Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: nuclear abolition

  • Imagine There’s No Bomb

    There has never been a better time to achieve total nuclear disarmament; this is necessary, urgent and feasible. We are at the crossroads of a nuclear crisis. On the one hand, we are at an alarming tipping point on proliferation of nuclear weapons, with a growing risk of nuclear terrorism and use of still massively bloated arsenals of the worst weapons of terror. On the other, we have perhaps the best opportunity to abolish nuclear weapons.

    For the first time, a US president has been elected with a commitment to nuclear weapons abolition, and President Barack Obama has outlined a substantive program to deliver on this, and shown early evidence that he is serious. He needs all the support and encouragement in the world. We do not know how long this opportunity will last. Unlike the last one, at the end of the Cold War, it must not be squandered. An increasingly resource- and climate-stressed world is an ever more dangerous place for nuclear weapons. We must not fail.

    Like preventing rampant climate change, abolishing nuclear weapons is a paramount challenge for people and leaders the world over – a pre-condition for survival, sustainability and health for our planet and future generations. Both in the scale of the indiscriminate devastation they cause, and in their uniquely persistent, spreading, genetically damaging radioactive fallout, nuclear weapons are unlike any other weapons. They cannot be used for any legitimate military purpose. Any use, or threat of use, violates international humanitarian law. The notion that nuclear weapons can ensure anyone’s security is fundamentally flawed. Nuclear weapons most threaten those nations that possess them, or like Australia, those that claim protection from them, because they become the preferred targets for others’ nuclear weapons. Accepting that nuclear weapons can have a legitimate place, even if solely for “deterrence”, means being willing to accept the incineration of tens of millions of fellow humans and radioactive devastation of large areas, and is basically immoral.

    As noted by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission headed by Dr Hans Blix: “So long as any state has nuclear weapons, others will want them. So long as any such weapons remain, there is a risk that they will one day be used, by design or accident. And any such use would be catastrophic.” The only sustainable approach is one standard – zero nuclear weapons – for all.

    Recent scientific evidence from state-of-the-art climate models puts the case for urgent nuclear weapons abolition beyond dispute. Even a limited regional nuclear war involving 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs – just 0.03 per cent of the explosive power of the world’s current nuclear arsenal – would not only kill tens of millions from blast, fires and radiation, but would cause severe climatic consequences persisting for a decade or more. Cooling and darkening, with killing frosts and shortened growing seasons, rainfall decline, monsoon failure, and substantial increases in ultraviolet radiation, would combine to slash global food production. Globally, 1 billion people could starve. More would succumb from the disease epidemics and social and economic mayhem that would inevitably follow. Such a war could occur with the arsenals of India and Pakistan, or Israel. Preventing any use of nuclear weapons and urgently getting to zero are imperative for the security of every inhabitant of our planet.

    The most effective, expeditious and practical way to achieve and sustain the abolition of nuclear weapons is to negotiate a comprehensive, irreversible, binding, verifiable treaty – a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC) – bringing together all the necessary aspects of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Such a treaty approach has been the basis for all successes to date in eliminating whole classes of weapons, from dum-dum bullets to chemical and biological weapons, landmines and, most recently, cluster munitions.

    Negotiations should begin without delay, and progress in good faith and without interruption until a successful conclusion is reached. It will be a long and complex process, and the sooner it can begin the better. We agree with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that the model NWC developed by an international collaboration of lawyers, physicians and scientists is “a good point of departure” for achieving total nuclear disarmament.

    Incremental steps can support a comprehensive treaty approach. They can achieve important ends, demonstrate good faith and generate political momentum. Important disarmament next steps have been repeatedly identified and are widely agreed. They remain valid but unfulfilled over the many years that disarmament has been stalled. The 13 practical steps agreed at the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review conference in 2000 should be upheld and implemented. They include all nuclear weapons states committing to the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals; entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; negotiations on a treaty to end production of fissile material; taking weapons off extremely hazardous high alert “launch on warning” status; and negotiating deep weapons reductions. But at the same time a comprehensive road map is needed – a vision of what the final jigsaw puzzle looks like, and a path to get there. Not only to fit the pieces together and fill the gaps, but to make unequivocal that abolition is the goal. Without the intellectual, moral and political weight of abolition as the credible and clear goal of the nuclear weapon states, and real movement on disarmament, the NPT is at risk of unravelling after next year’s five-yearly review conference of the treaty, and a cascade of actual and incipient nuclear weapons proliferation can be expected to follow.

    Achieving a world free of nuclear weapons will require not only existing arsenals to be progressively taken off alert, dismantled and destroyed, but will require production of the fissile materials from which nuclear weapons can be built – separated plutonium and highly enriched uranium – to cease, and existing stocks to be eliminated or placed under secure international control.

    The International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament announced by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in Kyoto last June and led with Japan is a welcome initiative with real potential. It could most usefully direct its efforts to building political momentum and coalitions to get disarmament moving, and promote a comprehensive framework for nuclear weapons abolition.

