud missiles. Knowing that West German technical support was involved in the warhead design, Israel’s Prime Minister Shamir would come under massive pressure to retaliate with a nuclear strike on Baghdad. Iraq had the best anti-nuclear bunkers Western technology could provide; but even if Saddam did not survive, what would happennext? With Baghdad a radiated ruin, the entire Arab world would erupt in fury against Israel and her friends: there would be terror bombings in every allied capital; Israel’s security would be destroyed forever; and Russia would be sucked in.

The first Scud attack hit Tel Aviv on the night of *18* January 1991. For the first time, the second most important city of a de-facto nuclear State had been attacked and its capital threatened. Worse, the aggressor did not have nuclear weapons. The rest of the world still waits to learn what Bush had to promise Shamir for not retaliating – fortunately, the warhead was conventional high explosive, and casualties were light. The Israeli people, cowering in gas-masks in their basements, learned that night that their nuclear “deterrent” had failed in its primary purpose. Some 38 more Scud attacks followed.

Meanwhile, in Britain the IRA just missed wiping out the entire Gulf War Cabinet with a mortar bomb attack from a van in Whitehall. They were not deterred by Polaris – yet a more direct threat to the government could barely be imagined.

Nuclear Deterrence Won’t Work Against Terrorists
To my surprise, in 1993 the British Secretary of State for Defence agreed with me. In a keynote speech on 16 November at the Centre for Defence Studies in King’s College, London entitled “UK Defence Strategy: A Continuing Role for Nuclear Weapons?”, Malcolm Rifkind almost agonised over the problem:

“… I have to say that it is difficult to be confident that an intended deterrent would work in the way intended, in the absence of an established deterrent relationship… Would the threat be understood in the deterrent way in which it was intended; and might it have some unpredictable and perhaps counter-productive consequence? Categoric answers to these questions might be hard to come by, and in their absence the utility of the deterrent threat as a basis for policy and action would necessarily be in doubt… it is difficult to see deterrence operating securely against proliferators.”

By an “established deterrent relationship” presumably he meant the unstable, irrational balance of terror between two trigger-happy, paranoid power blocs – otherwise known as the Cold War. Its inherent instability was evidenced by the inevitable struggle for “escalation dominance”. More than 50,000 nuclear warheads was the ridiculous result; while health, education, and other services that make up civilised society deteriorated on both sides through lack of resources.

With the break-up of the Soviet Union and an unchecked arms trade, it is only a matter of time before terrorists get a nuclear weapon. They are the most likely “proliferators”, because nuclear blackmail is the ultimate expression of megalomania and terrorism. Yet nuclear deterrence cannot be relied upon against such threats.

*What If Terrorists Try Nuclear Blackmail?
The first rule is that on no account should the threat of nuclear annihilation be used to try and oppose them. They will just call your bluff – because targeting them with even a small nuclear weapon would be impossible without incurring unacceptable collateral damage and provoking global outrage. Indeed, they would relish taking as many others with them as they could. So nuclear weapons are worse than useless in such a crisis.

My advice would be to emulate how the French authorities dealt with a man with explosives wrapped around his chest who hijacked a class of schoolchildren and threatened to blow them up if his demands were not met. They exhausted him by lengthy negotiations while installing surveillance devices to determine his condition and location. At an optimum moment Special Forces moved in and shot him dead with a silenced handgun.

The most important underlying point to make here is that the surest way to minimise the chances of a nuclear hijack is to stop treating the Bomb as a top asset in the security business and the ultimate political virility symbol.*

This nightmare will intensify as long as the five permanent members of the UN Security Council insist on the Bomb to “guarantee” their ultimate security – when in fact it does the exact opposite – while trying to deny it to other States. Such a policy of nuclear apartheid is hypocritical and un-sustainable.

Nuclear Deterrence Undermines Security
The Falklands and Gulf Wars taught me that competing for unilateral security leads to more insecurity, both for others and ultimately oneself. We need a new understanding of security: one that sees it as a safety net for all, not a “win or lose” military game which leaves the underlying problems which caused the war unresolved, and feeds the arms trade. True security lies in fostering a just, sustainable world order.

The Bomb directly threatens security – both of those who possess it and those it is meant to impress. Indeed, it is a security problem, not a solution. This is because it provokes the greatest threat: namely, the spread of nuclear weapons to megalomaniac leaders and terrorists – who are least likely to be deterred.

Nuclear Deterrence Undermines Democracy
Democracy depends on responsible use of political and military power, with leaders held accountable to the will of the majority of the people. If a democratic nation is forced to use State-sanctioned violence to defend itself, its leaders must stay within recognised moral and legal limits.

*Morality. The policy of nuclear deterrence inevitably involves an actual intention to use nuclear weapons under certain – admittedly extreme – circumstances. Michael Dummett, Wykeham Professor of Logic at New College, Oxford took up the argument in a speech on 19 October 1993:

“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Is it wrong to have an intention to do what is wrong?’ Plainly it is. So, ‘Is it wrong to have a conditional intention to do what would be wrong?’ There is a seductive argument which goes: ‘The point is to prevent the condition from arising in which I am threatening to use nuclear weapons.’ What is wrong about that is not any consequence of forming that intention; it is that you give your will, albeit conditionally, to the act intended. The strategy of deterrence requires a conditional intention to commit a monstrously wicked act: to annihilate entire cities and all the people living in them. It is therefore a strategy which no government should use and no citizen should support.”

Legality. That is where democracy and Nuremberg come in. On 8 July 1996 at the Peace Palace in The Hague, I was present when the International Court of Justice gave its Advisory Opinion on the following question put to it by the UN General Assembly in December 1994:

“Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons under any circumstance permitted under international law?”

In the most authoritative declaration of what international law says about the question, the Court highlighted the “unique characteristics of nuclear weapons, and in particular their destructive capacity, their capacity to cause untold human suffering, and their ability to cause damage to generations to come.” Thereby, the Court confirmed that nuclear weapons are in the same stigmatised category of weapons of mass destruction as chemical and biological weapons. Indeed, the effects of nuclear weapons are more severe, widespread and long-lasting than those of chemical weapons of which the development, production, stockpiling and use are prohibited by specific convention regardless of size. Also radiation effects are analogous to those of biological weapons, which are also outlawed by specific convention.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, the Court could find no legal circumstance for the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Also it endorsed the view that threat and use are indivisible. In deciding that it could not conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, the Court left no exception. On the contrary, it challenged the nuclear States that they had not convinced it that limited use of low yield, so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons “would not tend to escalate into the all-out use of high yield nuclear weapons.” Furthermore it confirmed that, as part of humanitarian law, the Nuremberg Charter of 8 August 1945 – paradoxically signed two days after the nuclear strike on Hiroshima and the day before the one on Nagasaki – applies to nuclear weapons.

Though neither directly binding or enforcable, this clearly brings into question the legality of, for example, ballistic missile-firing submarines deployed on patrol. Nuclear deterrence is about threatening the most indiscriminate violence possible, unrestrained by morality or the law. It is therefore a policy of gross irresponsibility, and the antithesis of democratic values.

Stifling Dissent. Furthermore, democracy within a nuclear weapon State is inevitably eroded by the need for secrecy and tight control of equipment, technology and personnel. When I became a nuclear crew in Buccaneers, I was given a special security clearance before being told never to discuss the nuclear role, even with other aircrew in my squadron, let alone my family. It was considered such an honour – only the four best crews were chosen – that no-one questioned it.

As Senior Observer of the Sea King ASW helicopter squadron in the carrier HMS EAGLE in 1973-74, I had to train the other Observers how to use a thermo-nuclear depth bomb (NDB). The speed and depth advantage of the latest Soviet nuclear submarines over NATO air-launched ASW torpedoes was such that it had been concluded that only an NDB could be guaranteed to destroy them. Now this was just to protect our carrier, not last- ditch defence of the motherland. Moreover, the Observer would have had to press the button to release it – not the Prime Minister, as they are so fond of claiming. There was a “Low/High Yield” switch: low yield was about 5 kilotons, and high yield over 10 kilotons – Hiroshima was not much more than that. Worse, this would definitely be a suicide mission, because our helicopter was too slow to escape before detonation. For good measure, such an attack would vaporise a huge chunk of ocean, cause heavy radioactive fallout (both from the NDB and the nuclear submarine reactor and any nuclear-tipped torpedoes it carried), and also cause the underwater sonic equivalent of Electro-Magnetic Pulse – quite apart from escalating World War 3 to nuclear holocaust.

Yet all these concerns were brushed aside when I raised them. I was simply told not to worry, and get on with it. So I did: but I began to realise that nuclear weapons were militarily useless; and that my leaders – both military and political – were placing me in a position where I could fall foul of the Nuremberg Charter. However, the old British military tradition of the Charge of the Light Brigade in the Crimean War, as immortalised by Tennyson, was alive and well: “Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die.”

Nuclear Gunboat Diplomacy? This difficulty has re-emerged recently, with the deployment in Trident of a single, variable lower-yield warhead in some missiles to threaten a “more limited nuclear strike” in order to deliver, in Mr Rifkind’s words, “an unmistakable message of our willingness to defend our vital interests”. He justified this by the need to find an answer to the fact that six 100 kiloton, MIRV’d warheads atop the other missiles are not a credible deterrent threat to “rogue” States threatening British vital interests anywhere in the world.

These vital interests, spelt out in the 1995 Defence White Paper, include British trade, the sea routes used for it, raw materials from abroad, and overseas investments. This has been accompanied by, for example, the following statement in the December 1996 issue of the Royal United Services Institute Journal by Admiral Sir Peter Abbott KCB, then Commander-in- Chief Fleet:

“Within the context of a broad security policy, I anticipate that specific military action may be required in the way of dissuasion, retribution or coercion against those nations, regimes or groupings which pose a threat to our vital interests, project a tangible military threat to our homelands, forces overseas or allies, and those who disrupt the international system.

“Therefore, although part of that framework will include defence in its classic sense of reactive measures consistent with NATO doctrine, it will also have to include more pro-active measures. This will add meaning to new concepts of deterrence, based on dealing with problems as they emerge and whilst the potential adversary is more amenable to persuasion, rather than waiting for them to grow and an adversary to become strong. We will also have to cater for the irrational opponent or those occasions when the threat of nuclear use is not practicable or simply not credible. This can be achieved by dissuasion, which is sustained by a constant demonstration of our military capability and readiness to use it, and retribution which should ensure that if an opponent, whether a pirate or rogue regime, is not dissuaded after warnings, he can expect to suffer considerable, unacceptable, and possibly personal, consequences.

“This implies the possibility of what I would call pre-emptive deterrence. This is a philosophy which has been fashionable in history at certain times – that of establishing waypoints beyond which a state feels threatened and a potential enemy, rational or not, will be subjected to offensive action at an appropriate level. Given my points about deterrence and economy of effort before, we will wish any action to be at a time and place of our choosing so that we can retain the initiative. This is particularly relevant with regard to emerging technological threats based on WMD, ballistic/cruise missiles and terrorism.. This argues for dealing with the problems at source, before any potential aggressor can concentrate in range and in force.”

