Conflicting Crimes
Global disarmament. Impossible dream or tomorrow’s reality? Our Future Planet finds out.
Perhaps the most important step forward towards any future planet might be the ability to rid the world of weapons. Others argue that a lack of weaponry makes conflict more likely, as ‘deterrents’ prevent wars and maintain an uneasy, if accepted international equilibrium. There are of course other less subtle reasons for proponents of weaponry. For a start, weapons make up vast proportions of international states’ trade deals, offering countries like the US huge opportunities to develop internal business and trade. So the number of elements in the melting pot is pretty vast, and the path out of this particular maze looks very confusing. How on earth might be we go about ridding ourselves of the ability to blow each other up?
Weapons of mass destruction
Maybe one of the first steps is a little honesty about what’s taking place. According to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, in May 2010 UK Foreign Secretary William Hague ‘put on record for the first time the upper limit of the UK’s stockpile of nuclear weapons.’
“Publishing this number is a welcome step that can help build trust between states and open the way for disarmament, but Britain’s commitment under the NPT is not to be transparent, but to disarm,” said Kate Hudson, Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
“This figure gives a baseline against which further disarmament can be measured, but it is the reduction and then elimination of the UK and other countries’ nuclear weapons that will deliver real security, not simply counting them.
“The figures reveal that Britain has almost half as many warheads again as the previously published number of ‘operationally available’ - higher than many had estimated. This very large number of ‘spares’ kept by Britain is similar to the supposed size of the entire nuclear arsenals of India or Pakistan.
“The review of the circumstances in which Britain might launch a nuclear strike is also a necessary step. At a very minimum, Britain must be categorical that it will never again threaten a nuclear attack on a state that doesn’t possess nuclear weapons, as happened in the run up to the Iraq war. Regardless of NATO policies, the UK should also rule out ever being the first to use nuclear weapons, however extreme the circumstances.”
These all sound like sensible steps towards a potential end game. Then again, it’s not just down to the UK. There are a scary number of these weapons about. CND says, ‘There are five officially declared nuclear weapon states in the world: the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China,’
‘Three more states, Israel, India and Pakistan, have developed nuclear weapons outside the treaty framework. South Africa admitted that it had nuclear weapons but then scrapped them in 1991. Three states, the Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, formerly part of the Soviet Union, had nuclear weapons at one stage but have now either scrapped them or sent them back to Russia.’
‘North Korea (DPRK) claims to have a nuclear weapons capability. Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy and Turkey, as part of their membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) , have several hundred US nuclear weapons based on their soil.’
So nuclear weapons are basically everywhere. But then again, global will to get rid of them is everywhere too. From 25 to 27 August, 2010, the Twenty-Second United Nations Conference on Disarmament Issues will be held in Saitama, Japan.
Talking the talk
The UN says ‘Approximately 60 participants from Governments, academia and think tanks, international and non-governmental organizations, as well as the media will attend the Conference. The Conference is open to the public as a way to raise awareness of and support for disarmament and non-proliferation.’
Aims are to ‘assess the outcome of the 2010 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and address ways to make progress in achieving nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and promoting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
‘Taking concrete actions towards a nuclear-weapon-free world, as well as enhancing nuclear safety and security is also high on the Conference’s agenda. Regional disarmament and non-proliferation challenges will be addressed, as well.’
International leaders are doing all they can to incentivise change. Speaking at the international conference “For a Nuclear-Free, Peaceful, Just and Sustainable World”, at Riverside Church, New York, on 1 May, 2010, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon explained:
“Just a few weeks ago, I travelled to ground zero, the former test site at Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan, where the Soviet Union detonated more than 450 nuclear explosions. It was strangely beautiful. The great green steppe reached as far as the eye could see.
“But of course, the eye does not immediately see the scope of the devastation. Vast areas where people still cannot go. Poisoned lakes and rivers. High rates of cancer and birth defects.
“After independence in 1991, Kazakhstan closed the site and banished nuclear weapons from its territory. Today, Semipalatinsk is a powerful symbol of hope, it is a new ground zero for disarmament, the birth place of the Central Asian nuclear weapon free zone.
“In August, I will travel to another ground zero, Mayor [Tadatoshi] Akiba’s proud city of Hiroshima. There, I will repeat our call for a nuclear-weapon-free world. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and especially the hibakusha, know too well the horror of nuclear war. It must never be repeated.
“Yet, 65 years later, the world still lives under a nuclear shadow. How long must we wait to rid ourselves of this threat? How long will we keep passing the problem to succeeding generations? We here tonight know that it is time to end this senseless cycle.”
Walking the walk
The Secretary General’s words are poignant, but do they mean anything? Last year, Ki-moon warned that, ‘The recent nuclear and missile tests conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) jeopardize continuing global efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament,’
How is it possible to stop such moves going forward, when even achieving access or meaningful dialogue with such states is nigh on impossible? Do Western States even have a right to impose disarmament on others, having invented and maintained nuclear technologies for some 40 years? Without more real world action to somehow address all of this, all the words in the world are cheap. Maybe this is something where people power could achieve more. Mass strikes against pro nuclear behaviours could be the only way to end this ongoing battle.
What are your views? Not sure? Read the resources below for more information. Add your comment below. We welcome your thoughts and proposals. Not a Planetary Citizen? Sign up to Our Future Planet today!
Read more articles with reference to Sustainable Conflict and Human Behaviour. Sign up to our newsletter for twice monthly news.
Resources
Civil Society, Nuclear Disarmament and the U.S Alliance
Nuclear Disarmament Education and the Experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Progress Towards Nuclear Disarmament?
The Costs of Nuclear Disarmament