    Australia should prepare for a world free of nuclear weapons by “walking the talk”. We should reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our own security policies, as we call on nuclear weapon states to do. To ensure that we are part of the solution and not the problem also means that the international safeguards on which we depend to ensure that our uranium does not now or in the future contribute to proliferation, need substantial strengthening and universal application. Our reliance on the “extended nuclear deterrence” provided by the US should be reviewed so that Australian facilities and personnel could not contribute to possible use of nuclear weapons, and we anticipate and promote by our actions a world freed from nuclear weapons. Canada championed the treaty banning landmines, or Ottawa Treaty; Norway led the way on the cluster munitions with the Oslo Convention. Why should the Nuclear Weapons Convention the world needs and deserves not be championed and led by Australia and become known as the Canberra (or Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane) Convention?

    This article was originally published in The Age

    Malcolm Fraser is the former prime minister of Australia. Sir Gustav Nossal is a research scientist. Dr Barry Jones is a former Australian Labor government minister. General Peter Gration is a former Australian Defence Force chief. Lieutenant-General John Sanderson is former chief of the army and former governor of Western Australia. Associate Professor Tilman Ruff is national president of the Medical Association for Prevention of War Australia.

  • Letter to NATO Secretary General and Member States

    Excellency,

    This letter comes to you, to the leaders of other NATO members and to the NATO Secretary General from the councils that represent churches across the member states of NATO, namely, the Conference of European Churches, the National Council of Churches of Christ USA, the Canadian Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches.

    Our letter is a joint initiative to encourage joint action.  We ask your Government to ensure that the forthcoming NATO summit commits the Alliance to a thorough reform of NATO’s Strategic Concept. The 60th anniversary meeting is a welcome opportunity to begin the process of up-dating the Alliance’s security doctrine.  In particular, we encourage new initiatives that will end NATO’s reliance on nuclear weapons and will engage with nuclear weapon states and other states outside of NATO in the serious pursuit of reciprocal disarmament.

    Such collective action by NATO can be a major factor in revitalizing the nuclear non-proliferation regime at this critical time.  It is also an important opportunity for the alliance to reinforce the vision of a world without nuclear weapons so compellingly put forward in recent months by eminent figures on the global security stage. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, four elder statesmen of Germany and former Foreign Secretaries of the United Kingdom are among those urging both a recovery of that vision and concrete steps to realize it.

    NATO has the opportunity to fashion a new strategic doctrine that, on the one hand, takes full account of the threats posed by nuclear weapons, and, on the other hand, takes full advantage of the political momentum that is now finally available to support decisive inter-governmental action against the nuclear threat.

    We encourage NATO to consign to history the notion that nuclear weapons “preserve peace” (as claimed in paragraph 46 of the current Strategic Concept), and instead to recognize the reality that “with every passing year [nuclear weapons] make our security more precarious” (President Gorbachev’s assessment; echoed by other leaders).

    We are convinced that NATO security in the years ahead will require not only long-delayed action on reciprocal disarmament but also concerted new action to resolve injustices, divisions and conflicts that affect both the Alliance and its neighbours.  We believe security must be sought through constructive engagement with neighbours and that authentic security is found in affirming and enhancing human interdependence within God’s one creation.

    Inasmuch as all NATO members are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), we urge the Alliance to promote the actual implementation of the backlog of disarmament and non-proliferation measures already elaborated through the NPT review process or awaiting negotiation as the current cycle culminates.

    One very important measure of NATO’s good faith in terms of NPT and the pursuit of nuclear disarmament will be its willingness to remove the 150-250 US tactical nuclear weapons still based in five member countries — Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy and Turkey.  In so doing NATO would boost international confidence in an NPT regime that has been seriously eroded since 2000.  NATO would also honor the longstanding international call that all nuclear weapons be returned to the territories of the states that own them.  Removal of these weapons would be a timely signal that NATO’s old nuclear umbrella will not be extended and that there are real prospects for progress on collective security agreements in greater Europe.

    The emerging vision of a world without nuclear weapons is giving citizens and churches in every NATO country cause for hope.  We are requesting that NATO’s security doctrine be realigned in a direction which establishes such hopes.

    Sincerely,

    Rev. Dr. Samuel Kobia
    General Secretary
    World Council of Churches

     

    		 The Venerable Colin Williams
    General Secretary
    Conference of European Churches
    Rev. Michael Kinnamon, Ph.D.
    General Secretary
    National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA    		 The Rev. Dr. Karen Hamilton
    General Secretary
    The Canadian Council of Churches