Entente Nucleaire. Such “power projection” thinking reinforces the secretive collaboration between Britain and France, begun in 1992 with the creation of a Joint Commission on Nuclear Policy and Doctrine. On 30 October 1995, with the row over French nuclear tests as a backdrop, Chirac and Major announced that the Anglo-French nuclear relationship had reached the point where “we do not see situations arising in which the vital interests of either France or the UK could be threatened without the vital interests of the other also being threatened.” Officials played down reports that joint missile submarine patrols were possible. However, the UK Financial Times reported that “agreement had been reached on a broad definition of sub-strategic deterrence: in other words, the use of a low-yield ‘warning shot’ against an advancing aggressor, along with a threat… of a massive nuclear strike unless the attack halts. This warning shot would apparently be fired as soon as either country’s ‘vital interests’ were threatened.” The implication is that such a threat could be made even against a non-nuclear State, notwithstanding British and French negative security assurances – and the fact that such a threat, let alone use, of nuclear weapons is clearly illegal.

Undemocratic Decisions. Meanwhile, the history of the British Bomb shows that every major decision was taken without even full Cabinet knowledge, let alone approval. In 1980 I was a fly on the Whitehall wall when Thatcher insisted on having Trident, despite disagreement among the Chiefs of Staff and without consulting the Cabinet. Admiral of the Fleet Sir Henry Leach, First Sea Lord at the time, was the first to call it “a cuckoo in the naval nest”. He was supported by Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward, then a Captain as Director of Naval Plans. Richard Sharpe, then also a Captain on the Naval Staff and a former nuclear submarine Commanding Officer, later wrote in the 1988-89 edition of Jane’s Fighting Ships (the first under his editorship):

“Because funding for Trident has come mainly from the naval share of the defence budget, it is having an increasingly detrimental effect on the equipment programmes for the rest of the Fleet.”

Adam Raphael, in an Observer article on 11 July 1993 headlined “Megabuck Trident as much military use as Noah’s Ark”, described it as “Thatcher’s macho mistake”. I understand that the Royal Navy is deeply split over Trident for these reasons. And now it is faced with the likelihood that Trident’s deployment on deterrent patrol contravenes international humanitarian law.*

Nuclear Weapons Are Self-Deterring
Fortunately for us all, the one aspect of nuclear deterrence which probably does work is that nuclear weapons are in fact self-deterring. My evidence for this again comes from a British Secretary of State for Defence. In his 16 November 1993 speech, Rifkind said:

“…there is sometimes speculation that more so-called ‘useable’ nuclear weapons – very low-yield devices which could be used to carry out what are euphemistically called ‘surgical’ strikes – would allow nuclear deterrence to be effective in circumstances where existing weapons would be self-deterring.”

He went on to warn against reviving a war-fighting role for them, because this would:

“…be seriously damaging to our approach to maintaining stability in the European context, quite apart from the impact it would have on our efforts to encourage non-proliferation and greater confidence outside Europe. This is not a route that I would wish any nuclear power to go down.”

Unfortunately, he contradicted his own wise words by supporting the replacement of Polaris by Trident; and more specifically by supervising the introduction, mentioned earlier, of a lower-yield, single warhead in the missile load of the Trident submarine currently on patrol.

Any sane potential aggressor intent on acquiring nuclear weapons should heed Churchill’s warning after Dresden: “The Allies risk taking over an utterly ruined land” – and that was conventional bomb damage. Even a low-yield “demonstration” strike (rumoured to be in growing favour among US, UK and French planners searching for roles for their nuclear arsenals) would so outrage world opinion that it would be self-defeating.

For a nuclear State facing defeat by a non-nuclear State, there is evidence that nuclear weapons are again self-deterring. The US in Vietnam, and the Soviets in Afghanistan, preferred withdrawal to the ultimate ignominy of resorting to nuclear revenge.

For all these reasons, I conclude that nuclear deterrence is a dangerous illusion.

From Nuclear Deterrence To Abolition
On 4 December 1996 in Washington, General Lee Butler USAF (Ret’d),Commander-in-Chief of US Strategic Command from 1992- 94, explained to the National Press Club why he, too, had “made the long and arduous journey from staunch advocate of nuclear deterrence to public proponent of nuclear abolition.” He warned: “Options are being lost as urgent questions are unasked, or unanswered; as outmoded routines perpetuate Cold War patterns and thinking; and as a new generation of nuclear actors and aspirants lurch backward toward a chilling world where the principal antagonists could find no better solution to their entangled security fears than Mutual Assured Destruction.”

As a member of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, General Butler had joined Field Marshal Lord Carver, Chief of the UK Defence Staff from 1973-76, in stating:

“The risks of retaining nuclear arsenals in perpetuity far outweigh any possible benefit imputed to deterrence … The end of the Cold War has created a new climate for international action to eliminate nuclear weapons, a new opportunity. It must be exploited quickly or it will be lost.”

Their first recommended step towards this is for all nuclear forces to be taken off alert. This would “reduce dramatically the chance of an accidental or unauthorised nuclear weapons launch.” Apart from making the world much safer, it would puncture the myths of nuclear deterrence doctrine once and for all.

June 1, 1998
India’s Nuclear Testing is a Wake-up Call to the World

India’s nuclear tests are a wake-up call to the world, and particularly to the nuclear weapons states. The meeting of the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in Geneva, which concluded on May 8th, attracted near zero press attention and achieved near zero results. It was virtually a non-event. On the other hand, India’s tests three days later immediately got the world’s attention.

The message of India’s tests is that we can have a world in which many countries have nuclear weapons or a world in which no countries have nuclear weapons, but we will not have a world in which only the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Israel retain nuclear weapons in perpetuity. India has long argued that it is unwilling to give up its nuclear weapons option so long as the current nuclear weapons states fail to make a commitment to eliminate their nuclear arsenals within a timebound framework. The Indians underlined this position in 1996 when they refused to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Following their recent nuclear tests, however, the Indians have offered to sign the CTBT, but only if the nuclear weapons states agree to eliminate their nuclear arsenals within a timebound framework and cease all subcritical and laboratory nuclear weapons testing. The Indian position is reasonable. They are calling for a world in which no state, including themselves, has nuclear weapons.

What is not reasonable is the way in which the nuclear weapons states and their allies have treated India’s position as non-negotiable. The nuclear weapons states have consistently failed to this day to show the good faith in seeking nuclear disarmament that they promised in 1968 in Article VI of the NPT.

Ironically, the only nuclear weapons state to consistently call for nuclear weapons abolition is China, but it, too, has been rebuffed by the other nuclear weapons states. It is ironic because India’s testing was, at least in part, a response to China’s possession and improvement of its nuclear arsenal.

Despite their promises in 1995 for the determined pursuit of systematic and progressive efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament, the nuclear weapons states have been largely impeding nuclear disarmament. If they are serious about stopping India, Pakistan and other states from becoming full fledged nuclear powers, they had better reverse their course of action and begin serious and good faith negotiations to rid the world of nuclear arms. This is the only course of action with a chance of success to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation.

The knee-jerk reaction of the U.S., Japan and other industrialized states to impose economic sanctions on India will not stop the Indians from developing a nuclear arsenal. It will only result in greater hostility in a world divided not only between rich and poor, but also between nuclear “haves” and “have-nots.”

India’s testing is not only an Indian problem. It is a problem of the international system that leads the country of Gandhi to follow a nuclear weapons path. There is only one way out of the dilemma, and that is a commitment by all nuclear weapons states SQ now including India SQ to the abolition of their nuclear arsenals. According to a 1996 unanimous opinion of the International Court of Justice, the complete elimination of their nuclear arsenals is the legal obligation of the nuclear weapons states under international law.

Nuclear weapons abolition is also the solution called for by military and civilian leaders and citizen action groups throughout the world. The Abolition 2000 Statement of over 1000 citizens organizations around the world calls upon the nuclear weapons states to “Initiate immediately and conclude by the year 2000 negotiations on a nuclear weapons abolition convention that requires the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons within a timebound framework with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.”

In crisis there is opportunity. If India’s nuclear tests lead to sufficient pressure on the nuclear weapons states to reverse their course and become serious about ending the nuclear weapons era, we may still be able to enter the 21st century with a treaty in place to accomplish this goal. If the nuclear weapons states hold firm to their present positions, however, India may be only the first of many states to become new members in the nuclear weapons club.

May 17, 1998
Thirteen Million Voices for Abolishing Nuclear Arms

More than thirteen million Japanese citizens have signed a petition calling for the abolition of the world’s nuclear arsenals in what may be the greatest outpouring of support ever for creating a nuclear weapons free world. The petition is part of a global campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons called Abolition 2000, an international network of over 900 citizen action groups in 74 countries.

The signatures in Japan were collected in just three months, from November 1997 to January 1998, by members of the Soka Gakkai, a Japanese Buddhist organization long active on disarmament issues. On February 21, 1998, at a ceremony at the Memorial Hall of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, the signatures will be presented to David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a leader in the Abolition 2000 campaign. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is the International Contact for the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons.

“These signatures represent voices of the common people, people in Japan who know the devastation caused by nuclear weapons,” said Krieger. “The people are tired of waiting, they are tired of excuses. The Cold War is long over, and they want an end to the nuclear threat. They understand that the only way to do this is to eliminate nuclear weapons. They are sending a message to the rest of the world, and particularly to the leaders of the nuclear weapons states.”

According to Krieger, notice of the petition campaign will be provided to the leaders of all nuclear weapons states, and to delegates to the Preparatory Committee meeting of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference which will take place in Geneva from April 27 through May 8, 1998. Krieger also said that plans are being made to pass the 13 million signatures supporting Abolition 2000 to Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and to Jayantha Dhanapala, the newly appointed UN Under-Secretary General for Disarmament.

“The nuclear weapons states are currently stalled in efforts to fulfill their promise in the Non-Proliferation Treaty to eliminate their nuclear arsenals,” said Krieger. “We are hopeful that these 13 million plus voices for nuclear weapons abolition will get them moving. There are still some 36,000 nuclear weapons in the world, and the only number that makes sense for humanity is zero.”

The Abolition 2000 International Petition calls for ending the nuclear weapons threat, signing an international treaty by the year 2000 to eliminate nuclear weapons within a fixed time period, and reallocating resources from military purposes to meeting human needs and assuring a sustainable future.

Petition drives are continuing in Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, New Zealand, Netherlands, United Kingdom, the United States and other countries. The petition can be signed on the Worldwide Web at www.wagingpeace.org.

January 12, 1998
Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons

Introduction

The two nuclear fission bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki each released nearly 4,000 times as much explosive energy as chemical high explosive bombs of the same weight. Together they killed more than 200,000 people. The energy released by the splitting of the atomic nuclei in the cores of these bombs was more than 10 million times the energy released by rearrangements of the outer electrons of atoms, which are responsible for chemical changes. For an instant after detonation of the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki, an amount of explosive energy equivalent to a pile of dynamite as big as the White House was contained in a sphere of plutonium no bigger than a baseball.

This is why, a short time later, Albert Einstein said: “The splitting of the atom has changed everything, save our mode of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.” Suddenly the destructive capacity accessible to humans went clear off the human scale of things.

About 10 years later this destructive capacity jumped dramatically again when the United States and the Soviet Union developed hydrogen bombs. By the 1970s, there were five announced members of the nuclear club, and the total number of nuclear warheads in the world had increased to some 60,000.

Since 1964, when China tested its first nuclear explosive, further horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons has been secret or ambiguous or both. India tested a nuclear explosive in 1974, but claimed that is was strictly for peaceful purposes, and has consistently denied that it has any nuclear weapons. Although its government has never admitted that it has nuclear weapons, there is little doubt that Israel has been accumulating a growing stockpile since the 1960s. South Africa announced that it had made a half-dozen or so nuclear weapons, starting in the 1970s, but that it now has eliminated them. Other countries strongly suspected of having at least one nuclear weapon, and the capacity to make more, include Pakistan, North Korea, and Iraq. Commitments have been made by Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine to turn over to Russia all nuclear weapons on their territories for dismantling. Ukraine completed this transfer on June 1, 1996.

