RESOURCES • MILITARISATION, MILITARISM & U.S. BASES

INTERNATIONAL ECUMENICAL PEACE CONVOCATION

---

Reasoning Workshop on “World Without Nuclear Weapons”

2011 MAY 17-25 | KINGSTON, JAMAICA

 

Towards A Nuclear Weapon Free World

By NINAN KOSHY

2011 MAY 23

The IEPC is meeting at a critical time in the life of nations and in the life of the churches. It is important to analyse issues of war and peace and in particular the problems and prospects for nuclear disarmament. This has to be done against the background of the current geopolitical developments. An important element in this is the discourse on war and peace.

The scrutiny of the term ‘just peace’ the theme of the Convocation is particularly important in the context of the prevailing discourse on war and peace. Claiming victory in the war against Iraq in 2003 President Bush declared “We are redefining war on our own terms”. “Our own terms” included new doctrines of war including the objective of wars becoming regime change and occupation. They included the dangerous doctrine of preemption or rather preventive war including preventive nuclear wars. Under these terms “wars are inevitable”. “War is a means to peace and instruments of war are actually instruments of peace”. There is enough evidence that President Obama has followed the redefinition of war and peace given by his predecessor in letter and spirit. Going by the strategic doctrines of the USA, NATO etc., several scenarios in which nuclear weapons may be used can be envisioned.

The Convocation is meeting at a time when a war is raging in Libya, there is a democratic uprising in the Arab world and the world has been rudely shaken by the nuclear disaster in Fukishima, Japan. All these have implications for our discussion on nuclear disarmament.

The Libyan War and Nuclear Issues

The Libyan war raises important questions about US’s nuclear posture as well as nuclear disarmament. A critical issue that has been raised is whether the recent test of B61-11 by this is ‘routine’ or was it envisaged by the Pentagon directly or indirectly in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn implying the possible use of mini-nukes at some future stage in the Libya bombing campaign. In the Nuclear Posture Review of 2002, the Pentagon had mentioned the testing of “usable” nuclear weapons. Low-yield nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing “collateral damage”.

The decision to use low-yield nuclear weapons (e.g. against Libya) no longer needs authorization or even permission from the Commander in Chief, the President. America’s new doctrine says that Command, Control and Coordination (CCC) regarding the use of nuclear weapons should be flexible, allowing geographic combat commanders to decide if and when to use nuclear weapons.

The Libyan War raises another kind of nuclear question too. The North Korean foreign ministry issued a statement on March 29, condemning the Libyan invasion, claiming that the attack is a likely scenario when a country decides to give up its nuclear weapons. (Libya gave up its nuclear program in 2003). American, British and French forces are now attacking Gaddafi’s military. Would NATO be attacking Libya by bombs and missiles if Gaddafi had not dismantled Libya’s nuclear program? Does the current military action against Libya send a signal to “rogue states” like Iran that security gained by de-nuclearisation is anything but? The US has given validity to arguments of North Korea and Iran and thus undermined its own efforts for de-nuclearisartion of these countries.

It is ironic that just under eight years ago, Gaddafi specifically engaged in an action, clearly intended to forestall US military action against his regime. Despite that he is now under attack from US and allies. The impression may gain currency that the US lures or coerces nations into nuclear disarmament and then attack them. It reinforces claims to the validity of deterrence.

The larger issue of Arab uprising also may have some implications for nuclear issues with the intensification of competition between the USA and Iran for influence in the region as well as the growing sense of insecurity for Israel, making the region even more volatile. It is important to watch how Israel and Iran play their nuclear cards and how the US responds to them.

Fukushima Disaster

The Fukushima nuclear disaster could not have come at a more inopportune moment for nuclear power around the world. The world was on the verge of a “nuclear renaissance” with nearly fifty countries opting for generation of nuclear power. Fukushima took us into the realization that calculations with regard to intensity of earthquakes and tsunamis could go dangerously wrong and a combination of the two natural phenomena could bring havoc to reactors and endanger humanity itself.

Many years will pass before we realize the full extent of the damage inflicted by Fukushima but it has shaken the faith in the minds of many about the safety of nuclear power. Whatever may be their other benefits nuclear reactors have begun to be seen as potential killers. Germany instantly announced its decision to phase out nuclear power as a source of energy. Other countries announced thorough review of their nuclear installations to reassure themselves of foolproof security. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) discovered its own weaknesses in ensuring safety and called an international conference in June 2011 to take remedial action.