  • Use Your Imagination

    Asked to opine about what I think one or two of the biggest issues facing us in the coming decades might be, I find myself needing to quote Arundhati Roy, in her anti-nuclear polemic “The End of Imagination.” Roy writes, “There’s nothing new or original left to be said about nuclear weapons. There can be nothing more humiliating for a writer of fiction to have to do than restate a case that has, over the years, already been made by other people in other parts of the world, and made passionately, eloquently, and knowledgeably.”
    She goes on to say, however, that she is “prepared to grovel. To humiliate myself abjectly, because in the circumstances, silence would be indefensible.” Roy is talking about her need to speak out against the open embrace of nuclear weapons by the country of her birth, India.
    When asked to comment about ‘big issues,’ and ‘issues related to war and peace’ – after all, I was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize so I should have ‘big thoughts’ about any number of such ‘big issues’ – as often as not I find myself reduced to feeling more like what Roy describes. What more can be said about a multitude of issues facing this increasing small and overwhelmed planet; issues as wide-ranging as global warming or the HIV crisis or unbridled globalization? People with much more intimate knowledge of these issues have spoken – often and with much wisdom. It feels like there is nothing left to be said.
    Yet, I also find myself willing to try on some issues – issues on which I am not even approaching what would be called ‘an expert’ — because I also feel that, under the circumstances, silence would be indefensible. Along with challenges facing us such as those noted above, one that causes me particular concern is the open embrace by the Bush administration of National Missile Defense (NMD), an issue flirted with – to greater and less degree and in various incarnations — for approaching two decades now since launched under the Reagan administration and known in common parlance as ‘Star Wars.’
    Like many others, I tend to revert to calling NMD the ‘Son of Star Wars’ — yet I recognize that for many, the mere use of such terminology threatens to reduce the cold-blooded horror of this move to militarize space to something amazing and almost wonderful. ‘Son of Star Wars’ of course conjures up the fabulous high-tech wizardry of that imaginative series of movies; causes one to almost want to be able to believe that this NMD is little more than lasers and ‘good guys’ really just trying to defend us all from the ‘bad guys.’
    I hesitate to single it out. After all, my ‘expertise’ is landmines. Don’t I risk minimizing the concern by my display of a lack of intimate knowledge? While I may not be an expert on National Missile Defense and its implications for the militarization of space, it doesn’t take an expert to see how this move fits into the arrogant isolationism of the new administration – and from my experience sometimes it is the least expert questions that are the most difficult to really answer.
    We are now being asked to stunt our imagination and our own intelligence and accept that real ‘freedom’ means that we should be free from the arms control treaties that have formed a cornerstone of stability for decades. We are told that our friends and allies around the world just don’t understand this new concept of freedom and security. But not to worry, given enough time and a bit more backslapping, they will come around. And if they don’t, we’ll do it anyway.
    It is also implied – this is not just the domain of this government – that if we do not accept this new wisdom, if we speak out passionately and maybe even eloquently and for some, maybe even with great knowledge about the issues at hand – we are somehow not patriotic. And, missile defense does seem so overwhelming that it is tempting to give in to being ‘patriotic’ and to letting the ‘experts’ advise us as to how best to protect ourselves from the rogue enemies who will be the ones to feel the wrath of these defensive missiles – after all, what can the ordinary individual possibly really understand about such difficult national defense issues.
    I think the biggest challenge is for each and every ‘ordinary citizen’ to believe that their view on this – and any of the other ‘big issues’ facing us – is important. The biggest challenge is for ordinary citizens to fire up their imaginations and believe that they can make a difference on this and most any other issue if they take action.
    My friend and fellow-laureate Betty Williams once said (and I shamelessly use her words whenever and wherever I can) that sometimes we try to get by just invoking our feelings of empathy for problems that face others – or us all, collectively. Somehow, just by ‘feeling the other person’s pain’ we are more righteous than those who cannot even do that. But as Betty says, emotions without action are irrelevant. If you do not get up and take action to make the world the place you want it to be, it really doesn’t matter what you feel.
    So, I guess that I will have to now try to move beyond my words of horror about the NMD and the militarization of space and the arrogant isolationism of this country. I will have to fire up my own imagination and try to find ways to help convince us all that real security comes with meeting the needs of the individuals on this planet – through human security –and not through spending billions of tax dollars ‘freely,’ for new imaginative weapons that threaten us all.
    I re-read this, of course, and find that I have not found new eloquence on this issue of NMD and the militarization of space. I re-read this and recognize that I’ve not found some new magic combination that will convince someone to stop this madness. At the same time, I recognize that the point isn’t necessarily to find new eloquence – it is to add my voice, and my actions, to bring about change that I believe is critical to making this a better place for us all. All that I have to do is use my imagination.

    Jody Williams won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her leadership of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.

  • Doomsday Clock May Finally Stop Ticking

    This article was published by InterPress Service and appeared on Commondreams.org

    UNITED NATIONS – The Barack Obama administration’s apparent resolve to take U.S. foreign policy in a new direction is creating ripples of hope for an enhanced U.N. agenda on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament.
    Observers and diplomats who are due to take part in a major meeting to discuss progress on the implementation of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) told IPS they had never before so optimistic about the U.N.-led negotiation process.

    “I think he [Obama] is sincere about what he is saying,” said David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, an advocacy group that works closely with the U.N. “I think he is willing to stand up against the vested interests.”

     

    Many peace activists, like Krieger, believe that the threat of a possible nuclear catastrophe is not going to go away so long as the major nuclear powers remain reluctant to take drastic steps towards dismantling their nuclear arsenals.

    Countries that rolled back their weapons programs, as well as those that never produced such arms, have long been calling for the elimination of nuclear weapons, but the response they received from the major nuclear powers has always been disappointing. In addition to actions against the spread of nuclear weapons, the NPT requires the five declared nuclear states – the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China – to engage in “good faith” negotiations for disarmament. Until now that task has remained elusive.

    The United States and Russia are the world’s largest nuclear weapon states. They possess no less than 93 percent of the total number of nuclear weapons in the world, according to Sipri, a Sweden-based think tank that tracks weapon production and export worldwide.

