News

Nuclear Arms Ban Is Hot Again

Interest grows among world leaders, 'Global Zero' campaign builds steam.

By Sean Casey, 30 Jan 2009, TheTyee.ca

Mushroom Cloud

'One detonation will wipe all else from global agenda.'

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

The movement to abolish nuclear weapons, after dropping low on the political radar, shows signs of resurging in the Obama era.

In December, 100 world dignitaries gathered in Paris to unveil the Global Zero campaign -- an effort to eliminate nuclear arms spearheaded by international political, military, and business leaders.

Principal signatories include Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev and Robert McNamara.

Global Zero seeks to develop an international agreement to disarm and dismantle nuclear arms through phased and verified reductions. The plan's first phase will call for heavy reductions to U.S. and Russian arsenals, which comprise 96 per cent of the world's nuclear weapons.

Dr. Jennifer Simons -- a Global Zero principle signatory and winner of the Vancouver Citizens' Peace award -- said there's "been a massive change of mind expressed globally" about nuclear proliferation, and that the winds of change now favour disarmament.

Treaties stalled by Bush

After the Cold War, there was a brief flurry of advancement towards disarmament.

In 1994, the U.S. and Russia agreed to de-target their strategic missiles. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was extended indefinitely the following year, and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was signed in 1996.

But the past decade has not been kind to abolition ambitions.

Nuclear disarmament stalled in key areas. The U.S. did not ratify the CTBT, and the Bush administration withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 to pursue missile defence systems.

In other political and military arenas, abolition took a step backwards. India and Pakistan emerged on the world stage as nuclear powers in 1998. North Korea tested its own nuclear weapon in 2006, and Iran has been accused of pursuing technology to enrich weapon-grade uranium.

Nuclear disarmament renaissance

Despite the setbacks, new calls for disarmament have emerged from high-level policy analysts in recent years.

In January 2007, Henry Kissinger and George Schulz reignited the disarmament debate with an essay published in the Washington Post. They warned that the U.S. "will enter a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, psychologically disorienting, and economically even more costly than was Cold War deterrence" unless the world freed itself from reliance on nuclear weapons and deterrence.

Kissinger and Schulz's warnings have not gone unheeded.

Dr. Wade Huntley, director of the Simons Centre for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Research at UBC's Liu Institute for Global Issues, told a Vancouver conference last week that recommitment to a world free of nuclear weapons "has been increasingly adopted and embraced by foreign policy and strategic thinkers across the political spectrum in the United States."

On the White House's recently updated website, the Obama administration has promised to "move toward a nuclear free world" by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, stopping the development of new nuclear weapons and by taking ballistic missiles off of hair-trigger alert.

"U.S. policy, which has long been an anchor in moving closer to a world free of nuclear weapons, could now become an engine," Huntley said. U.S. diplomatic leadership could pave the way toward "a global nuclear weapons agreement that, much like the land mines ban, would set the goal of elimination and map the path by which that goal can be realized," Huntley said.

Canadian enthusiasm waned

Nuclear Facts and Threats

  • 27,000 nuclear weapons world-wide.
  • 9 nuclear armed states: US, Russia, France, UK, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, N. Korea.
  • US and Russian ballistic missiles on "hair-trigger" alert.

  • New nuclear warheads designed under Bush administration contrary to non-proliferation treaties.

  • Pakistan's struggling gov't has 100 nuclear warheads in its arsenal.

  • International doubts remain on Iran's uranium enrichment program.

A poll conducted last year found 88 per cent of Canadians believe nuclear weapons make the world a more dangerous place.

But Huntley said the Canadian government's enthusiasm towards nuclear non-proliferation has waned.

"Everybody supports disarmament," Huntley said. "But what's really changed is that the nuclear issue doesn't have the prominence and priority in the public agenda the way it used to. The questions of energy development, of climate change, of human rights and human security have taken priority."

If nuclear apocalypse is no longer feared, why should disarmament continue to be a Canadian concern?

"To me, it's the suit in the deck that trumps all of the other suits," Huntley said. "One nuclear detonation in one major city in the world will wipe off everything else from the global agenda. You won't make further progress on climate change, you won't make further progress on human rights.

"If you think 9-11 dominated American policy, imagine if a nuclear bomb blew up in an American city. The reason I think we have to continue work on this issue is not only because of its intrinsic importance, but because solving that problem is prerequisite to release the world's energies and attentions to deal with all of its other problems as well."

Towards Global Zero

With a favourable political climate, could the world see the end of nuclear threats within our time? Global Zero thinks so. The campaign's initial roadmap called for nuclear disarmament by 2035.

But Simons said the goal could be achieved even sooner.

At the Paris conference, Simons received heavy applause when she called for the roadmap to be accelerated. "I think most people felt 2035 was too far away. I asked them to accelerate the pace because my goal is to have nuclear weapons eliminated within my lifetime." The roadmap timeline is now under revision.

Global Zero will host a world summit on nuclear disarmament in January 2010.

