Nuclear disarmament in crisis - a possible way out.

Dominique Lalanne,

Directeur de Recherche, CNRS, France

& Peter Nicholls, Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Essex, UK

After the failure of the last NPT Review Conference, in May 2005, it is clearer than ever that, if nothing more happens, no nuclear disarmament process is possible in the foreseeable future. This is for mainly two reasons:

1-     the rule of unanimity in bodies where these issues are under discussion (e.g. the NPT Review Conference and the Conference on Disarmament); and,

2-      the hypocritical unwillingness of the recognised Nuclear States to reach the goal in NPT Article VI of the “total elimination of nuclear weapons”.

The deadlock is largely created by the US, the only military hyperpower, whose position could really not be changed without huge international pressure. But nuclear disarmament is similar to many other fields where the US does not comply with all its international obligations. So the question can be posed in a different manner: what are the possible ways to increase pressure on the US ?

1- New frameworks and real breakthroughs.

In recent years, a new approach has been found to be successful for the entry into force of new international laws. Three typical examples are: the Kyoto process, the ICC, and the Ottawa Treaty. The reasons for success are:

1-     the body involved gathers together only willing States, so that the world unanimity rule is not required for making a decision;

2-     all States are not required to participate in this new body, but only a minimum number corresponding to an effective “majority”; and,

3-     the new statements issued by the agreeing participants are seen by the international community as creating a new international law.

In all these processes, the role of NGOs working closely with the States and providing inputs and links with the public opinion has to be noted.

In the framework of the Abolition 2000 Network, many European NGOs are increasingly convinced of the possibility of a similar process for nuclear disarmament.

2- Which states could be the willing ones for a successful process?

In the past, many States with nuclear programmes or ‘legacy’ programmes have renounced nuclear weapons (Argentina, Brazil, Libya, South Africa, the Ukraine, etc.) in accordance with the ideal of the NPT Treaty (no nuclear weapons for non-nuclear weapons states (NNWS) on the one side, and elimination of nuclear weapons by the nuclear weapons states (NWS) on the other side). But this has been without any disarmament consequences for the NWS. Most other States with a capability for making nuclear weapons have also decided against military programmes, with few exceptions. But in this case also no decision to pursue nuclear disarmament has been taken in return by the NWS. So it is now simple to draw the conclusion that no such State intends individually to make the goal of nuclear disarmament a real one.

The situation might be different were a group of states to be involved. Such a group must of course include some recognised NWS, and preferably a “majority” of such states. As they participated in the Kyoto process, the three relevant candidate states can only be France, the UK and Russia. But more States would need to take part because of the EU membership of two of these nuclear three and the assigned NATO nuclear weaponry in other EU States. EU involvement would give more weight to such a Kyoto-like process and hence greater likelihood that it could reach the level of a real new international law.

3- Practical steps.

A beginning must be clearly seen to represent the decision of the international community. The simplest way could be to establish a negotiating forum within the First Committee of the UN  General Assembly to enable willing nations, not bound by the consensus procedure, to begin negotiations on a treaty to control and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons. Participation in such negotiations should be open to both NPT-compliant and non-compliant nations. Practical steps have been listed in the outcome statement of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, especially the so-called “thirteen steps”, and more can be added. A start could be made within Europe to negotiate the elimination of tactical nuclear weapons, including French air launched weapons, Russian tactical weapons and NATO tactical weapons. The great significance of such a framework would be to give to each disarmament step a potential value as part of an international process, which is not the case at present, any related action being seen merely as a good will gesture by the State concerned.

4- Multilateralism or unilateralism?

The world faces a challenge with respect to the establishment of global policy. Does unilateralism prevail, meaning compliance of each and all with US policies? Or can there be effective multilateralism, as proposed within and by the EU in recent crises? It may be unclear to some States, including France and the UK, as to whether they can assume a leadership role in a nuclear disarmament process. And these states too may harbour hypocrisy on the subject, nuclear disarmament not being their goal. For the French government, for example, nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapon to guarantee “vital interests”; if such nuclear deterrence is needed any talk of elimination is nonsense. For the UK government, changing national nuclear weapons policy would demand a difficult change in the Atlantic “special relationship”. So even were most of the EU States ready to push for nuclear disarmament, France and the UK would probably work to preserve the status quo, with only the matter of counter-proliferation allowed on the table. But the way out we describe still exists as a possible start, even with unchanged current US policy, and even with the known French and British government positions. What is missing is the political will of the EU as a whole and some of its member States, including even some of those with NNWS status. NGOs need to work together to create that presently missing political will.

5-Actors for a change in Europe

We have noted the deliberations of the European Parliament, both in February 2004 and in March 2005, supporting the proposal of the Mayor of Hiroshima Tadatoshi Akiba for a total elimination of nuclear weapons by 2020. After the failure of the NPT Review Conference in May 2005 and the lack of momentum of the Millenium + 5 Conference at the UN in September 2005, Mayors for Peace have now suggested a new body with "willing States" to build a real programme towards nuclear disarmament. Mayors are a key group of actors for changing public opinion and individual MPs are also well placed to influence each country’s policy. Important steps have begun in Belgium at the Senate and the Chamber levels with deliberations on disarmament and requests for the removal of NATO weapons from Belgium. But this is still far from representing firm political will for a genuine Kyoto-type process. In the past substantial lobbying has been carried out by many segments of society but without real success. This is because bodies at the State level, legally capable of making such a decision, are in fact unwilling or even practically unable to do so, because the “military-industrial complex” carries the decisive weight for continuing nuclear weapons and related developments. The only alternative is at the democratic level just below that of national government, comprising individual MPs, mayors and other local representatives. This is the new and politically interesting approach, for which we thank Tadatoshi Akiba who has shown us the way.

Originally contributed to:

XIth International Castiglionecello Conference 2005 USPID – Unione Scienziati Per Il Disarmo “The Non Proliferation Treaty : 60 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki” - September 23rd –25th, 2005 - Pasquini Castle, Castiglionecello (Livorno, Italy)