    Among others, China has 400 warheads, France 348, and Israel and Britain about 200 each. India is believed to have more than 80 and Pakistan about 40 nuclear weapons.

    Critics see the United States as the most irresponsible member of the nuclear club, for it not only failed to meet the NPT obligations, but also contributed, at great length, to block, and even derail, the international discourse on nuclear disarmament.

    The Ronald Reagan administration, for example, looked the other way when Pakistan was developing its illegal nuclear program in the 1980s. Similarly, the George W. Bush administration decided to make a nuclear trade deal with India that remains outside the fold of the NPT.

    The Bush administration is held responsible by many for sabotaging the U.N. agenda on disarmament by its decision to abrogate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and to install controversial missile defenses in countries located next to Russia’s borders.

    During the past eight years, the former U.S. administration also refused to endorse the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which is considered by experts an integral part of the international framework to achieve the goal of disarmament.

    “We have been through the dark ages,” Krieger told IPS. “It was a death plan for humanity.”

    During his two terms, Bush never spoke of nuclear disarmament. He rather fully supported the move to generate new kinds of nuclear weapons. In March 2007, his administration declared plans to make new kinds of nukes, a move considered as controversial by many.

    Bush argued that the existing warheads had become obsolete, but many experts saw his line of reasoning as out of step with reality because in their conclusion, the U.S. stockpile was already ‘safe and reliable’ for at least 50 years.

    At the time, many independent think tanks in Washington warned that such a move would prove provocative and counter-productive because countries like Iran and North Korea would use it as justification to possess nuclear weapons.

    In contrast to the Bush administration, however, the message from the new administration in Washington appears to be radically different.

    “A world without nuclear weapons is profoundly in America’s interest and the world’s interest,” said the new U.S. president in a recent statement. “It is our responsibility to make the commitment, and to do the hard work to make this vision a reality.”

    Currently, a coalition of peace advocacy groups is running a nationwide signature campaign to press Obama to take immediate, effective, and practical measures for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

    “Nuclear weapons could destroy civilization and end intelligent life on the planet,” said the campaign in a letter to Obama. “The only sure way to prevent nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war is to rid the world of nuclear weapons.”

    Krieger told IPS that so far over 50,000 people, including some Noble laureates, have signed the letter. He expects that by next month when the letter is due to be delivered to the White House, at least one million people would have endorsed it.

    An international group, known as “Global Zero,” is proposing deep cuts in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, a verification and enforcement system, and phased reduction leading to the elimination of all stockpiles.

    Supporters of the Global Zero campaign includes many distinguished international figures and former statesmen, such as former U.S. President Jimmy Carter; former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger; former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci; former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev; and Shaharyar Khan, a former Pakistani foreign minister.

    The launching in Paris follows 18 months of consultations among diplomats and military leaders and in effect established Global Zero as a participant in mobilizing efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons.

    Last July Obama said, “as long as nuclear weapons exist we will retain a strong deterrent,” but added in the same breath:” We will make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy.”

    According to unconfirmed reports, the Obama administration is already engaged in negotiations on the proposal to reduce the number of nuclear weapons to 1,000 in the first phase and that it is possible that the reaction from Moscow is likely to be positive.

    However, in Krieger’s view, that would happen only if the Obama administration takes a different position on the deployment of the U.S. missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, which Russia perceives to be a threat to its sovereignty.

    Building the missile defense systems has cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, although it’s still not clear that it would be especially effective.

    “The defense contractors in the United States will continue to put pressure,” he told IPS. “But he [Obama] has to understand that this system is not going to work.”

    While Krieger and many others seem satisfied with the gradual and phased reduction of nuclear weapons on both sides, some nuclear abolitionists remain skeptical about the outcome of such measures and would rather like to see dramatic results in a short span of time.

    “Cutting down to 1,000 nuclear weapons each? 1,000 are too many. It’s the same kind of slow process as it was during the cold war,” said Zia Mian, a nuclear physicist and peace activist at Princeton University. “It’s about restoring the process, not breaking away from the process.”

    Mian, who plans to attend the upcoming NPT preparatory meeting in May, added: “If Obama wants a real change, he must say: We are going to negotiate a treaty now to eliminate the nuclear weapons.”

  • A Recipe for Survival

    After two mostly wasted decades since the end of the Cold War, nuclear disarmament is again high on the international agenda.

    President Obama has pledged to seek a world free of nuclear weapons – a legal commitment under the Non-Proliferation Treaty – and, as a first step, to negotiate further cuts in nuclear stockpiles with Russia. These two countries combined hold 95 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal.

    Former statesmen are getting together to demand the scrapping of all nuclear weapons. After eight years in which arms control was not a priority for the United States, the fog has lifted. The challenge now is how to ensure that this new enthusiasm does not fizzle out.

    The change of heart has been motivated not just by idealism but by a sober realization that the risk of nuclear weapons being used is increasing significantly.

    Next time, the culprit could well be a terrorist group for whom the concept of deterrence, which helped the world until now to escape a nuclear Armageddon, is irrelevant.

