[image: Hiroshima Anniversary Day: Developing a Nuclear-weapon Abolition
Strategy] Hiroshima Anniversary Day: Developing a Nuclear-weapon Abolition
Strategy
by Rene Wadlow
2019-08-06 08:39:35
*"Just prior to the May 2010 Review Conference on the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT), Ban Ki-moon, then Secretary-General of the UN said, “Everyone
recognizes the catastrophic danger of nuclear weapons. Just as clearly, we
know the threat will last as long as these weapons exist. The Earth’s very
future leaves us no alternative but to pursue disarmament. And there is
little prospect of that without global cooperation…Momentum is building
around the world. Governments and civil society groups, often at odds,
have begun working in the common cause. All this work reflects the
priorities of our member states, shaped in turn by public opinion. Those
who stand with us share the vision of a nuclear-free world. If ever there
were a time for the world’s people to demand change, to demand action
beyond the cautious half measures of the past, it is now.”*
*Thus governments and civil society groups, often at odds on other
questions, might be able to set out a strategy for progress toward a
nuclear-weapon-free world. There has always been an ebb and flow of
popular interest in eliminating nuclear weapons from the world, and
currently, there seems to be a rising tide of activity. Men who did little
to curb nuclear weapons when they were in power are now saying that
something should be done: ‘The only sure way to prevent nuclear
proliferation, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war is to rid the world of
nuclear weapons.’ Since peace-making depends on coalition building, we
cannot belittle these new-found friends.*
[image: hiros01_400]There have always been at least two major aspects of
nuclear issues — the one is to prevent the proliferation to new states, the
other is to reduce the number of warheads among the existing nuclear-weapon
states.
A strategy which has influenced popular action on nuclear weapons has been
whether to place an emphasis on the goal of total abolition or on partial
steps such as the ratification of the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty. Those working for partial measures have always said that abolition
was the ultimate aim, but in practice, the partial measures always became
the focus of action. I recall that when I was in college, I used to walk
to relax and would meet from time to time Albert Einstein walking from his
office to his nearby home. I would say ‘Good Evening, Prof Einstein, and he
would reply ‘Good Evening, Young Man’. Although I had no idea then or now
what his theories were about, I knew that they had something to do with
atoms, and he had come out early for nuclear control. ‘One World or None’
was the slogan of the late 1940s. Einstein’s final appeal shortly before
his death was the Russell-Einstein Manifesto (1955) with its call to
think *“not
as members of this or that nation, continent or creed, but as human beings”*
When I used to see Einstein, I was already active on the partial measures
of the time — an end to testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. I had
followed the lead of Senator Estes Kefauver who was the first US political
leader to attack actively nuclear testing. As Kefauver had taken on the
link between politics and organized crime, he could take on also the US
Atomic Energy Commission which was deaf to all calls to prevent nuclear
fallout from entering the food chain. It took till 1963 to get the tests
to move below ground, but the mid-1950s nuclear testing campaign was the
entry point of my generation into nuclear issues.
I tend still to stress limited steps within the framework of regional
settlements of disputes. There seems to me to be three opportunities to
press ahead:
1. The first and easiest because it involves only two states without major
conflict issues is a reduction in the number of nuclear warheads of the USA
and Russia — the number of 1000 each seems to be on the table. It is still
too many and strategic thinking in the two countries is not very clear what
they are for, but this is a case where ‘fewer is better’, so let us push
for this sharp reduction while we try to see what role the USA and Russia
can usefully play in the world society, as well as reducing tensions
between them.
2. The second opportunity is for a nuclear-weapon free zone in the Middle
East. The elimination of Israeli nuclear weapons and no nuclear-weapon
development in Iran would help reduce Middle East tensions. Mohammed El
Baradei, former director of the IAEA has been calling for this Middle East
nuclear weapon free zone for some time. However, there will have to be
strong popular pressure for such a zone as neither the Israeli nor the
Iranian government seems to be moving fast in the direction.
[image: wc00]3. The third opportunity for non-governmental suggestions is
to participate in the preparations for the 2020 Review of the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Review conferences held every
five years have been the most NGO-friendly of the arms control
negotiations. I had chaired the NGOs attending the 1975 and 1980 reviews
and with the help of Ambassador Garcia Robbles of Mexico, the NGOs had the
ability to distribute proposals and to interact fully, though not to
address the conference. Our proposals were widely discussed and even
presented by one government as its own. At the 1980 review when no
government text could be agreed upon, the NGO draft, largely written by
Homer Jack, an active world citizen, was seriously discussed at a midnight
meeting of the Conference Bureau, but wording was not the real
issue. After the 1985 Review, which nearly went down in flames thanks to
charges and outer-charges between Iraq and Iran, at that time in war, I
gave up, having repeated too often the Preamble and Article VI. which hold
out the promise of a disarmed world under effective international control
and stresses that *“in accordance with the Charter, States must refrain in
their international relations from the threat or use of force.”*
* *****************************
*Rene Wadlow*, President, Association of World Citizens