The immense potential destructive capacity of uranium and plutonium can also be released slowly as energy that can serve the peaceful needs of humans. It took about 10 years after the first nuclear bombs were exploded for nuclear energy for peaceful purposes to begin to be practical. Nuclear power has expanded considerably in the last 30 years or so. The two technologies-for destructive uses and for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy-are closely connected. I’ll discuss these connections in some detail in this paper.

Facing the realities of the Nuclear Age as they have become evident these past 50 years has been a difficult and painful process for me, involving many changes of heart in my feelings about nuclear weapons and nuclear power since I first heard of nuclear fission on August 6, 1945. I started with a sense of revulsion towards nuclear weapons and skepticism about nuclear power for nearly five years. Then I worked on and strongly promoted nuclear weapons for some 15 years. In 1966, in the midst of a job in the Pentagon, I did an about-face in my perception of nuclear weaponry, and have pressed for nuclear disarmament ever since. My rejection of nuclear power, because of its connection with nuclear weapons, took longer, and was not complete until about 1980.

Since that time I have been persistent in calling for the prompt global abolition of all nuclear weapons and the key nuclear materials needed for their production. Since all of the more than 400 nuclear power plants now operating in 32 countries produce large quantities of plutonium that, when chemically separated from spent fuel, can be used to make reliable, efficient nuclear weapons of all types, I have also found it necessary to call for phasing out all nuclear power worldwide. To accomplish this while being responsive to the environmental disruption caused by continued large-scale use of fossil fuels, I also find it necessary to call for intense, global response to opportunities for saving energy and producing what is needed from renewable sources directly or indirectly derived from solar radiation. I shall try in the rest of this paper to explain briefly the convictions that have led me to join others in making these calls with great urgency.

Latent Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

There are many possible degrees of drift or concerted national actions that are short of the actual possession of nuclear weapons, but that can account for much of what has to be done technically to acquire them. Harold Feiveson has called such activity “latent proliferation” of nuclear weapons.1 A national government that sponsors acquisition of nuclear power plants may have no intention to acquire nuclear weapons; but that government may be replaced by one that does, or may change its collective mind. A country that is actively pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes may also secretly develop nuclear explosives to the point where the last stages of assembly and military deployment could be carried out very quickly. The time and resources needed to make the transition from latent to active proliferation can range from very large to very small. Inadequately controlled plutonium or highly enriched uranium, combined with secret design and testing of non-nuclear components of nuclear warheads, can allow a nation or terrorist group to have deliverable nuclear weapons within days, or even hours, after acquiring a few kilograms or more of the key nuclear weapon materials.

Contrary to widespread belief among nuclear engineers who have never worked on nuclear weapons, plutonium made in nuclear power plant fuel can be used to make all types of nuclear weapons. This “reactor grade” plutonium has relatively high concentrations of the isotope Pu-240, which spontaneously releases many more neutrons than Pu-239, the principal plutonium isotope in “weapon-grade” plutonium. In early nuclear weapons, such as the plutonium bomb tested in New Mexico in 1945, and then used in the bombing of Nagasaki, use of reactor grade plutonium would have tended to cause the chain reaction to start prematurely. This would lower the most likely explosive yield, but not below about 1 kiloton, compared with the 20 kiloton yield from these two bombs. Since that time, however, there have been major developments of nuclear weapons technology that make it possible to design all types of nuclear weapons to use reactor grade plutonium without major degradation of the weapons’ performance and reliability, compared with those that use weapon grade plutonium.2 These techniques have been well understood by nuclear weapon designers in the United States since the early 1950s, and probably also for decades in the other four declared nuclear weapon states.

Reactor grade plutonium can also be used for making relatively crude nuclear explosives, such as might be made by terrorists. Although the explosive yields of such bombs would tend to be unpredictable, varying from case to case for the same bomb design, their minimum explosive yields could credibly be the equivalent of several hundred tons or more of high explosive.3 Such bombs, transportable by automobile, would certainly qualify as weapons of mass destruction, killing many tens of thousands or more people in some locations.

All nuclear weapons require plutonium or highly enriched uranium. Some use both. The required amounts vary considerably, depending on the desired characteristics and on the technical resources and knowhow available to those who design and build the weapons. Estimates of the maximum total number of U. S. nuclear warheads and of the total amount of plutonium produced for those warheads correspond to an average of about 3 kilograms of plutonium per warhead.4 The minimum amount of plutonium in a nuclear explosive that contains no highly enriched uranium can be significantly smaller than 3 kilograms.

Nuclear power plants typically produce a net of about 200 kilograms of plutonium per year for each 1,000 megawatts of electric power generating capacity. Some 430 nuclear power plants, with combined electrical generating capacity of nearly 340,000 megawatts, are now operating in 32 countries. The plants account for about 7% of total primary energy consumption worldwide, or about 17% of the world’s electrical energy. Total net annual production of plutonium by these plants is nearly 70,000 kilograms, enough for making more than 10,000 nuclear warheads per year. 5

So far about four times as much plutonium has been produced in power reactors than has been used for making nuclear weapons-about 1 million kilograms, most of which is in spent nuclear fuel in storage, compared with about 250,000 kilograms for weapons.6

Nearly 200,000 kilograms of plutonium have been chemically separated from spent power reactor fuel in chemical reprocessing facilities in at least 8 countries (Belgium, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States).7 This is typically stored as plutonium oxide that can relatively easily be converted to plutonium metal for use in nuclear explosives.

Research and test reactors can also produce significant amounts of plutonium that, after chemical separation, can be used for making nuclear weapons. This has apparently been the route to nuclear weapons followed by Israel and started by North Korea.

Although use of highly enriched uranium in nuclear power plants has been sporadic and rare, substantial quantities have been used for R&D purposes-as fuel for research and test reactors, and in connection with development of breeder reactors. Principal suppliers have been and now are the five declared nuclear weapon states. It has been estimated that the world inventory of highly enriched uranium for civil purposes is about 20,000 kilograms.8

Although this is dramatically smaller than the more than 1 million kilograms of highly enriched uranium associated with nuclear weapons, it may be extremely important to some countries that are secretly developing the technology for making nuclear weapons.

Facilities for enriching uranium in its concentration of the isotope U-235 to the levels of a few percent needed for light water power reactor fuel can be used for further enrichment to high concentrations used for making nuclear explosives. The technology for doing this is proliferating, both in terms of the numbers of countries that have such facilities, and in the variety of different ways to carry out the enrichment.

The continuing international spread of knowledge of nuclear technology related to nuclear power development is an important contributor to latent nuclear weapon proliferation. Some of the people who have become experts in nuclear technology, whether for military or civil purposes, could be of great help in setting up and carrying out clandestine nuclear weapon design and construction operations that make use of nuclear materials stolen from military supplies or diverted from civil supplies, perhaps having entered a black market.

An example of highly advanced latent nuclear weapon proliferation is the nuclear weapons development program that started in Sweden in the late 1940s. It remained secret until the mid-1980s, when much detail about the project started becoming publicly available. It included hydronuclear tests of implosion systems containing enough fissile material to go critical but not enough to make a damaging nuclear explosion. The objective of the Swedish nuclear bomb program was to determine, in great detail, what Sweden would need to do if the government ever decided to produce and stockpile nuclear weapons.9 I have no reason to believe that Sweden has ever made that decision. I would not be surprised, however, if many other countries with nuclear reactors or uranium enrichment facilities that could be used to supply needed key nuclear materials have secretly carried out similar programs of lesser or perhaps even greater technical sophistication than Sweden’s.

Bombardment of Nuclear Facilities

Another type of latent proliferation that I find especially worrisome is the possible bombardment of nuclear facilities that thereby would be converted, in effect, into nuclear weapons. Military bombardment or sabotage of nuclear facilities, ranging from operating nuclear power plants and their spent fuel storage pools to large accumulations of high level radioactive wastes in temporary or long term storage, could release large quantities of radioactive materials that could seriously endanger huge land areas downwind. Electric power plants and stored petroleum have often been prime targets for tactical and strategic bombing, and sometimes for sabotage. In the case of operating nuclear power plants, core meltdowns and physical rupture of containment structures could be caused by aerial or artillery bombardment, truck bombings, internal sabotage with explosives, or by control manipulations following capture of the facility by terrorists. For orientation to the scale of potential radioactive contamination, consider strontium-90 and cesium-137, two especially troublesome fission products with half-lives of about 30 years. The inventories of these radionuclides in the core of a typical nuclear power plant (1,000 electrical megawatts) are greater than the amounts released by a 20 megaton H-bomb explosion, assuming half the explosion energy is accounted for by fission.

Inventories of dangerous radioactive materials can be considerably greater in a waste or spent fuel storage facility that has served the needs of many nuclear power plants for many years. In some cases it may not be credible that chemical explosives could release large fractions of such materials and cause them to be airborne long enough to contaminate very large areas. In such situations, however, the explosion of a relatively small nuclear explosive in the midst of the storage area could spread the radioactive materials over huge areas.

Perhaps the greatest extent of latent proliferation of nuclear weapons is represented by nuclear power fuel cycle facilities that can become enormously destructive nuclear weapons by being bombed by military forces or terrorists.

Can the Nuclear Power-Nuclear Weapon Connections Be Broken?

Given the rapidly increasing rate of worldwide latent proliferation of nuclear weapons, what can be done to assure that it does not lead to considerable surges in active proliferation of nuclear weapons?

Shifts from latent to active nuclear weapon proliferation may be detected or discouraged by application of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) nuclear diversion safeguards. IAEA safeguards are applied to parties of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that are not nuclear weapons states. But the IAEA has authority only to inspect designated (or in some cases suspected) nuclear facilities, not to interfere physically to prevent a government from breaking its agreements under the treaty if it so chooses. Furthermore, a major function of the IAEA is also to provide assistance to countries that wish to develop nuclear power and use it. Thus the IAEA simultaneously plays two possibly conflicting roles-one of encouraging latent proliferation and the other of discouraging active proliferation.

As we have seen, a nation’s possession of plutonium, whether in spent fuel or chemically separated, or its possession of highly enriched uranium or of facilities capable of producing it, need not depend on a government’s decision to acquire nuclear weapons. Such a decision might be made secretly or openly at any time government leaders conclude that threats to their security or ambitions of conquest warrant breaking safeguard agreements; at that point they can quickly extract the key nuclear materials needed for a few or for large numbers of nuclear weapons.

Various proposals have been made for developing nuclear power in forms that are less prone to diversion of nuclear materials for weapons than present nuclear power systems. None of these proposals avoid the production of substantial quantities of neutrons that could be used for making key nuclear materials for nuclear weapons, however. And none avoid the production of high level radioactive wastes, the permanent disposal of which is still awaiting both technical and political resolution. Furthermore, such concepts, once fully developed, would require decades for substitution for the present types of nuclear power systems.

Increasing alarm about global climatic instabilities caused by continued release of “greenhouse gases,” particularly carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels, has stimulated many advocates of nuclear energy to propose widescale displacement of fossil fuels by nuclear power. Such proposals would require building thousands of new nuclear power plants to achieve substantial global reduction in combustion of fossil fuels. This would greatly compound the dangers of destructive abuse of nuclear energy.

In short, the connections between nuclear technology for constructive use and for destructive use are so closely tied together that the benefits of the one are not accessible without greatly increasing the hazards of the other.

This leaves us with a key question: If nuclear power technology is too dangerous – by being so closely related to nuclear weapon technology – and fossil fuel combustion must be reduced sharply to avoid global climatic instabilities, what can humans do to meet their demands for energy worldwide?