    The nonproliferation regime is starting to come apart at the seams. Sensitive technology thought to be the preserve of a few advanced countries has recently been acquired with alarming ease by others. Possession of nuclear weapons is still seen as conferring prestige and providing an insurance policy against attack, as Iraq and North Korea seem to demonstrate.

    Nuclear weapon states, which between them have some 27,000 warheads, reinforce this message by modernizing their nuclear arsenals. To make matters worse, countries that master uranium enrichment can have a bomb within months if they so decide.

    Fortunately, there is now an emerging consensus on what could and should be done:

    • Bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force and ban the development of new nuclear weapons;
    • Initiate negotiations on a verifiable Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty that would ban the production of material for nuclear weapons;
    • Negotiate a successor for the START treaty between Russia and the United States, which expires this year, containing significant, verifiable cuts in their nuclear warheads. An initial target could be to cut to 1,000 or even 500 warheads on each side;
    • Extend the warning time for possible nuclear attack. As an insane relic of the Cold War, Russian and United States leaders may have no more than 30 minutes to respond to an apparent attack that could be the result of computer error or unauthorized use;
    • Develop a mechanism to put all facilities for enriching uranium and reprocessing plutonium under multinational control. This would give countries guaranteed supplies of fuel for peaceful nuclear power but not access to the material needed to build a weapon;
    • Give the International Atomic Energy Agency sufficient legal authority, technological capabilities and resources to credibly verify the disarmament process and to ensure that non-nuclear-weapon states use nuclear energy exclusively for peaceful purposes. The IAEA and the Security Council together must be able to effectively deter, detect and respond to possible proliferation cheats;
    • Radically improve the physical security of nuclear materials.

    Recent statements by the Obama administration give us hope that some of these measures can be adopted quickly. However, the deep-rooted causes of the insecurity that have plagued the world for decades need to be addressed simultaneously if durable security is to be attained.

    First, poverty and inequality. The links between poverty, repression and injustice, on the one hand, and extremism and violence, on the other, are clear for all to see. We must learn to value all human life equally. Developed countries – quick to react when the lives of their own citizens are at stake – give the clear impression that they do not really care about the lives of the world’s poor.

    Second, festering conflicts. The Middle East, home to the world’s most perilous and intractable conflict, will never be at peace until the Palestinian question is resolved. What compounds the problem is that the nuclear nonproliferation regime has lost its legitimacy in the eyes of Arab public opinion because of the perceived double-standards concerning Israel, the only state in the region outside the NPT and known to possess nuclear weapons.

    Iraq and Libya are unlikely to be the last countries in the Middle East to be tempted to acquire nuclear weapons. Concerns about current and future nuclear programs in the region will persist until a lasting peace is achieved and all nuclear weapons in the area are eliminated as part of a regional security structure. The Obama administration’s pledge to engage in direct diplomacy with Iran, without preconditions and on the basis of mutual respect, and to seek a grand bargain, is long overdue.

    Third, the weakness of international institutions. The most pressing threats facing the world, such as weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, the global financial crisis and climate change, can only be addressed through collaborative global action.

    For that we need multilateral institutions. We must overcome the cynicism that has too often characterized government attitudes to the UN. The UN and related agencies must be given adequate authority and funding and put in the hands of leaders who have vision, courage and credibility.

    Above all, we need to halt the glaring breach of core principles of international law such as limitations on the unilateral use of force, proportionality in self-defense and the protection of civilians during hostilities in order to avoid a repeat of the civilian carnage in Iraq and, most recently, in Gaza.

    A convincing response to these challenges requires a new system of security. The Security Council, often paralyzed and with its authority dwindling due to frequent discord, needs to be reformed to reflect the world of today and not of 1945. It should have a robust and well defined peacekeeping capability to prevent the massacre of innocent millions in places like Congo, Rwanda and Darfur. The Council should be systematically engaged in preventing and resolving conflicts, addressing root causes and not just symptoms.

    Nuclear disarmament is key to our very survival. We now have another chance to create a saner, safer world by working to eliminate the nuclear sword of Damocles that hangs over all our heads. Let us not waste this opportunity.

     

    Mohamed ElBaradei is Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  • A World Free of Nuclear Weapons: The Wrong and Right Way to Do It

    UPI Outside View, January 24, 2008

     

    Since the beginning of the Atomic Age, policymakers and scholars have attempted to come up with formulas to constrain the nuclear genie. In mid-January, in an effort to move this ambition forward, former senior decision-makers — Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, Defense Secretary William Perry and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Samuel Nunn — released “Toward a Nuclear-Free World,” a report published in the Wall Street Journal designed to advance nuclear abolition.

    The timing would seem propitious. In December 2007, in voting down a new nuclear weapon (the reliable replacement warhead), Congress mandated that President Bush and his successor rationalize the U.S. nuclear arsenal by the end of 2009 to justify future appropriations. As a result, a disarmament proposal advanced by such statesmen and endorsed by dozens of prominent experts should be taken seriously. Unfortunately, it cannot.

    At first blush the Shultz et al. proposal appears to be promising for nuclear-arms controllers, who could object to extension of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, deeper nuclear reductions beyond those promoted by the Bush administration or increasing the warning time for the initiation of nuclear use. Likewise the call for cooperative ballistic missile defense, increased security at nuclear materials sites, strengthening non-proliferation verification and implementation of the treaty banning nuclear weapons testing. If constraining nuclear development or use marks the objective, the answer is no one.