Related stories:

[Tyee]

Sean Casey is a reporter for The Tyee.

21 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Fish-counter

    3 years ago

    Global Zero? forget it.

    Israel would never, ever destroy a single weapon. They have 100-200. End of story.

  • mbyers

    3 years ago

    Canada: Proliferating for Profit

    The Canadian government's enthusiasm for non-proliferation hasn't waned. It's completely disappeared as, to our very great shame, we've joined the United States in proliferating for profit. See: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/
    Economy/Foreign_Trade/Countries_line_up_for_nuclear_business_with_India/articleshow
    /3997267.cms

    Michael Byers

  • G West

    3 years ago

    There are some indications

    There are some indications - as recenly as today - that there may be a thaw in relations between Russia and the US/Obama administration.

    Obviously Pee Wee will be suspicious and until we find out who's wearing the pants and who is wearing the skirt in the new coalition with Ignatieff nothing much will happen here in Canada.

    The fact not a single Republican voted with the Democrats on the Stimulus Bill in the House has to bode well for something.

    Maybe, just maybe - if Mitchell can work a deal in the Middle East - the idea of garbaging the nukes may not be all that far fetched.

  • Luke Skywalker

    3 years ago

    Vancouver - A Nuclear Weapons Free Zone...

    After travelling throughout Metro Vancouver, I'm always finally at ease (regarding the subject matter) when I cross the Oak Street Bridge and enter the City of Vancouver limits.

    Why??? The entrance signage should be self-explanatory:

    Quote:
    Welcome to Vancouver - A Nuclear Weapons Free Zone

  • Cynic

    3 years ago

    "In January 2007, Henry

    "In January 2007, Henry Kissinger and George Schulz reignited the disarmament debate with an essay published in the Washington Post."

    That's rich. Elite deathmongers arguing for nuclear disarmament. Considering the proven ultra-violent nature of US "foreign policy", can you imagine nations like Russia or China ever giving up their nuclear deterrent? Nyet.

    Here's a prescription for nuclear disarmament. The US closes all its military bases around the world, all the soldiers go home, the "defence" budget is radically slashed in favour of ending poverty, and negotiations begin to end all agression.

    In my dreams.

  • ME2

    3 years ago

    Nukes not so bad

    The major powers will never give up nukes, since they would be the first to use them. We can take the recent threatening of N Korea and Iran with nuclear strikes and the widespread support of the American people for doing so as proof of that.

    And so I am in favour of nuclear proliferation, since as in the case of Iran, for instance, that would nullify the weapons advantage the majors use to bully it and the rest of us. My perhaps too cynical view is that the majors are more concerned about losing their trump card than any other consideration. If MAD works for them, why not for the rest of us too?

    Perhaps then we might see more sincere diplomacy, and more attention to squashing the irrational despots who would pose a risk not to just their own people, but to the rest of us too. Surely that would be a great improvement over the present case, where we actively support them in order to profit favoured corportions?

    And once the proliferation boogeyman is laid to rest, maybe then the world can start building breeder reactors, the safest, cheapest and by far the least producer of radioactive waste of all the reactors.

    IMO, this present situation is yet another instance of where the Left has allowed ideology to overcome reason.

  • G West

    3 years ago

    ME2

    I think you are too cynical.

    The United States has just managed to squash a cynical despot.

    The economic situation will bring a few more of them low.

    I think there is reason for some hope.

  • Van Isle

    3 years ago

    So, the question has to be

    So, the question has to be asked; If "rogue" states like Iran and North Korea are to give up their nuclear arms, when will the rest of the nuclear arms family be giving up theirs?

  • Van Isle

    3 years ago

    Certain Generals in the

    Certain Generals in the Pentagon believe there is a place for mini-nukes in conventional warefare; Strategic targeting. That's why they had to have missile defence mechanism put into place so who ever the enemy is couldn't retaliate. No wonder the Russians are nervous (and so should the rest of us). The Question then has to be asked; If a nation is willing to use mini-nukes for strategic targeting, would they be willing to use mini-biological or mini-nerve gas missiles?

  • Van Isle

    3 years ago

    If a "rogue" state wanted to

    If a "rogue" state wanted to really screw up the world all they have to do is blow up a nuclear weapon in the upper atmosphere which would render all our computers useless. There would be airplanes falling out of the sky, cars would stop in the middle of the road, electrical grids would simply just shut down. Ordinary people in 3rd world countries wouldn't be that bad off because they don't depend on electronics as much as we do. With a blink of an eye humans would be back 100 years.

  • alive

    3 years ago

    Boys will be boys!

    Everyone agreed that poison gas was not to be used ever again, still it is stored in several countries "just in case"!

    The simple fact is that you cannot trust any country or leader!
    It becomes a matter of trying to keep insane war-mongers out of power --------- well, at least Bush is gone now!

  • Yammer

    3 years ago

    Is a nuke a nuke?