Efficient Use of Renewable Energy

The economically attractive opportunities for using energy much more efficiently for all end uses in any of the wide variety of human settings are now so widely set forth that they need no further elaboration here. Although such opportunities generally exist for use of all kinds of energy sources, their detailed nature can depend on the specific type of energy provided for end use.10

Among the many possibilities for economical renewable energy is hydrogen produced by electrolysis of water, using solar electric cells to provide the needed low voltage, direct current electrical energy. Recent advances in lowering the production costs and increasing the efficiency of photovoltaic cells make it likely that vigorous international pursuit of this option could allow production and distribution of hydrogen for use as a general purpose fuel, at costs competitive with the cost of natural gas.11

Solar electric cells can also supply local or regional electric power for general use, using generators or fuel cells fueled with stored hydrogen, or pumped hydrolelectic storage, or windpower to meet electrical demands at night, on cloudy days, or in winter. Using such energy storage or windpower makes it possible to provide and use hydrogen to meet all local demands for energy in any climate.

A common criticism of direct use of solar energy for meeting most human demands for energy results from a belief that the areas required are so large as to be impractical. This criticism is generally not valid. An overall efficiency of 15%, in terms of the chemical energy stored in hydrogen divided by the total solar radiation incident on the ground area used by solar cell arrays, is likely to be routinely achievable with flat, horizontal arrays. At a world annual average insolation rate of 200 watts per square meter, the total area required to meet the entire present world demand for primary energy of all types (equivalent to an annual average of about 10 trillion watts) would be about 0.4 million square kilometers. This is less than 0.4% of the world’s land area-much less than the annual fluctuations in the area devoted to agriculture, and comparable to the area used for roads. Even in Belgium, with perhaps the world’s highest national energy consumption rates per unit land area and lowest solar radiation availability, present demands could be met by solar hydrogen systems covering less than 5% of the country’s land area. Vigorous response to cost-effective opportunities for saving energy could lower considerably the land area requirements for solar energy anywhere.

A Global Shift From Fossil and Nuclear Fuels to Renewable Energy

Consider the benefits of a rapid worldwide shift from dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power to vigorous pursuit of opportunities for using energy much more efficiently and providing that energy from renewable sources.

If nuclear power is phased out completely, it will become possible to outlaw internationally the possession of any key nuclear weapon materials, such as plutonium or highly enriched uranium that can sustain a fast neutron chain reaction, along with any facilities that could be used for producing them. This would not require a global ban on basic research in nuclear physics nor the use of selected, internationally controlled accelerators for production of radionuclides for medical and industrial applications.

A global ban on materials capable of sustaining nuclear explosive chain reactions would make it unnecessary to distinguish between alleged peaceful uses of these materials and uses that could be threatening. It would greatly increase the likelihood that violations of a ban on all nuclear weapons would be detected technically and by people who can report violations of the ban, without having to determine the intended uses of the materials and production facilities.

A complete phaseout of nuclear power would help focus the world’s attention on safeguarding nuclear materials and safe, permanent disposal of all the nuclear wastes and spent nuclear fuel, separated plutonium, or other stockpiles of nuclear weapon materials that had been produced before nuclear power is completely phased out. All such materials could be internationally secured in a relatively small number of facilities while awaiting ultimate safe disposal. Although the quantities of these materials are already very large, applying the needed safeguards to them would be much easier than in a world in which nuclear power continues to flourish worldwide. The job would be finite, rather than open-ended. The costs of safe, environmentally acceptable, permanent disposal of nuclear weapon materials and nuclear wastes-costs that are now unknown, but are very large-would be bounded.

Concerns about safety and vulnerability of nuclear power plants and their supporting facilities to military action or acts of terrorism would disappear.

In anticipation of a phaseout of nuclear power and sharp curtailment of combustion of fossil fuels, research, development, and commercialization of renewable energy sources could be greatly accelerated by a shift of national and international resources toward them and away from dependence on nuclear power and fossil fuel systems that are inherent threats to human security and our global habitat.

Global Nuclear Abolition

It troubles me more deeply than I can express that my country continues to be prepared, under certain conditions, to launch nuclear weapons that would kill millions of innocent bystanders. To me, this is preparation for mass murder that cannot be justified under any conditions. It must therefore be considered as human action that is out-and-out evil. The threat of nuclear retaliation also is a completely ineffectual deterrent to nuclear attack by terrorists or leaders of governments that need not identify themselves or that are physically located in the midst of populations that have no part in the initial attack or threat of attack. In short, we humans must find alternatives to retaliation in kind to acts of massive and indiscriminate violence.

These alternatives must focus on ways to deter use of weapons of mass destruction by determining who is responsible for such attacks or threats of attack, and bringing them to justice.

One hangup that many people have with global nuclear weapon abolition anytime soon is that nuclear technology is already too widely dispersed to allow accurate and complete technical verification of compliance, using currently available verification methods. Another widespread hangup is that malevolent national leaders might threaten to use secretly withheld or produced nuclear weapons to force intolerable demands on other countries if they did not face certain devastating nuclear retaliation to carrying out such threats.

I agree that no conceivable global verification system or international security force for identifying and arresting violators of an internationally negotiated and codified legal framework for globally banning nuclear weapons and nuclear power can be guaranteed to deter violation of the the ban. But this is a property of any law governing human beings. The question is not about achieving perfect global security against nuclear violence. The question is: Which would be preferred by most human beings-a world in which possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons is allowed for some but forbidden for others, or one in which they are completely outlawed, with no exceptions?

I believe the time has come to establish a global popular taboo against nuclear weapons and devices or processes that might be used to make them. The taboo should be directed specifically at any action – by governments, non-government enterprises, or individuals – that is in violation of international laws specifically related to nuclear technology.

I also propose that as the taboo is formulated and articulated vigorously worldwide, both informal and formal negotiations of an international nuclear abolition treaty start immediately in the relevant United Nations organizations. Why not adopt a formal goal of completing the negotiations and the codification of the associated laws and regulations before the start of the next millennium? I would also join others now pressing for actions that would complete the process of actual global nuclear abolition no later than 2010.

As is the case for many examples of bringing violators of popularly supported laws to justice, there should be frequent official and popular encouragement, including various kinds of major rewards, of “whistleblowers” who become aware of violations and report them to a well-known international authority. Such whistleblowers should also be well protected against reprisals by the violators, including even authorities of their own country’s government. Such actions may be even more important in filling verification gaps than technical verification procedures implemented by an international authority.

In conclusion, I now have new and strong feelings of hope about the future of humankind. We are collectively facing new choices. We can continue to apply those cosmic forces -which we discovered how to manipulate 50 years ago-to feed the destructive competitive power struggles among humans. Or we can join together to reject those immensely powerful forces-that are much easier to use to destroy than to build-and reach out together to embrace the energy from our sun, which has for a very long time sustained all life on Earth.

REFERENCES

1. Harold A. Feiveson and Theodore B. Taylor, “Alternative Strategies for International Control of Nuclear Power,” in Nuclear Proliferation-Motivations, Capabilities, and Strategies for Control, Ted Greenwood, H. A. Feiveson, and T. B. Taylor, New York: McGraw Hill, 1977, pp. 125-190.
2. J. Carson Mark, “Explosive Properties of Reactor Grade Plutonium,” Science and Global Security, 1993, Volume 4, pp.111-128.
3. J. Carson Mark, Theodore B. Taylor, Eugene Eyster, William Merriman, and Jacob Wechsler, “By What Means Could Terrorists Go Nuclear?” in Preventing Nuclear Terrorism, Paul Leventhal and Yonah Alexander, eds. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington
Books, 1987, pp. 55-65.
4. See, for example, David Albright, Frans Berkhout, and William Walker, World Inventory of Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1992, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, pp. 25-35.
5. Ibid, pp. 71-83.
6. Ibid, pp. 196-209.
7. Ibid, p. 90.
8. Ibid, p. 148.
9. Lars Wallin, chapter in Security With Nuclear Weapons? Regina Cowen Karp, Ed., Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, London: Oxford University Press, 1991, pp. 360-381.
10. See, for example, Thomas Johansson, Henry Kelly, Amulya K. N. Reddy, and Robert Williams, eds. Renewable Energy, Washington: Island Press, 1993.
11. See, for example, J. M. Ogden and R. H. Williams, Solar Hydrogen: Moving Beyond Fossil Fuels, Washington: World Resources Institute, 1989.

July 12, 1996
On the Abolition 2000 Statement

Introduction

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review and Extension Conference in April and May 1995 provided an opportunity for the nuclear weapons states to commit themselves to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. These states, however, were unwilling to make this commitment, and were intent only on the indefinite extension of the NPT.

Many citizen action groups gathered at the Conference viewed the position of the nuclear weapons states on indefinite extension as the equivalent of an indefinite extension of the status quo, one that provided special nuclear status to the five declared nuclear weapons states (U.S., U.K., France, Russia and China). These citizen action groups from throughout the world formed themselves into an Abolition Caucus. From this Caucus came the Abolition 2000 Statement calling for “definite and unconditional abolition of nuclear weapons.”

This Statement became the founding document of the Abolition 2000 Network. This Network has now grown to over 600 citizen action groups on six continents. These groups are actively working in ten working groups to accomplish the 11-point program. The Statement is set forth below.

Abolition 2000 Statement

A secure and livable world for our children and grandchildren and all future generations requires that we achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and redress the environmental degradation and human suffering that is the legacy of fifty years of nuclear weapons testing and production.

Further, the inextricable link between the “peaceful” and warlike uses of nuclear technologies and the threat to future generations inherent in creation and use of long-lived radioactive materials must be recognized. We must move toward reliance on clean, safe, renewable forms of energy production that do not provide the materials for weapons of mass destruction and do not poison the environment for thousands of centuries. The true “inalienable” right is not to nuclear energy, but to life, liberty and security of person in a world free of nuclear weapons.

We recognize that a nuclear weapons free world must be achieved carefully and in a step by step manner. We are convinced of its technological feasibility. Lack of political will, especially on the part of the nuclear weapons states, is the only true barrier. As chemical and biological weapons are prohibited, so must nuclear weapons be prohibited.

We call upon all states particularly the nuclear weapons states, declared and de facto to take the following steps to achieve nuclear weapons abolition. We further urge the states parties to the NPT to demand binding commitments by the declared nuclear weapons states to implement these measures:

1) Initiate immediately and conclude by the year 2000 negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Abolition Convention that requires the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons within a timebound framework, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.*

2) Immediately make an unconditional pledge not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.

3) Rapidly complete a truly comprehensive test ban treaty with a zero threshold and with the stated purpose of precluding nuclear weapons development by all states.

4) Cease to produce and deploy new and additional nuclear weapons systems, and commence to withdraw and disable deployed nuclear weapons systems.

5) Prohibit the military and commercial production and reprocessing of all weapons-usable radioactive materials.

6) Subject all weapons-usable radioactive materials and nuclear facilities in all states to international accounting, monitoring, and safeguards, and establish a public international registry of all weapons-usable radioactive materials.

7) Prohibit nuclear weapons research, design, development, and testing through laboratory experiments including but not limited to non-nuclear hydrodynamic explosions and computer simulations, subject all nuclear weapons laboratories to international monitoring, and close all nuclear test sites.

8) Create additional nuclear weapons free zones such as those established by the treaties of Tlatelolco and Raratonga.

9) Recognize and declare the illegality of threat or use of nuclear weapons, publicly and before the World Court.