    However, if the aim truly is the elimination of nuclear arms — the authors declared an objective to eradicate the “threat to the world” — the proposal falls far short. A review of what could be done versus what the authors say should be done supports this conclusion.

    — Set a timeline for the elimination of nuclear arsenals, not an “agreement to undertake further substantial reductions.” The authors’ call for extension of the monitoring provisions of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty coupled to undefined reductions below the 1,700 to 2,200 nuclear warheads allowed under the 1992 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty with Russia may be admirable, but it does not amount a “nuclear-free world.” Absent weapons elimination benchmarks — including disposal of non-deployed warheads — the authors’ plan amounts to maintenance of diminished but still substantial weapons caches.

    — Separate nuclear warheads from delivery systems. To reduce the risk of nuclear war prior to abolition, the authors advocate increased warning and decision time for nuclear initiation. They speak abstractly about mutually agreed upon “physical barriers in the command-and-control sequence” to prevent premature nuclear launch. Only warhead separation from missiles meets the objective. Certainly, if Pakistan can separate its bombs from delivery vehicles to allow time for prudent decisions, so can the United States, Russia and others.

    — Eliminate long-range ballistic missiles except those used for commercial and scientific research. Such an approach nullifies the authors’ promotion of ballistic missile defense. A precedent for negotiated missile elimination includes the 1987 Reagan-Gorbachev Intermediate Force Reduction Treaty. Elimination also finds precedent in the unilateral withdrawal and destruction of obsolete delivery systems from arsenals.

    — Eliminate all high enriched uranium and separated plutonium rather than enhance security at sites holding such material. The authors call for countries to apply the highest standards of security to nuclear materials. But only removal and disposal will prevent access by terrorists or nuclear ambitious nations.

    — Ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty. The U.S. Senate failed to do so during the Clinton administration. The authors propose a “process” to get the treaty implemented but fail to call upon the most prominent hold out to adopt the agreement it gave birth to.

    — Go beyond the Additional Protocol to verify that countries are not using civil nuclear programs for military purposes. The protocol allows International Atomic Energy Agency inspection of all suspect nuclear sites. Many countries have yet to adopt it, but the protocol itself is imperfect. Placing all atomic plants under IAEA co-management would do a better job to prevent nuclear breakouts.

    — Provide teeth to deal with nuclear violators. The authors fail to furnish a strategy to combat atomic cheats. Given the gravity of an attempted nuclear breakout, the international community must have “in place” a dedicated military capacity to stop any nuclear fudging.

    Shultz and his colleagues conclude, “Progress (toward a nuclear-free world) must be facilitated by a clear statement of our ultimate goal.”

    Unfortunately the goal is muddled by the authors’ own formulation. If nuclear disarmament is the objective, we can do far better.

    Bennett Ramberg, Ph.D., J.D., served in the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs in the George H.W. Bush administration. The author of three books and editor of three others on international security, he has written for such prestigious journals as Foreign Affairs and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Ramberg’s Op-Eds have appeared in all major newspapers in the United States and many around the world.

  • The Cost of Nuclear Security

    Seven years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, at a time when government officials and outside experts are expressing growing concern about the prospect of a nuclear 9/11, few members of Congress know how much the United States spends on nuclear security or where the money goes.

    When Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton and Secretary of Energy-designate Steven Chu head into their Senate confirmation hearings Tuesday, they’ll face difficult questions about how the U.S. is addressing nuclear dangers. Although most lawmakers would rank nuclear threats at the top of their list of national security concerns, they won’t have sufficient or comprehensive information to work with. But Congress can fix this.

    Our report, the first public examination of open-source data, shows that the U.S. spent at least$52.4 billion on nuclear weapons and programs in fiscal 2008. This budget, which spans many agencies, not just the Defense Department, does not count related costs for air defense, anti-submarine warfare, classified programs or most nuclear weapons-related intelligence programs.

    The 2008 nuclear security budget exceeds all anticipated spending on international diplomacy and foreign assistance ($39.5 billion) and natural resources and the environment ($33 billion). It is nearly double the budget for general science, space and technology ($27.4 billion), and it is almost 14 times what the Energy Department allocated for all energy-related research and development.

    Although the size of the overall budget is troubling, another concern is that we spend so little on initiatives to minimize the risk of nuclear and radiological attacks. More than 17 years after the end of the Cold War, it may come as a surprise to most Americans that the U.S. still spends relatively large annual sums upgrading and maintaining its nuclear arsenal ($29 billion), developing ballistic missile defenses ($9.2 billion) and addressing the deferred environmental and health costs associated with more than 50 years of unconstrained bomb building and testing ($8.3 billion).

    More alarmingly, the government spends relatively little money locking down or eliminating nuclear threats at their source, before they can reach U.S. shores ($5.2 billion), or preparing for the consequences of a nuclear or radiological attack on U.S. soil ($700 million).