    I am no hopologist, but it seems to me that it is possible to have (relatively!) small tactical nukes, useable on a battlefield, that are in line with conventional, acceptable bombs.

    That aside, yeah, what IS the point of having enough of those big, strategic nuclear devices lying around that can blow the biosphere clean off this rock many times over? When time and chance guarantee that, eventually, the failsafes will fail? It seems unjustifiable.

    I understand MAD theory. However, it seems obvious that the nuke-having countries can gradually, in a balanced and proportionate way, phase their inventories down, not out. Then you keep deterrence, but not the risk of our elimination as a species.

  • Cynic

    3 years ago

    Maybe the answer is for each

    Maybe the answer is for each one of us to have our own mininuke. What fun! Talk about deterrence. We could replace MAD with INSANE:
    Individual Nuclear Safety to Assure a Neighbourly Environment, or similar. I think I need help with this one.

  • ME2

    3 years ago

    INSANE? Very clever, Cynic

    ....and appropriate too.

    Esp for a world in which MAD and ethical treatment of one's neighbours is considered as applicable only for the large nations which abuse their power at will, and which see their own self-interest as the only realistic definition of "ethics".

    You are not alone in needing help on that one.

    PS. Perhaps you might point out that need to people such as the CEO who gave $20 million of his publicly-donated "bail-out" money as bonuses to his staff, along with lavishing $1 million on redecorating his office.

    And so I ask you.."Does it worry you that we consistently elect people who claim business acumen as their primary and only necessary qualification for office?"

    I think we need some help on that one too.

  • Fiat lux

    3 years ago

    Meanwhile the 50 year old

    Meanwhile the 50 year old B52s are over or heads every day, here in Central BC, flying either N-S or E-W.

    I wonder what they're carrying and why are they permitted to carry their bombs all over Canada ?

    Ed Deak. Big Lake.

  • IranianDude

    3 years ago

    Two points regarding Iran

    1) Iran doesn't have nuclear weapon and is not pursuing to acquire one. Accusation doesn't make it factual;

    2) Iran has never threatened any country and certainly has never actually attacked any country in the past 100 years.

    Now let's look at a real rogue state. Yes Israel as well know.

    Israel having in excess of 100 nuclear weapons should be on the top of the list of disarmament process. A rogue genocidal state that consider itself beyond international law, kills Palestinians and Lebanese with impunity and defies United Nations resolutions on a daily basis.

    Please remember the state of Israel has violated MORE INTERNATIONAL LAW THAN ALL UN MEMBERS COMBINED!

    Let me repeat that again.... ISRAEL HAS VIOLATED MORE INTERNATIONAL LAWS THAN ALL UNITED NATION MEMBERS COMBINED.

    That's the definition of rogue ladies and gentlemen.

  • Frank

    3 years ago

    Actually

    I agree with ME2's point about MAD. The Non-Proliferation Treaty is a joke.

    Why do we allow America to use the Treaty as a casus belli against other countries while ignoring the fact that under the terms of the Treaty its supposed to be getting rid of its own weapons?

    States with nukes don't get invaded is the real truth. If Iraq had nukes, America wouldn't have invaded. If Tibet had had nukes 50 years ago it would still be an independent country. Pakistan has nukes so it can thumb its nose at everyone else regardless of its human rights record.

    The only country Canada has to fear is the one next to us and given their record I don't see why we shouldn't join the nuclear club ourselves.

  • Fiat lux

    3 years ago

    The US is already occupying

    The US is already occupying and colonizing Canada through the NAFTA, political parties under their control, all university economics departments and the military brass drooling to wear US uniforms.

    They have the best enslaving racket going,
    so, what could we do with nukes, when they can do it with the perceived power of "trade" and imaginary, worthless dollars "created" by some bank ?

    Ed Deak.

  • ME2

    3 years ago

    Ed Deak

    Some people think this Depression will keep getting deeper for a minimum of two years more at the very least.

    Others point to popular unrest in other countries like France and Russia, and think that is just the beginning of civilian revolt.

    Clearly today's ruling elites, just like the aristocracies of old, believe it is their natural right to govern, and to be "rewarded" for doing so with grossly disproportionate wealth. "Trickle-down" rules.

    To date, I haven't seen any indication that Obama, despite his populist sentiments, understands that the economic system requires RADICAL overhauling, or that the bankers would allow him to do so.

    Since the wealthy now wield more power than government {and profess that this is the natural order} no real change is possible until wealth redistribution takes place.

    Thirty-five years ago, the Club of Rome predicted {Limits to Growth} that the economic system would undergo a series of troughs and peaks, with the period in between getting ever shorter with the highs decreasing and the troughs ever deepening until a point of no recovery was reached.

    Looks to me like we're there, or very, very close to it.

  • jhudgina

    3 years ago

    to G West

    What's that about a skirt?

  • G West

    3 years ago

    Wellll

    Right now Ingatieff seems to be leading the schottische don't you think?

    So I guess that would put Pee Wee in the skirt.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.