When nuclear reactors blow the first thing that melts down is truth. Risk is not a question to be decided by experts but by those who are put at risk. Joscha Fisher says “there is a bomb in every reactor”. It is most often civilian nuclear programs that lead to weaponization. Despite the NPT, a clear separation between civilian and military use of nuclear energy has not always worked fully.

As we work towards the vision of a nuclear weapon free world, should we not also give the vision of a nuclear power free world? The tragedy of Fukushima will not be in vain if the accident leads to a look at nuclear power policy around the world to ensure generation of power without undue risk to the humankind.

The Rhetoric and the People

The current popular slogan is “a nuclear weapon free world”. Whose slogan is that any way? From President Obama to the Security Council to the G 8 to peace movements, the catchy phrase is used. The current discourse however is characterized by confusion of thought on its actual goal and its feasibility.

Are the nuclear weapon states (official, extended and unofficial) ready to reconsider seriously the role of nuclear weapons in their strategy? Or is the revival of interest in nuclear disarmament motivated by vested short-term interests aimed at new form of arms control and non-proliferation? Or are we spectators to a new ‘game of disarmament’ to use the famous phrase of Alva Myrdal? The very term nuclear disarmament is interpreted in various ways according to the security perceptions of the state. Most Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) are unable to envision a state with no military weapons and are satisfied with a situation with a reduced number of weapons.

It is here that the voice of the people has to be raised loud and clear. What people mean by nuclear deterrent is a world without nuclear weapons. They should not fall into the trap of the rhetoric of the Establishment but re-claim and re-appropriate the goal of a world without nuclear weapons with its full meaning and total demands. Public opinion has not mobilized to make nuclear disarmament a highly salient cause in any country. Ordinary citizens must overcome their disempowerment and propensity to accept the status quo in order to act for the benefit of all humankind and demand the change they seek, in this case the abolition of nuclear weapons.

There is apathy on the part of most people on nuclear issues. There are a number of reasons. One is the deteriorating moral environment in which people are conditioned to accept use of force. There is a climate of fear most of which is generated deliberately, in which the guarantee of protection is the ultimate weapon. The miniaturization of nukes and the blurring of the distinction between nuclear weapons and conventional weapons tend to the belief that nuclear weapon is just another weapon. The erroneous idea that a nuclear war can be limited is gaining currency.

Some have observed that president Obama’s visionary declaration about a world without nuclear weapons, was followed by a lowering of expectations. “I am not naïve. This goal will not be reached quickly—perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence”, he said. President Obama is a relatively young man who is likely to have a long life. He is to be commended for vision of a nuclear weapon free world but his lack of urgency is disquieting.

A Compelling Urgency

There is a compelling urgency for nuclear disarmament today. There are serious threats and challenges form nuclear weapons:

• The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons continues to pose an existential threat to the world. If used, they would eliminate human life on this planet,
• Many of the weapons are ready to be fired within minutes. These alert levels date from the Cold War. It is a terrifying idea that a President or Prime Minister might have to decide—within minutes—on launching the apocalypse, based only on early warning information,
• Some nuclear powers are still building up their arsenal in quantitative terms and all are upgrading them in qualitative terms.
• A regional nuclear war is a more probable scenario than a global war. But even a regional war will have a catastrophic global effect on the world climate, on food production, on economy etc.

Unless credible steps are taken now, the world would descend into a maze of nuclear dangers:

• a world where the current nuclear states would add more and more qualitatively new weapons in their arsenal while trying to mislead the public with figures about quantity,
• where far more number of states would possess nuclear weapons,
• where the possibility of non-state actors acquiring nuclear materials with or without state complicity would have multiplied.,
• where inter-state relations would be mired in mutual trust and where it would be proved that deterrence is a real threat to peace.

Deterrence, a Threat to Peace

It is time to underline that deterrence is a threat to peace. The myth that it provides security has to be exposed. The foundation of the deterrence doctrine is that the only reason that nuclear weapons have not been used is because of the threat of devastating retaliation in kind.

Deterrence is the biggest conceptual deception devised in all history. It feeds on fear and suspicion and has the effect of eroding trust and confidence. It condemns people to coexist with the means of their own destruction. In fact nuclear deterrence is not even a doctrine of security. It is a doctrine used for maintaining alliance, hegemony and the status quo. Security is invoked only as a camouflage in order to mobilize and maintain popular support for deterrence and for its direct outcome, the nuclear arms race.