    As President-elect Barack Obama’s team heads into an enormously difficult budget season, it will need to propose expenditures that match policy goals and economic realities. How, one might ask Chu, can a Department of Energy that devotes 67% of its budget to nuclear weapons-related programs meet Obama’s plan to develop new and cleaner forms of energy?

    Clinton is already on the right track by reportedly seeking to expand the State Department’s role and fighting for a larger budget. State is the frontline agency tackling proliferation concerns with Iran and North Korea, shoring up a rocky relationship with Russia and pursuing cooperation with other states to secure nuclear materials and address the growing threat of nuclear terrorism. Clinton is right to insist that her agency receive more than half a percent ($241.8 million) of the total nuclear security budget.

    As both proliferation dangers and fiscal concerns grow, taxpayers will want to know that their government is getting the best returns on its nuclear security investments. But effective oversight of government nuclear security programs is impossible without complete and reliable scrutiny of their cost and impact, and such an accounting has never been available to decision makers.

    Congress can remedy this by requiring the executive branch to submit, as part of the annual budget request, an unclassified and classified accounting of all nuclear weapons-related spending. A senior White House official, perhaps within the congressionally mandated office to coordinate nuclear proliferation and counter-terrorism efforts, or the National Security Council, should be responsible for overseeing this exercise, in conjunction with key officials of the Office of Management and Budget and senior budget officials of key departments and agencies.

    Working outside of government and using publicly available data, we’ve proved that it is possible to provide a more comprehensive accounting of our nuclear security dollars.

    Implementing these recommendations would increase understanding and accountability, which would in turn lead to greater public support for crucial nuclear security programs and a more effective allocation of public resources. When combined with a new focus on nuclear issues, including the Obama administration’s forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review, these efforts would help ensure that political and financial priorities are properly aligned.

    The nuclear threat is changing, and as long as it grows, the United States needs to be prepared to address it — even in a time of austerity. That starts with knowing where the dollars go.

    This article was originally published in the Los Angeles Times

    Stephen I. Schwartz is the editor of the Nonproliferation Review at the Monterey Institute of International Studies; Deepti Choubey is the deputy director of the nonproliferation program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

  • For a Nuclear Weapons-Free World

    In the United States, the call by [Shultz/Perry/Nunn/Kissinger] has been echoed broadly and has received prominent support. There are no known decisions of support by European governments.

    Our response reflects from a German perspective the expectations that are linked with the administration of Barack Obama. This century’s keyword is cooperation.

    We unconditionally support the call of the four eminent U.S. persons for a radical change of direction in nuclear weapons policies, not only in the United States. This relates specifically to the following proposals: The vision of a world without the nuclear threat, as it has been developed by Reagan and Gorbachev in Reykjavik, has to be revived. Negotiations have to be started with the goal of drastic cuts in nuclear weapons, first between the United States and Russia, which possess the largest number of nuclear weapons, in order to also attract the other states that possess such weapons. The NPT has to be strengthened decisively. The United States has ratify the CTBT. All short-range nuclear weapons have to be dismantled.

    From a German perspective it has to be added: The agreement on the reduction of strategic weapons will expire this year. From this results the most urgent need of action between Washington and Moscow.

    It will be decisive for the 2010 NPT review conference that the nuclear weapon states finally fulfill their obligations under Article VI of the treaty to reduce their nuclear stockpiles.

    The ABM treaty has to be restored. Outer space has to be used only for peaceful purposes.

    [Post Cold War European stability] would for the first time be jeopardized by the American wish to deploy missiles with a matching radar system on extraterritorial bases in Poland and the Czech republic, on NATO’s Eastern border. Such a relapse into the times of confrontation with implications for an arms build-up and tensions can be avoided by an amicable agreement on the topic of missile defense which also reflects the interests of NATO and the EU – and best by restoring the ABM treaty.

    Fundamental efforts by the United States and Russia to achieve a nuclear weapons-free world would facilitate an agreement with all nuclear weapon possessors – regardless whether they are permanent members of the the United Nations Security Council or not – about appropriate behavior. A spirit of cooperation could spread from the Middle East to East Asia.

    Relics from the period of confrontation no longer fit into our new century. Cooperation does not fit well with NATO’s and Russia’s still valid doctrine of nuclear first use, even in response to non-nuclear attacks. A general no-first use treaty among the nuclear armed states would be a highly desirable step.

    Germany, which has renounced nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, has to press for a commitment by the nuclear states not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. We are also of the view that the remaining U.S. nuclear warheads should be removed from Germany.

    The authors are well-respected German politicians. Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt (Social Democrat); Former President Richard von Weizsaecker (Christian Democrat); Former Federal Minister Egon Bahr (Social Democrat); and former Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher (Liberal).

  • Let’s Commit to a Nuclear-Free World

    This article was originally published in the Wall Street Journal

    When Barack Obama becomes America’s 44th president on Jan. 20, he should embrace the vision of a predecessor who declared: “We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”

    That president was Ronald Reagan, and he expressed this ambitious vision in his second inaugural address on Jan. 21, 1985. It was a remarkable statement from a president who had deployed tactical nuclear missiles in Europe to counter the Soviet Union’s fearsome SS-20 missile fleet.

    President Reagan knew the grave threat nuclear weapons pose to humanity. He never achieved his goal, but President Obama should pick up where he left off.