10) Establish an international energy agency to promote and support the development of sustainable and environmentally safe energy sources.

11) Create mechanisms to ensure the participation of citizens and NGOs in planning and monitoring the process of nuclear weapons abolition.

A world free of nuclear weapons is a shared aspiration of humanity. This goal cannot be achieved in a non-proliferation regime that authorizes the possession of nuclear weapons by a small group of states. Our common security requires the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Our objective is definite and unconditional abolition of nuclear weapons.

* The Convention should mandate irreversible disarmament measures, including but not limited to the following: withdraw and disable all deployed nuclear weapons systems; disable and dismantle warheads; place warheads and weapon-usable radioactive materials under international safeguards; destroy ballistic missiles and other delivery systems. The Convention could also incorporate the measures listed above which should be implemented independently without delay. When fully implemented, the Convention would replace the NPT.

Analysis

The Abolition 2000 Statement was a major achievement of the citizen action groups supporting the elimination of nuclear weapons at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference. It has provided a point of focus and agreement for these citizens groups from throughout the world.

The 11-point program to be implemented by the nuclear weapons states is discussed below.

1. Initiate immediately and conclude by the year 2000 negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Abolition Convention that requires the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons within a timebound framework, with provisions for verification and enforcement.

Entering into a Nuclear Weapons Convention by the year 2000 is the key point in the Statement. This doesn’t mean that all nuclear weapons will be eliminated by the year 2000. It means that the commitment to their total elimination will be made in the form of a treaty, similar to the treaties that have outlawed biological weapons (Biological Weapons Convention, 1972) and chemical weapons (Chemical Weapons Convention, 1995) by the year 2000. The opportunity should not be missed to begin the new millennium with a commitment to a nuclear weapons free world. The year 2000 is a turning point for humanity, a point by which we should leave behind us forever the threat of nuclear annihilation.

In a footnote to the Abolition 2000 Statement, some direction for the proposed Convention is provided: “The Convention should mandate irreversible disarmament measures, including but not limited to the following: withdraw and disable all deployed nuclear weapons systems; disable and dismantle warheads; place warheads and weapon-usable radioactive materials under international safeguards; destroy ballistic missiles and other delivery systems. The Convention could also incorporate the measures listed above [that is, points 2 through 11 of the Statement] which should be implemented independently without delay. When fully implemented, the Convention would replace the NPT.”

Joseph Rotblat, the 1995 Nobel Peace Laureate, has been calling for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, similar in form to the Chemical Weapons Convention, for many years. In his Nobel Lecture, he argued, “Entering into negotiations does not commit the parties. There is no reason why they should not begin now. If not now, when?”1

The nuclear weapons states did not begin negotiations toward a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons in 1995. Instead, they succeeded in having the Non-Proliferation Treaty extended indefinitely with very few conditions. It is not too late, however, to complete negotiations for a new treaty by the year 2000. We must encourage them to begin; we must demand that they begin. As Professor Rotblat states with simple eloquence: “If not now, when?”

Professor Rotblat continued his Nobel Lecture with an appeal to the nuclear weapons states: “So I appeal to the nuclear powers to abandon the out-of-date thinking of the Cold War and take a fresh look. Above all, I appeal to them to bear in mind the long-term threat that nuclear weapons pose to humankind and to begin action towards their elimination. Remember your duty to humanity.”2

2. Immediately make an unconditional pledge not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.

It has been argued by distinguished military leaders and security analysts that nuclear weapons have no other purpose than to deter a nuclear attack.3 If nuclear weapons states accept this position, then it should not be difficult for them to make a pledge not to be first to use nuclear weapons. If all states agreed not to use nuclear weapons first, this would be equivalent to a pledge not to use these weapons. Yet, at present, only China has made an unconditional pledge not to use nuclear weapons first.

A similar point was also made by Professor Rotblat in his Nobel Lecture. “Several studies, and a number of public statements by senior military and political personalities, testify that except for disputes between the present nuclear states all military conflicts, as well as threats to peace, can be dealt with using conventional weapons. This means that the only function of nuclear weapons, while they exist, is to deter a nuclear attack. All nuclear weapons states should now recognize that this is so, and declare in Treaty form that they will never be the first to use nuclear weapons. This would open the way to the gradual, mutual reduction of nuclear arsenals, down to zero.”4

The Abolition 2000 Statement calls for nuclear weapons states to go beyond a no first use pledge, and make an unconditional pledge not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. However, even if nuclear weapons states would agree to an unconditional “no first use” pledge, that would be an important step forward.

3. Rapidly complete a truly comprehensive test ban treaty with a zero threshold and with the stated purpose of precluding nuclear weapons development by all states.

The nuclear weapons states promised a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty. This promise was made again in the non-binding agreement that supplemented the decision to extend the NPT indefinitely in 1995. This agreement committed the nuclear weapons states to completing a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 1996. On September 10, 1995 the CTBT was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, and was opened for signatures on September 24, 1956. It has been signed by over a hundred countries including the five declared nuclear weapons states. India, however, has said that it will not sign the Treaty until the nuclear weapons states commit themselves to eliminate their nuclear arsenals, and India’s ratification of the Treaty is required for the Treaty to enter into force.

The Treaty agreed upon will still allow for laboratory and sub-critical tests. Thus, it cannot be expected to be fully successful in “precluding nuclear weapons development by all states.” To do this, the Treaty would have had to go beyond prohibiting underground nuclear weapons tests, and have prohibited testing in all environments, including the nuclear weapons laboratories.

4. Cease to produce and deploy new and additional nuclear weapons systems, and commence to withdraw and disable deployed nuclear weapons systems.

In the Non-Proliferation Treaty the nuclear weapons states promised to pursue good faith negotiations for a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date. Clearly, to produce and deploy new and additional nuclear weapons systems at this point would be in violation of that promise. It would also be unnecessary and provocative. The nuclear weapons states have already begun the process of withdrawing and disabling nuclear weapons systems. Missiles have been removed from their silos, and destroyed with much fanfare. This process needs to continue, and should not be undermined by the deployment of any new or additional nuclear weapons systems.

5. Prohibit the military and commercial production and reprocessing of all weapons-usable radioactive materials.

Far too much weapons-usable nuclear material already exists in the world. It takes only a few pounds of plutonium to produce a nuclear weapon, and perhaps 20 pounds of highly enriched uranium. While the required amounts of weapons-grade plutonium or highly enriched uranium needed to make nuclear weapons can be measured in pounds, the stockpiles of these materials can now be measured in metric tonnes.

As of 1990, globally there was some 250 metric tonnes of plutonium in the military sector, of which 178 tonnes was in nuclear warheads. There was some 1300 metric tonnes of highly enriched uranium in the military sector, including 810 tonnes in warheads. In the civilian sector, there was over 600 metric tonnes of plutonium and 20 tonnes of highly enriched uranium. Of the civilian sector plutonium, 532 tonnes was in spent reactor fuel, and thus not readily converted to weapons use without reprocessing.5

A study by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War pointed out that “Operation of nuclear power plants is rapidly increasing the world’s stocks of civilian plutonium. The cumulative stock of plutonium discharged from reactors worldwide is projected to reach about 1,400 metric tonnes at the end of the year 2000 and about 2,100 metric tonnes at the end of 2010.”6

If we are to have any hope of ending the nuclear weapons era, we must gain control of all weapons-grade radioactive materials. The first step in doing this is to halt the production and reprocessing of such materials. To be effective, this must be done in both the military and civilian sectors.

6. Subject all weapons-usable radioactive materials and nuclear facilities in all states to international accounting, monitoring, and safeguards, and establish a public international registry of all weapons-usable radioactive materials.

To end the nuclear weapons era, all weapons-usable nuclear materials must be accounted for, monitored, and protected against diversion. The study by the International Physicians on this subject stated, “Present arrangements for controlling fissile material are clearly inadequate. They place no limits on any of the fissile material activities of the nuclear-weapons states. They limit the civilian fissile material activities of some small and relatively weak states on a discriminatory, ad hoc basis, while allowing more powerful states to accumulate large amounts of fissile material.”7

To be effective in controlling weapons-usable fissile materials, all states must be subject to international accounting, monitoring, and safeguards. The most powerful states, including the nuclear weapons states, can no longer reserve for themselves the special “privilege” of keeping their nuclear weapons materials outside the bounds of international inspections and controls.

7. Prohibit nuclear weapons research, design, development, and testing through laboratory experiments including but not limited to non-nuclear hydrodynamic explosions and computer simulations, subject all nuclear weapons laboratories to international monitoring, and close all nuclear test sites.

To stop the further development of new nuclear weapons systems will require an end to researching, designing, developing and testing nuclear weapons in every way, including in laboratory experiments. When the French conducted a series of nuclear tests in the South Pacific in 1995 and early 1996, the reason they gave for doing so was to gather information for future laboratory tests. The U.S. has said all along that it is planning to conduct non- nuclear tests and, in fact, is planning to spend many billions of dollars in building new, sophisticated, and expensive equipment for future nuclear testing. The only way to close this loophole is by international agreement and international monitoring of nuclear weapons laboratories and test sites. The test sites themselves should be closed down. The former Soviet test site in Kazahkstan, and the French test site in Polynesia have both been closed. The only remaining test sites are in Novaya Zemlya (Russia), Lop Nor (China) and Nevada (U.S. and Britain).

8. Create additional nuclear weapons free zones such as those established by the treaties of Tlatelolco and Raratonga.

Since the Abolition 2000 Statement was adopted in April 1995, nuclear weapons free zones have been established for Southeast Asia and Africa. Following the completion of a series of six French nuclear weapons tests on the Pacific atolls of Moruroa and Fangataufa, the U.S., U.K. and France have all agreed to abide by the South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. A treaty signed in December 1995 by Southeast Asian countries declares an area stretching from Myanmar to the west, Philippines in the east, Laos and Vietnam in the north and Indonesia in the south as a nuclear free zone. The Treaty of Pelindaba, signed in Cairo in June 1996, made Africa a nuclear weapons free zone. These zones, covering most of the Earth’s southern hemisphere, prohibit the development, manufacturing, acquisition, possession, testing, use or threat of use of nuclear weapons within the designated areas. What they have not prohibited is transit of nuclear weapons by submarines and surface ships through international waters in their regions.8

9. Recognize and declare the illegality of threat or use of nuclear weapons, publicly and before the World Court.

On July 8, 1996, the International Court of Justice in the Hague rendered its opinion on the illegality of nuclear weapons.9 The Court concluded that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles of humanitarian law.” It also declared that “there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

The Court found, however, that in “view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal,” that it was unable to reach a definitive conclusion with regard to “an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake.” Thus, the Court left open only the slimmest possibility of an exception to the general illegality of threat or use of nuclear weapons.

Based on the Court’s decision, Commander Robert Green, a retired Officer of the British Royal Navy and a member of the World Court Project that promoted the World Court decision, said, “With this remarkable decision, I could never have used a nuclear weapon legally. This places a duty on the military to review their whole attitude toward nuclear weapons, which are now effectively in the same category as chemical and biological weapons.”

10. Establish an International Energy Agency to promote and support the development of sustainable and environmentally safe energy sources.

One of the important missing agencies in the international system is an International Sustainable Energy Agency that promotes and supports development of sustainable and environmentally safe forms of energy. The sun provides a virtually inexhaustible source of energy. Further development of the technology to harness the sun’s energy in a cost-effective manner must become a major international priority as well as technologies to develop wind, tidal, and biomass resources. An International Sustainable Energy Agency could oversee these efforts.