When the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton told the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference that the US ‘would keep its nuclear deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist” several delegations rejected the reasoning. The representative of the Non-aligned Movement (NAM) said, “The world should realize that the doctrine of nuclear deterrence brings neither peace nor international security and constitutes an impediment to progress towards elimination of nuclear weapons”.

It is the strategic concept of major powers and security alliances based on deterrence that promote nuclear proliferation. Speaking at the Humboldt University in Berlin on 20th November 2009 the (then) Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency said. ‘This reminds me of a visit I made to the NAT0 headquarters a few months ago, when I was asked to make some comments on the Strategic Concept of the NATO. I can tell you that I was horrified to read the NATO strategic concept. It glorifies nuclear weapons and says that nuclear weapons are essential to preserve peace and prevent any kind of war. It describes nuclear weapons as the supreme guarantee of our security. I told the leaders of NATO that if I read the document, I would go out of t he door and develop nuclear weapons.

Basing the security of one’s country on the threat to kill tens of millions of innocent people and risking the destruction of civilization have no moral justification and deserve the strongest condemnation. At the Vancouver Assembly in 1983, the World Council of Churches stated, “The concept of deterrence, the credibility of which depends on the possible use of nuclear weapons is to be rejected as morally unacceptable and incapable of safeguarding peace and security”.

The NPT Review Conference

The NPT Review conference was held in New York in May 2010. The adoption of a final document by the conference pulled back the treaty from the brink of collapse where it had reached in 2005 and actually failed on three of the key issues: a timeframe for disarmament by Nuclear Weapon States as legally bound by Article VI of the Treaty, steps towards a Nuclear Weapons convention (NWC) and security assurances to Non-Nuclear Weapons States (NNWS). On all these issues the Review Conference failed causing deep disappointment and frustration among a good number of states and all the non-governmental organizations and peace activists who had gathered in New York. In fact they had come with great expectations because the declarations by President Obama, followed by the Security Council Summit’s decisions had produced a new climate and given the impression that concrete steps would be taken for nuclear disarmament.

It has long been the goal of the NNWS to get a time-bound commitment fro m the NWS. But the final document, instead of a commitment within a time-bound framework simply affirmed that the final phase of the nuclear disarmament process should be pursued within an agreed legal framework which majority of state parties believe should include specified timeline. The NWS were making it clear that they did not share the belief of the majority of states.

Most of the important nuclear disarmament-related issues in the final document involved no more than the conference “taking note” of something or other. To this basket of the final document belongs, the proposals for nuclear disarmament of the secretary general of the UN to inter alia consider negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention or agreement on a framework of separate mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a strong system of verification.

This was an unfair treatment of the proposal of the secretary-general which had the backing of the majority of nations and international public opinion. The statements from member states had shown that the proposal for a nuclear weapons convention had wide support.

In case all Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) were to commit under a convention to an undertaking that nuclear weapons shall not be used and that any country using them or threatening to use them shall face sanctions of the gravest nature, it would make nuclear weapons significantly impotent useless. The value of nuclear weapons would fall immediately and further proliferation would stop. Also the unique status, nuclear weapons are deemed to provide, would no longer seem worth aspiring for. Therefore a total ban on the use of nuclear weapons would directly strike at the very root of their utility.

The important question of security assurances to NNWS was claimed to have been “acted upon’ by the conference. All nuclear weapons commit to fully respect their existing commitments with regard to security assurances. Those nuclear weapon states that have not yet done so are encouraged to extend security assurances to non-nuclear weapon states. The difficulty here is that these assurances are dependent on the nuclear doctrines of the NWS or rather interpretations of these doctrines, often have conditions and have no legal validity.

The conclusion of a universal legally binding agreement that pledges the assurance to all NNWS that they would not be subjected to the threat or use of nuclear weapons, would reduce the attractiveness of the weapons for the NNWS. This would also eventually remove the need for extended deterrence for allies since they not fear a nuclear attack from other NWS.

Nuclear Weapons in Volatile Regions

The issue of nuclear disarmament has become more complicated with the emergence of new actors on the nuclear stage. They are all in explosive regions of the world, heavily armed, most often with the presence of foreign troops—read American troops—and with mounting tensions. The nuclear weapons outside the NPT are all in Asia—West Asia, South Asia and Northeast Asia—where wars are fought or nations are ready for wars. This region also has the largest number of aspirants to nuclear weapon status with necessary technical know-how—Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and now Myanmar. They can be prevented from moving to the danger zone only through security assurances and the resolution of the various conflicts in the region.