    The Cold War is over, but there remain thousands of nuclear missiles in the world’s arsenals — most maintained by the U.S. and Russia. Most are targeted at cities and are far more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Today, the threat is ever more complex. As more nations pursue nuclear ambitions, the world becomes less secure, with growing odds of terrorists obtaining a nuclear weapon.

    The nuclear aspirations of North Korea and Iran threaten a “cascade” of nuclear proliferation, according to a bipartisan panel led by former U.S. Defense Secretaries William J. Perry and James R. Schlesinger.

    Another bipartisan panel has warned that the world can expect a nuclear or biological terror attack by 2013 — unless urgent action is taken.

    Nuclear weapons pose grave dangers to all nations. Seeking new weapons and maintaining massive arsenals makes no sense. It is vital that we seek a world free of nuclear weapons. The United States should lead the way, and a President Obama should challenge Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to join us.

    Many of the world’s leading statesmen favor such an effort. They include former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, former Defense Secretary Perry, former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, and former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn.

    Unfortunately, for eight years the Bush administration moved in another direction, pushing aggressive policies and new weapons programs, threatening to reopen the nuclear door and spark the very proliferation we seek to prevent.

    President Bush made it the policy of the United States to contemplate first use of nuclear weapons in response to chemical or biological attack — even against nonnuclear states.

    He changed the “strategic triad” — which put nuclear weapons in a special category by themselves — by lumping them with conventional weapons in the same package of battlefield capabilities. This blurred the distinction between the two, making nuclear weapons easier to use.

    And he advocated new types of weapons that could be used in a variety of circumstances against a range of targets, advancing the notion that nuclear weapons have utility beyond deterrence.

    Mr. Bush then sought funding for new weapons programs, including:

    – A 100-kiloton “bunker buster” that scientists say would not destroy enemy bunkers as advertised, but would have spewed enough radiation to kill one million people.

    – The Advanced Concepts Initiative, including developing a low-yield nuclear weapon for tactical battlefield use.

    – The Modern Pit Facility, a factory that could produce up to 450 plutonium triggers a year — even though scientists say America’s nuclear triggers will be good for years.

    – Pushing to reduce time-to-test readiness at the Nevada Test Site in half — to 18 months — signaling intent to resume testing, which would have broken a test moratorium in place since 1992.

    – A new nuclear warhead, called the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which could spark a new global arms race.

    I opposed these programs, and Congress slashed or eliminated funding for them.

    But President Bush had sent dangerous signals world-wide. Allies could conclude if the United States sought new nuclear weapons, they should too. Adversaries could conclude acquiring nuclear weapons would be insurance against pre-emptive U.S. attack.

    Here’s how President-elect Obama can change course. By law he must set forth his views on nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy, in his Nuclear Posture Review, by 2010. In it, he should commit the U.S. to working with Russia to lower each nation’s arsenal of deployed nuclear warheads below the 1,700-2,200 the Moscow Treaty already calls for by 2013.

    It would be a strong step toward reducing our bloated arsenals, and signal the world that we have changed course.

    I was 12 when atomic bombs flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing more than 200,000 people. The horrific images that went around the world have stayed with me all my life.

    Today, there are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world hundreds of times. And we now face the chilling prospect of nuclear terrorism.

    The bottom line: We must recognize nuclear weapons for what they are — not a deterrent, but a grave and gathering threat to humanity. As president, Barack Obama should dedicate himself to their world-wide elimination.

    Dianne Feinstein is a Democratic Senator from California.

  • Making Peace a Priority

    Making Peace a Priority

    The election of Barack Obama has brought a new spirit of hope to the United States and the world. We now have the opportunity to chart a new course for US foreign policy and provide leadership to restore peace under international law, promote justice and reestablish America’s credibility in the world. Our time demands such leadership from the United States, which could be demonstrated by taking the following ten steps:

    1. Commit to US leadership to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. Enter into negotiations with the Russians and then the other seven nuclear weapons states to create a new treaty for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.

    2. End the war in Iraq, withdraw American troops, close US military bases in Iraq and provide reparations to the people of Iraq for the damage we have caused there.

    3. Pursue and bring to justice the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, using police and intelligence to address counterterrorism, and cease the US war against the Taliban.

    4. Close Guantanamo, bring the prisoners to trial in US courts or release them, and provide assurances that the US will never again be a party to torture.

    5. Increase the US role in brokering peace in areas of conflict, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    6. Reduce the military budget by 25 to 50 percent, eliminating wasteful and unneeded military expenditures, and reducing our foreign military bases and our global naval presence; and apply the savings to meeting human needs and revitalizing our economy.

    7. Cease US plans to put weapon systems in outer space, and join Russia and China in a treaty prohibiting the weaponization of outer space.

    8. Pledge US respect for the United Nations Charter and international law, including fulfilling the noble goals of the Charter of ending “the scourge of war” and formulating plans for “the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments.”

    9. Re-sign the Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court and give full US support to holding individuals accountable under international law for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

    10. Establish a Department of Peace with a cabinet level Secretary of Peace, so that peace has a permanent place at the table in the councils of government.

    We have the opportunity to change our country and the world. Now is the time to seize the moment.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and is a councilor on the World Future Council.