If such an Agency succeeds in its mission, it will not be necessary for states to rely upon the continued use of energy from nuclear reactors, thereby eliminating a major source of the radioactive materials that endanger human and other life forms and that could be reprocessed for use in the creation of nuclear weapons.

11. Create mechanisms to ensure the participation of citizens and NGOs in planning and monitoring the process of nuclear weapons abolition.

Citizens and non-governmental organizations have a role to play in planning and monitoring the process of eliminating nuclear weapons. This is not a job for governments alone. Citizens and citizen action groups have been active and creative in calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons. There will undoubtedly be ways in which individual citizens and groups of citizens can play a role in advancing the cause of a nuclear weapons free world.

The President of the NPT Review and Extension Conference, Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka, praised the work of NGOs in that Conference and called for a more active role by these groups in the three preparatory meetings leading up to the next NPT Review Conference in the year 2000.

Citizen groups from all over the world could begin now to inventory all nuclear materials in their country or region, thereby educating themselves about local hazards and providing a genuine service to the international community.

The Nuclear Weapons Convention working group of the Abolition 2000 Network has been meeting to draft a treaty that takes into consideration all of the elements enumerated in the Abolition 2000 Statement.

Joseph Rotblat has called for an active role for citizens from throughout the world in monitoring compliance with a Nuclear Weapons Convention. In addition to technological verification of compliance, he has called for what he calls “societal verification.” Professor Rotblat has the following to say about “Societal verification”:

As the name implies, all members of the community would be involved in ensuring that a treaty signed by their own government is not violated. The main type of societal verification is what we call `citizen reporting.’ Underthis, every citizen would have the right and the duty to notify an office of theinternational authority in the country about any attempt to violate the treaty. In order to be effective, this right and duty would have to be written into the national law of the country.

“We propose that whenever we have an international treaty but particularly relating to nuclear weapons it should contain a specific clause demanding that all the signatory states enact this type of law, and so make it the obligation of the citizens to carry out this task. We believe that this would be particularly effective in the case of nuclear weapons, partly because people instinctively abhor nuclear weapons, and partly because in almost every country there are anti-nuclear campaigns. We are convinced there will be enough people in every country who will make sure that the treaty is not being violated.10

Conclusion

The Statement concludes, “A world free of nuclear weapons is a shared aspiration of humanity. This goal cannot be achieved in a non-proliferation regime that authorizes the possession of nuclear weapons by a small group of states. Our common security requires the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Our objective is definite and unconditional abolition of nuclear weapons.”

This conclusion juxtaposed the demand of the nuclear weapons states for an indefinite and unconditional extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty with the need for a definite and unconditional commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons states prevailed at the NPT Review and Extension Conference in getting an indefinite extension of the Treaty. Whether the initiators of the Abolition 2000 Statement will prevail in attaining the “definite and unconditional abolition of nuclear weapons” will depend upon how many committed individuals throughout the world will work together to achieve this goal.

The Abolition 2000 Statement provides a guideline for actions to be taken to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons. The primary responsibility for taking these actions lies with the nuclear weapons states, but the responsibility for assuring that the nuclear weapons states take these actions lies with citizens. Each of us has a role to play.

__________________

Notes

1. Rotblat, Joseph, “The Nobel Lecture Given by the Nobel Peace Laureate 1995 Joseph Rotblat,” The Nobel Foundation, Stockholm, 1995.

2. Ibid.

3. See, for example, “A Four-Step Program to Nuclear Disarmament” by the Henry L. Stimson Center, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 52, No. 2, March/April 1996, pp. 52-55.

The report states: “The only necessary function for nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear threats to the population and territory of the United States, to U.S. forces abroad, and to certain friendly states.”

Members of the Stimson Center project include General Andrew J. Goodpaster, General William F. Burns, General Charles A. Horner, and General W. Y. Smith.

4. Rotblat, Op. cit.

5. Albright, David, Frans Berkhout, and William Walker, World Inventory of Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1992, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 197.

6. Thompson, Gordon, “Opportunities for International Control of Weapons-Usable fissile Material,” International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, ENWE Paper #1, January 1994, p. 7.

7. Thompson, op. cit. p. 10.

8. See, Krieger, David, “Denuclearization of the Oceans: Linking Our Common Heritage with Our Common Future,” Global Security Study, No. 21, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, March, 1996.

9. Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, “Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons,” July 8, 1996.

10. Rotblat, Joseph, “The Feasibility of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World,” Global Security Study, No. 16, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, August 1993.

January 12, 1996

Fifth Step: Make the U.N. Effective for the 21st Century

planethood

The following is an excerpt from Planethood, by Benjamin B. Ferencz and Ken Keyes, Jr.

Since the end of World War II, our failure to create an effective world system to govern the planet has resulted in millions killed, many more injured, businesses disrupted, lives twisted through fear and hatred, property destroyed, environmental pollution and degeneration accelerated, and money wasted on killing machines (this term includes both people and guns). The insanity of nuclear killing machines is making us realize that World War III (with possibly 5 million fatalities) may bring about the end of all people on this planet. It is the plea of PlanetHood that we end the arms race—not the human race.

The First Four Steps

Let’s briefly review the steps we’ve covered so far. Step One requires us to assert our ultimate human right to live with dignity in a healthy environment free from the threat of war. Step Two asks us to understand the new top layer of government we need in order to nail down this ultimate human right for you and your family for all time – no more international anarchy. We need to complete the governmental structure of the world with a limiting constitution setting up a lawmaking body (representing the people of the world), a world court (staffed with the wisest judges chosen from among the nations of the world), and an effective system of sanctions and peacekeeping forces to enforce the agreed standards of national behavior. This final layer of government would globally ensure our basic human rights, protect the sovereignty of nations, settle disputes legally, and protect the environment.

By taking Step Three we realize what it means to become a Planethood Patriot. We are urged to step into George Washington’s footsteps in creating and supporting a new constitution to govern the nations of the world. The Federal Republic of the World must be strong enough to avoid ineffectiveness, and have checks and balances to limit power and avoid tyranny. This is secured by a wise balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

In Step Four we acknowledge our enormous progress over the past century in creating international law. We have been gradually globalizing. We note how the nations of the world have been getting accustomed to working with each other – gradually and safely yielding small portions of their sovereignty in order to benefit from binding international agreements for the common good. We see that nation-states are already merging into larger economic and political entities to meet their common needs – such as the European Union. There is a growing awareness that the world system must change to meet the challenge of the 21st Century.

In Step Five we will discuss updating our vehicle for survival – the U.N. – as we move toward an effective world system with checks and balances to protect our rights and freedoms. This step is primarily concerned with spelling out how we need to reform the U.N. to ensure world peace.

After the carnage of World War II with 35 million dead, many nations were determined not to go through that again. Toward the end of the war we began to plan the United Nations Organization. In October 1945 the Charter was ratified by 50 nations at San Francisco. Enthusiasm ran high. “The U.N. Charter can be a greater Magna Carta,” said John Foster Dulles, our Secretary of State, who was a delegate to the San Francisco conference.

It’s interesting to note that the U.N. Charter was completed on June 26, 1945 – six weeks before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This may help explain its weakness. The delegates were unaware of the devastation we would face in the nuclear era. They did not know that humanity’s survival would be at stake. They failed to understand that we could no longer drag our feet in replacing international anarchy with enforced international law.

The Security Council

The Charter provides for a Security Council and a General Assembly. The Security Council was supposed to be the enforcement arm. Its five permanent members were victorious in World War II: the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China (in 1971 the People’s Republic of China replaced Nationalist China on the Security Council, in 19__, the Soviet Union was replaced by Russia). In addition, there are now ten rotating members – originally there were six.

It was deliberately set up so that the big powers could ignore any vote they didn’t like. Any one of the five permanent members of the Security Council can veto any enforcement action—even If the rest of the world is for it! Since the Big Five have been behind most of the trouble in the world, it’s like setting up the foxes to guard the chicken coop.

Because of the distrust and conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States (and because we usually vote to support our friends and they usually support their friends), deadlocks on all important issues involving war and peace have usually blocked effective action by the U.N. For example, the U.S. in 1990 vetoed a resolution for the U.N. to send a fact- finding mission to get information on the Jewish-Arab conflict in the occupied territories. An impartial understanding of what’s happening is a needed first step in the peace process. This lack of respect for legal, peaceful conflict resolution has set a poor example for the other nations of the world.

Brian Urquhart, U.N. under secretary-general for special political affairs, lamented, “There are moments when I feel that only an invasion from outer space will reintroduce into the Security Council that unanimity and spirit which the founders of the Charter were talking about.” Let us hope that the shock of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the threat to Saudi Arabia will begin to do it for us!

Thus we have a toddling Security Council that under the Charter is empowered to send armed forces anywhere on earth to stop war. And it is usually rendered impotent because of the Charter requirement for the unanimous vote of the permanent members of the Security Council to act in preserving peace. In 1945 we weren’t quite ready yet to take the final step. Perhaps we’re now waking up to the idiocy of living in an ungoverned world!

The General Assembly

In addition to the Security Council, the Charter of the United Nations set up the General Assembly. It has been called a “town meeting of the world” by former Secretary-General Trygve Lie. Each nation has one vote in the General Assembly, which has grown from the original 50 nations to 160 today. Thus small nations, regardless of size, have the same vote as large nations, regardless of population. For example, Grenada with about 90,000 people has an equal vote with the United States, which has 1/4 billion people.

Since the Security Council has all the power to act, the big powers gave the other nations of the world the power to talk! It’s interesting to note that when a resolution passes the General Assembly, it goes to the Security Council as a recommendation only. The General Assembly has no Charter power to require any action to keep the peace – or to do anything but suggest!

Thus we are heading for the 21st Century with 160 “But the hard fact remains,” comments Richard Hudson in his newsletter Global Report, “that the decision-making system in the world body is too flawed to deal with the awesome gamut of our planet’s problems in the coming decades. It is neither morally right nor politically sensible to leave veto power in the Security Council in the hands of the five nuclear powers. It is plainly absurd to have decisions made on the basis of one nation, one vote in the General Assembly, thus giving countries with minute populations and minuscule contributions to the U.N. budget the same influence in decision- making as the bigger countries that have to pay the bills. Moreover, a central global decision-making body that can pass only non-binding recommendations is not what the world needs for the 21st century.”

The Need for Reform

Patricia Mische, co-founder of Global Education Associates, tells a story that compares the United Nations to a dog that is expected to give protection from thieves and murderers. The dog is a good dog, but it has three problems. First, the masters muzzle the dog so the dog can bark but not bite, and thieves and murderers know this. Second, the masters don’t feed the dog very well, so the dog is always hungry and anxious for itself, and lacks energy to do its job well. Third, the dog has 160 masters, and they often give conflicting directions and confuse the dog.

Here is the prescription for rebuilding the UN: Remove the muzzle, feed the dog, and reform the masters, so they will not be confusing the dog.

Vernon Nash wrote in The World Must Be Governed, “. . . if Hamilton or any other founding father returned to the United States today and read a. current article about the performance and prospects of the United Nations, he certainly would say to himself, ‘This is where I came in.’. . . Then, as now, men kept trying to get order without law, to establish peace while retaining the right and power to go on doing as they pleased.”

The United States, which was the principal mover in creating the World Court, gave the appearance of accepting compulsory jurisdiction over “any question of international law.” But that was quite deceptive. By special reservations, the U.S. excluded certain types of disputes, which the U.S. could by itself decide it wanted solely within its own domestic jurisdiction.