With regard to the new actors on the nuclear stage, the US policy seems to be that “those who are with us” (Israel, India and Pakistan) can have nuclear weapons but ‘those who are against us” (North Korea and Iran) cannot have them. Identifying Iran and North Korea as ‘outliers’ and targeting them with nuclear weapons in the Nuclear Posture Review, the USA has increased the security fears of these countries and probably strengthened the hands of the nuclear hawks in them.

There are three critically volatile nuclear regions which deserve serious attention: they are North-East Asia, West Asia and South Asia.

The Korean peninsula continues to be a nuclear flashpoint. While the focus is on North Korea’s recently started nuclear program, the long history of nuclearisation of the region by the USA is often forgotten. The efforts of North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons have to be seen against the background of the continuous threat the US posed to that state from early 50s and the US refusal to respond adequately to North Korea’s energy crisis and its aspiration for integration into the global market.

The region includes three old nuclear weapon states (US, Russia and China) the new nuclear weapon state of North Korea and a group of non-nuclear weapon states with great potential to go nuclear. In the complex and uncertain context of Northeast Asia, two sets of major nuclear issues may arise that will contribute to the shaping of the security architecture in Northeast Asia. One is the evolution of nuclear relations among the three major nuclear weapon states. The other is the possibility of further proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region.

It needs to be pointed out that the new Nuclear Posture of the USA which makes just about every non-nuclear weapon state immune from US nuclear attack, carves out an exception for Iran and North Korea.

The nuclear weaponization of India and Pakistan in 1988 has created one of the most dangerous nuclear zones in the world. At a distance of seconds by missiles, the two countries which have a history of several wars in six decades is now engaged in a nuclear and missile race. Both have aggressive nuclear doctrines. Both remain outside the NPT. China has been a nuclear power for long. While tensions between India and Pakistan show no sign of abating, there are new tensions between India and China. The triangular relations among the three neighbouring nuclear states make the situation particularly grave and disturbing.

Discussions on and international reactions to the nuclear issue in West Asia/ Middle East are largely, if not solely, focused on Iran. This is in spite of the fact that Israel has been for long an undeclared nuclear weapon state, though this has been publicly acknowledged only recently by the United States. While those who advocate nuclear disarmament will have to oppose any new state acquiring nuclear weapons, the fact remains that unless the international community faces the issue of Israel’s nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation in the region cannot be prevented. If the United States upholds that Israel’s national security is linked to possession of nuclear weapons, it is only natural that other countries like Iran will also think along those lines. Again, Iran is listed as a nuclear target by the USA. The NPT Review Conference has called for the convening of a conference in 2012 “on the establishment of a Middle East Nuclear Weapon Free Zone”. This is already being undermined by the USA.

Conclusion

Nuclear weapons are immoral and illegal. They are fundamentally immoral because they cause massive and indiscriminate destruction in terms of human lives, material resources and consequences for the environment and all this in a timeframe in which the humans have no control. Nuclear weapons are illegal by their very nature. They are indiscriminate in their effect and they cause massive and indiscriminate destruction in terms of human lives, material resources and environment. Nuclear weapons are not just weapons of mass destruction. They are weapons of extermination.

People at large and most non-nuclear weapon states have become suspicious of the rhetoric of nuclear weapon free world. They are tired of promises. What they want to see is real progress. And such progress is credible only if states enter into legally binding agreements. We need to outlaw nuclear weapons and we need to outlaw them for all states. This is the only sustainable way to eliminate the nuclear threat.

The three key demands that we have to make are those mentioned under the NPT Review Conference:

• The implementation by NWS of Article VI of the NPT (disarmament) within a time-bound framework.
• Negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention.
• The conclusion of a legally binding agreement that pledges security assurances to all NNWS.

The three key regions which deserve urgent attention are North East Asia, South Asia and West Asia. In all these there are new political developments which make them even more volatile.

There should be rethinking about the use of nuclear energy in view of the destructive potential of nuclear reactors.

For a body like the WCC it is important not only to reiterate its basic positions on nuclear weapons but formulate with clarity a renewed stance, taking into account the present geopolitical situation, new doctrines of war including nuclear war, the increasing possibility of the actual use of nuclear weapons and the profound ethical and theological issues raised by all these.