A nation undermines the Court when it gives the appearance of accepting the Court and, at the same time, denies to the tribunal the normal powers of every judicial agency. A nation that defies the Jurisdiction of the Court when it becomes a defendant shows contempt for the Court. A nation that ignores the Court when it doesn’t like a judgment against it undercuts the process of law. When these things are done by – the U.S., which helped establish the World Court, it diminishes respect for itself.

Despite technical legal arguments that were raised to justify the U.S. position when Nicaragua in 1984 complained that we were mining its harbors and seeking to overthrow its government, the fact is that the U.S. refused to honor the Court or its judgments. This was seen throughout the world as a hypocritical manifestation of scorn for the tribunal – which the United States praised when decisions went in its favor. Defiance of law is an invitation to disaster. What may have been tolerable in the pre-nuclear age is intolerable now.

In a world of law and order, aggressor nations should clearly be identified as outlaws for rejecting the rule of law. This is not to suggest that justified grievances should be ignored; sincere efforts must be made to find just solutions. But a handful of states, or a small group of fanatics, should not be permitted to thwart humankind’s progress toward a more lawful and peaceful world.

Supporting the U.N.

In 1986 the U.S. Congress reduced its financial support of the United Nations by over half, largely because it did not like certain expenditures. Since the total U.N. budget is less than New York City’s, any reduction of its annual $800 million income is crippling. In the past the Soviet Union has also failed to pay its U.N. dues for the same reason. In October 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev talked of invigorating the Security Council. To back up his words, the Soviet Union announced that it would pay all its overdue U.N. bills, which came to $197 million. And they’ve followed through on this promise.

That left the United States in October 1987 the outstanding delinquent, who still owed over $414 million, including $61 million for peacekeeping forces that the U.S. opposed! As of December 1989, the U.S. was behind $518 million – in violation of its treaty obligations. In his last budget request, President Reagan asked for full U.N. current funding and about a 10% payment on our past dues. Bush in his first budget made the same request. Our Congress was still unwilling to honor our obligations. The cost of only one Stealth bomber would cover our disgracefully broken contractual agreements with the U.N. – and with humanity’s future.

The world spends only $800 MILLION a year on peace through the U.N., and about $1 TRILLION on national military budgets – over a thousand times more!!! Does it come as a surprise that we are today 1,000 times more effective at waging war than at waging peace?

There are amazing parallels between our situation with the United Nations today and the dangerous situation in the United States two centuries ago. Tom Hudgens in his book Let’s Abolish War points out that the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation:

Had no independent taxing powers.
Could not regulate interstate and foreign commerce.
Had no powers of direct enforcement of its laws.
Was ineffective in foreign affairs.
Had no chief executive.
Had no binding court of justice…

“Do you realize,” Hudgens asks, “that every one of these charges can be leveled at the United Nations today? We are living today under the Articles of Confederation except we call it the United Nations.”

Instead of starting all over again, the U.N. may be our best bet to rapidly ensure our ultimate human right. A redrafting of the Charter and its ratification by the nations of the world is needed. It won’t be easy to persuade nations to mend their ways, but it can be done.

For years, the officials of the U.N. have known what needs to be done. They’re powerless unless authorized by the nations of the world. They’ve been waiting for you to take the needed steps to alter the views of the entrenched diplomats, which would permit them to respond effectively to international lawlessness – and thus set the stage for a new era of prosperity and peace on earth.

Confederation vs. Federation

In order to take Step Five by working to make the U.N. more effective in the nuclear age, you must clearly understand the key differences between the U.N. today and the world federation we need for tomorrow. Just as the terms “Confederation” and “Federation” were confusing to the 1787 delegates at Philadelphia, people usually don’t understand their significance today. The World Federalist Association in its pamphlet We the People helps us clarify the crucial differences between a league or confederation, and a federation or union:

In a league or confederation (like the U.N.), each state does as it pleases regardless of the consequences to the whole; in a federation or union (like the U.S.), each state accepts some restrictions for the security and wellbeing of the whole.
In a league, the central body is merely a debating society without authority to control the harmful behavior of individuals; in a federation, the central body makes laws for the protection of the whole and prosecutes individuals who break them.
In a league, any enforcement is attempted only against member states; in a federation, enforcement of laws is directed against individual lawbreakers.
In a league, conflicts among members continue unabated, resulting in costly arms races and wars; in a federation, conflicts among states are worked out in a federal parliament and in federal courts.
A league has no independent sources of revenue; a federation has its own supplemental sources of revenue.
In a league, state loyalty overrides loyalty to the wider community; in a federation, loyalty to each state is balanced by loyalty to the wider community.

Finding the Best Way

Could you feel secure if a congress made up of people from all over the world enacted binding international laws? Would you be taken advantage of? Too heavily taxed? Your rights ignored? Could a dictator grab power? Can we set up a world legislature, court, and executive branch that will be more protective of the U.S. than the Pentagon? How can we actually increase our “defense” through a reformed U.N.? How do we reform the U.N. to avoid ecocide?[1]

As George Washington and Benjamin Franklin would testify, there is no one simple way to hammer out a new constitution. It takes an open-minded willingness to consider all points of view, to lay aside one’s prejudices and psychological certainties, and to be patient enough to listen and search until effective answers are found and agreed upon. Just as success in 1787 required that various states be satisfied, in like manner we must create a reformed U.N. that meets today’s needs and interests of the nations of the world.

There have been many proposals to improve the United Nations and make it more effective as the keeper of the peace. One suggestion, known as the “Binding Triad,” comes from Richard Hudson, founder of the Center for War/Peace Studies. It requires two basic modifications of the U.N. Charter:

The voting system in the General Assembly would be changed. Important decisions would still be adopted with a single vote, but with three simultaneous majorities within that vote. Approval of a resolution would require that the majority vote include two-thirds of the members present and voting (as at present), nations representing two-thirds of the population of those present and voting, and nations representing two-thirds of the contributions to the regular U.N. budget of those present and voting. Thus, in order for a resolution to pass, it would have to be supported strongly by most of the countries of the world, most of the population of the world, and most of the political/economic/military strength of the world.

The powers of the General Assembly would be increased under the Binding Triad so that in most cases its resolutions would be binding, not recommendations as at present. The new General Assembly, now a global legislature, will be able to use peacekeeping forces and/or economic sanctions to carry out its decisions. However, the Assembly would not be permitted “to intervene in matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of any state.” If the jurisdiction were in doubt, the issue would be referred to the World Court, and if the court ruled that the question was essentially domestic, the Assembly could not act.”[2]

This is only one possibility for giving the General Assembly limited legislative powers. A World Constitution for the Federation of Earth has been drafted by the World Constitution and Parliament Association headed by Philip Isely of Lakewood, Colorado. There are many ways to reform the U.N. to give the world binding international laws, a binding court of international justice, and an executive branch to enforce the law with effective economic sanctions and an international military force that replaces national armies, navies, and air forces.

A 14-point program is shown on the next page. Models of new international systems to create world order have been prepared by many scholars, among who are Professor Richard Falk of Princeton University, Professor Saul Mendlovitz of Rutgers, and Professor Louis Sohn of Harvard University. With wise checks and balances, we can set up an overall system that will enable the world to work! Political leaders lack the political will to make the required changes in the U.N. It’s time for the public to speak out.

Once the world union is formed, do we want to permit an easy divorce if a nation wants to get out when it disagrees about something? The American Civil War in 1861-1865 settled whether states could leave the federal union if they disagreed with its policies. The victory by the Union dearly established that no state could secede from the federal government once it agreed to be a member.

If politicians in a nation become angry and could whip up the people to get out, it would signal the end of the world system. Once a nation agrees to the reformed U.N., it must be permanent. By resigning from the organization,” Cord Meyer warns, “a nation could free itself from international supervision, forcing a renewal of the armament race and certain war. In view of the nature of the new weapons, secession would be synonymous with aggression.[3]

As we’ve pointed out, there is no one way to transform the United Nations into an effective world government. It is important that you give thought to this vital matter and arrive at your own conclusions on how to do it. Then discuss them with your friends and neighbors, who will no doubt develop their own ideas. It is only from the clash of opinions that a living truth will emerge that will point to an effective way to complete the governmental structure of the world.

The Challenge of Our Age

We are at a crucial point in history. We are on the threshold of great progress. We have reached the stage where large-scale wars are no longer compatible with the future of the human race. We have gone beyond the point where such military power is protective. Instead it threatens to kill us all. We are gradually fouling our environment so that it cannot support human life. And we now know that we must have global institutions to solve our global problems.[4]

“Environmental knowledge and concerns,” according to Pamela Leonard, “have risen at an increasingly rapid rate in recent years, and many nations have enacted laws and set up agencies to deal with them. Yet little has been done to create laws or institutions on an international scale, despite the fact that the impacts of air and water pollutants travel as easily across national boundaries as across municipal boundaries.”[5]

Increasing Abundance

Even if we were not threatened by nuclear war or environmental ruin, we would benefit enormously by a reformed U.N. Through a world republic, our children will have greater prosperity, more personal opportunities for a good life, better maintenance of our precious planet, and better protection of their human rights and freedoms.

Imagine what a difference this would make in your life and that of your loved ones. The heavy taxes that spill your “economic blood” year by year would no longer be used to feed a greedy war machine. Your children could then feel confident that they would have a future. Business could be liberated from the import and export fences that limit opportunities. We could effectively begin to improve the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink. Education, medical care, and quality of life would vastly improve when the world no longer spent $1.5 million each minute on increasing its killing capacity. A small international peacekeeping force of several hundred thousand well-trained and equipped people could replace the millions of soldiers now under arms who constantly disrupt the peace of the planet.

Over the past several centuries there has been a gradual awakening to the importance of international law that can override the military passions of the 160 separate nations around the globe. We have tried world courts and have found that they work if we want them to. We have set up international organizations such as the League of Nations and the United Nations. Each has been a step forward. All this experimenting, testing, trying, and hoping have been important steps up the ladder of international growth toward the completion of the governance of our world. We now have the glorious challenge of creating lasting peace and prosperity by reforming the United Nations into a world republic.

Approaching Planethood

Many nations today, and eventually all nations, will be willing to cooperate in a reformed United Nations. They will respond to the insistence of their people that we do not let our planet be ruined or blown apart through war. These nations will want to benefit from the much safer and far less costly protection of their national rights and freedoms that only a world government can offer them.

At long last, the people of this world can get out of the arms race and enjoy a much higher standard of living, environmental protection, education, culture, medical care, etc. We need a world governance that, unlike the present Security Council, cannot be vetoed by one of the five victorious nations of World War II. It will be able to effectively respond to environmental problems that threaten the security of everyone everywhere.

It is now time for the people to insist on reforming the U.N. Charter. They will become a powerful force when they unite and act together. Sooner or later, those who resist at first will join in – just as holdout states discovered they could not afford to pass up the many benefits of becoming a part of the United States two centuries ago.

The draft of the U.N. Charter was discussed at Dumbarton Oaks, a private estate in Washington, DC. On a tablet in the garden was inscribed a prophetic motto: “As ye sow, so shall

ye reap.” When the final instrument was accepted by 50 nations on June 26, 1945, everyone knew that it was less than perfect. The Secretary of State reported to President Truman: “What has resulted is a human document with human imperfections but with human hopes and human victory as well.”

We need a new “Dumbarton Oaks” to the 21st Century. On December 23, 1987, our Congress passed a law calling for the appointment by our President of a bipartisan U.S. Commission to Improve the Effectiveness of the United Nations. Commissioners should have been appointed by June 1, 1989. By August 1990 there was still no indication that our President would comply with this law of Congress. Let the voice of the people be heard!

Send a copy of PlanetHood to the President and to your congressional leaders. Tell them you’re tired of delay and indecision. If they get flooded with reminders from the voters, they’ll soon take notice. It is time to act NOW so that the dreams of the U.N. founders may finally become a reality.

We can no longer pretend that we don’t know what needs to be done. How long will It be until a president, prime minister, or general secretary calls for a Conference to Reform the United Nations or an International Constitutional Convention—and invites all nations to send delegates? Here is an opportunity for statesmanship and fame of the highest order. Let us seize this history- making opportunity and accept the challenge to create a more peaceful world.

Like Paul Revere, let’s awaken our neighbors. Let’s give ourselves effective international law, world courts, and enforcement in a safe system of checks and balances. Let’s work continuously to bring about the day when our front lines of defense consist of brigades of international attorneys practicing before a binding world court. Then we’ll have finally secured our ultimate human right to live in dignity in a healthy environment free from the threat of war.

We need a reliable cop on the international corner. Will you help our ungoverned world to create a world system that can work?

You’ll be taking the Fifth Step toward planethood when you play your part in making the U.N. effective for the 21st Century. As a Planet- hood Patriot, you’ll know that you are doing what you can to make your life count. You will have saved yourself, your family, and all of the men, women, and children throughout our beautiful planet – now and for generations to come.

IT DEPENDS ON YOU!

Pull Quotes

If we want peace, we must reform, restructure and strengthen the United Nations.
– Dr. John Logue, Director Common Heritage Institute, 1985

When we get to the point, as one day we will, that both sides know that in any outbreak of general hostilities, regardless of the element of surprise, destruction will be both reciprocal and complete, possibly we will have sense enough to meet at the conference table with the understanding that the area of armaments has ended and the human race must conform its actions to this truth or die.
– Dwight D. Eisenhower, U.S. President, April 4, 1965

When there is a problem between two small nations, the problem disappears. When there is a problem between a big country and a small country, the little country disappears. When there is a problem between two big countries, the United Nations disappears.
– Victor Belaunde, Peruvian U.N. Ambassador

A Security Council that can be rendered impotent by the vote of one nation obviously cannot begin to guarantee security. A General Assembly that can pass resolutions with the votes of nations representing less than 10 percent of the world’s population, and some 3 percent of the gross world product, will not have, and cannot get, the respect it must have if its decisions are to be taken seriously.
– Dr. John Logue, Director Common Heritage Institute
”A More Effective United Nations” New Jersey Law Journal December 26, 1985

As Secretary General of this organization, with no allegiance except to the common interest, I feel the question must be justifiably be put to the leading nuclear powers: By what right do they decide the fate of all humanity?…No one can expect to escape from the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear war on the fragile structure of our planet. The responsibility assumed by the Great Powers is now no longer to their populations alone; it is to every country and every people, to all of us.
– Javier Perez de Cuellar, U.N. Secretary General December 1984

The cause of the United Nations is inseparable from the cause of peace. But we will not have peace by afterthought. If the United Nations is to survive, those who represent it must bolster it, those who advocate it must submit to it, and those who believe in it must fight for it.
– Norman Cousins, President World Federalist Association
Author, Anatomy of an Illness

The United Nations is an extremely important and useful institution provided the people and governments of the world realize that it is merely a transitional system toward the final goal, which is the establishment of a supranational authority vested with sufficient legislative and executive powers to keep the peace.
– Albert Einstein

World federalists are working for disarmament by seeking the ways to end all use of force in international relations. The only real alternative to war is an international legal system which provides common security for all states through the peaceful and just resolution of disputes according to law. This is vitally important in a world which has nuclear weapons. World federalists believe the test of sincerity of all who claim to want disarmament is their willingness to create and to be bound by a common world law and by agreed procedures for preventing aggression and solving conflicts peacefully.
– World Federalism
World Association for World Federation

We seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system… capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can fully be abolished… This will require a new effort to achieve world law.
– John F. Kennedy, U.S. President

The proposed system of comprehensive security will become operative to the extent that the United Nations, its security council and other international institutions and mechanisms function effectively. A decisive increase is required in the authority and role of the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
– Mikhail Gorbachev, Soviet General Secretary, address to U. N., September 1987

This planet is in bad political shape and is administered appallingly. An outer-space inspection team would undoubtedly give us an F (failure) or a triple D (dumb, deficient, and dangerous) in planetary management. Our world is afflicted by a good dozen conflicts almost permanently. Its skies, lands, and oceans are infested with atomic weapons which cost humanity 850 billion dollars a year, while so many poor people are dying of hunger on this planet. And yet, I have seen the U.N. become universal and prevent many conflicts. I have seen the dangerous decolonization page turned quickly and with infinitely less bloodshed than in Europe and the Americas in preceding centuries. I have seen a flowering expansion of international cooperation in thirty-two U.N. special agencies and world programs.
– Robert Muller, Former U. N. Assistant Secretary General

There is enough bad people to make world federal government necessary, and there is enough good people to make it work.
– Source Unknown

Many of these proposals may appear unpatriotic or even treasonous to those who identify being patriotic with the worship of American military power… If patriotism is an active concern for one’s freedom, welfare and survival of one’s people, there is no patriotic duty more immediate than the abolition of war as a national right and institution.
Cord Meyer
Peace or Anarchy

Let us also think about establishing an emergency environmental aid centre within the U.N. Its function would be to promptly dispatch international groups of experts to areas that have experienced a sharp deterioration in the environmental situation.
Mikhail Gorbachev
Soviet General Secretary
Address to the U.N., New York
December 7, 1988

It is dangerous in the most literal sense of the word, when streams of poison flow into the rivers, when toxic rains fall on the earth from the sky, when towns and entire regions are suffocating in an atmosphere saturated with the fumes put out by industry and by vehicles, when the development of nuclear power is accompanied by unacceptable risks.
– Mikhail Gorbachev
Soviet General Secretary
Address to U.N., September 1987

A federation of all humanity, together with a sufficient means of social justice to ensure health, education, and a rough equality of opportunity, would mean such a release and increase of human energy as to open a new phase in human history.
– H.G. Wells
Noted Historian

With all the positive news that’s coming from Eastern Europe and the U. S. government about significant nuclear arsenal reductions (as much as 50%), it’s easy to get lulled into complacency about the nuclear arms race. But consider this: the U.S. is still building and testing nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. We are still building the ultimate doomsday device known as star Wars. Even with these reductions in our arsenals, U.S. and Soviets will still have enough fire power to blow the world up 5,000 times, not to mention the French, Israeli, or Chinese stockpiles (as well as the rest of the world). And what about all the toxic wastes? Where will the madness end?
– Richard Gold
Eugene Peace Works
Eugene, Oregon

The founding of the United Nations embodies our deepest hopes for a peaceful world. And during the past year, we’ve come closer than ever before to realizing those hopes. We’ve seen a century sundered by barbed threats and barbed wire, give way to a new era of peace and competition and freedom. This is a new and different world. Not since 1945 have we seen the real possibility of using the United Nations as it was designed, as a center for international collective security.
– George Bush
U.S. President, October 1, 1990
Address to the United Nations

Environmentalists and politicians can argue the costs and benefits of international action on global warming from now until doomsday, and they probably will. But nothing will get done without an institutional mechanism to develop, institute, and enforce regulations across national boundaries.
– Elliot Richardson
Head of the U. S. Delegation
Law of the Sea Conference

A 14-POINT PROGRAM for Reforming the United Nations

1. Improve the General assembly decision-making process.

2. Modify the vet in the Security Council.

3. Create an International Disarmament Organization.

4. Improve the dispute settlement process.

5. Improve the U.N.’s peacekeeping capability.

6. Provide for adequate and stable U.N. revenues.

7. Create an International Court of Justice.

8. Create an International Criminal Court to try hijackers and terrorists.

9. Improve the U.N.’s human rights machinery.

10. Create a stronger U.N. environmental and conservation programs.

11. Provide international authorities for areas not under national control.

12. Provide for more effective world trade and monetary systems.

13. Establish a U.N. development program.

14. Achieve administrative reform of the U.N. system.

For more information, write to Campaign for U.N. Reform, 418 Seventh Street, S.E., Washington, DC 20003. Phone: (202) 546-3956

PRESERVING THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

Prepared by the World Resources Institute, Washington DC, and the American Assembly, affiliated with Colombia University, founded by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1950.

Three indivisibly linked global environmental trends together constitute an increasingly grave challenge to the habitability of the earth. They are human population growth; tropical deforestation and the rapid loss of biological diversity; and global atmospheric change, including stratospheric ozone loss and greenhouse warming. These trends threaten nations’ economic potential security therefore their internal political security, their citizen’s health (because of increased ultraviolet radiation), and, in the case of global warming, possibly their very existence. No more basic threat to national security exists. Thus, together with economic interdependence, global environmental threats are shifting traditional national security concerns to a focus on collective global security.

The degradation of the global environment is integrally linked to human population growth. More than 90 million people are added each year – more than ever before. On its present trajectory, the world’s population could nearly triple its current size, reaching 14 billion before stabilizing. With a heroic effort, it could level off at around 9 billion. However, today’s unmet need for family planning is huge: only 30 percent of reproductive age people in the developing world outside of China currently have access to contraception. Women’s full and equal participation in society at all levels must be rapidly addressed.

Tropical deforestation and the loss of a diverse set of species rob the earth of its biological richness, which undermines long-range ecological security and global economic potential. Nearly 20 million hectares of tropical forests are lost every year. Conservative estimates put the extinction rate at one hundred species per day: a rate unmatched since the disappearance of the dinosaurs. Escalating human populations, deforestation, disruptions of watersheds, soil loss, and land degradation ate all linked in a vicious cycle that perpetuates and deepens poverty, and often creates ecological refugees.

The depletion of the ozone layer by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) allows increased ultraviolet B radiation from the sun to enter the earth’s atmosphere, threatening human health and the productivity of the biosphere.

There is a scientific consensus that rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will cause global climactic change. Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have increased 25 percent since the beginning of the industrial era.

Therefore, the earth is set to experience substantial climate change of unknown scale and rapidity. The consequences are likely to include sea level rise, greater frequency of extreme weather events, disruption of ecosystems, and potentially vast impacts on the global economy. The processes of climate change are irreversible and major additional releases could be triggered from the biosphere by global warming in an uncontrollable self-reinforcing process (example: methane release from unfrozen Arctic tundra).

We call attention to the immediate need for immediate international action to reverse trends that threaten the integrity of the global environment. These trends endanger all nations in the common interest. Our message is one of urgency. Accountable and courageous leadership in all sectors will be needed to mobilize the necessary effort. If the world community fails to act forcefully in the current decade, the earth’s ability to sustain life is at risk.

Excert from Preserving the Global Environment: A Challenge of Shared Leadership. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1990.

[1] Ecocide is the deliberate destruction of the natural environment, as by pollutants.
[2] For more information and a videotape on the Binding Triad, write the Center for War/Peace Studies, 218 E. 18th Street, New York, NY 10003. Phone: (212) 475-1077.
[3] After World War II, the Soviet Union took over Lithuania by military conquest – not the free vote of the people. You will recall that the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787 clearly specified that the vote of the people – not the politicians – was required to join the United States of America. Lithuania’s desire today for independence is not considered aggression.
[4] Pace Law School in White Plains, New York has a Center for Environmental Legal Studies headed by Professor Nicholas A. Robinson. He teaches lawyers about environmental problems now facing our nation and the world.
[5] From Effective Global Environmental Protection by Pamela Leonard. Published by World Federalist Association, May 1990.

November 12, 1991