Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
New Promise of a Nuclear-Free World
BERLIN - Leading supporters of disarmament see new hope arising from the announcement by the U.S. and Russian presidents that they are willing to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with a new one.
Anatoly Antonov, chief of security and disarmament issues at the Russian Foreign Ministry, right, and Rose Gottemoeller, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for verification and compliance answer reporters' questions at the U.S. Embassy in Rome, Friday, April 24, 2009. U.S. and Russian negotiators emerged optimistic on Friday from talks aimed at creating a new treaty to reduce their nuclear weapon stockpiles. The goal is to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, before it expires in December.
(AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino) Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama made that announcement in London Apr. 1 on the eve of the G20 summit.
"We committed our two countries to achieving a nuclear free world," the leaders said jointly. Russia and the United States possess about 95 percent of nuclear weapons.
The who's who of the disarmament world agreed to take that impetus forward at a conference held in Rome Apr. 16-17. The Conference on Overcoming Nuclear Dangers was attended by 70 former and current government officials and experts from about 20 countries.
The announcement by Obama and Medvedev "will give new impetus to disarmament and arms control, and certainly strengthen our common effort for a successful outcome of the 2010 NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) Review Conference," said Foreign Minister Franco Frattini of Italy, which co- sponsored the conference. "Other nuclear powers should follow the lead of the U.S. and Russia."
Full compliance with disarmament and non-proliferation treaties, "first and foremost the NPT, is an essential condition of real progress towards the achievement of our stated goals," he said.
But the road is littered with multiple obstacles, warned Mikhail Gorbachev, who was president of what was the Soviet Union between 1985 and 1991. He had signed START with then U.S. president Ronald Reagan.
Gorbachev, who presides over the World Political Forum (WPF), urged the U.S. and Russia to work towards removing the hurdles. "Unless we address the need to demilitarise international relations, reduce military budgets, put an end to the creation of new kinds of weapons and prevent weaponisation of outer space, all talk about a nuclear weapon free world will be just inconsequential rhetoric," he said.
The WPF, an international NGO founded in Piedmont (Italy) by Gorbachev, organised the conference along with the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI). "We serve as a meeting point for cultures, religions, political leaders and civil society - an open forum where analysis of the issue of interdependence provides a framework for the building of a new world political architecture," WPF's director of external relations Roberto Savio told IPS. The U.S.-based NTI is co-chaired by Ted Turner of CNN and former senator Sam Nunn. It seeks to strengthen global security by reducing the risk of use and preventing the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
The conference threw up the idea of "base camps" leading up to a nuclear- free mountaintop. Such base camps, that would serve as platforms to design the best way up towards a world free of nukes, and supportive measures in other areas of arms control and security cooperation, can help usher in a world free of nuclear weapons, according to a joint statement by Gorbachev, George P. Schultz, the U.S. secretary of state 1982-1989 under Reagan, and Frattini.
The conference statement says there is growing recognition - both inside and outside of governments - of the need to embrace the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and the urgent steps necessary to overcome nuclear dangers.
"The current shift towards nuclear abolition in the international political arena, where such a vision has so far been seen as unrealistic, provides a vital opportunity," Hirotsugu Terasaki, executive director of peace affairs at the Tokyo-based Buddhist association Soka Gakkai International (SGI) told IPS.
SGI launched a 'People's Decade' in September 2007 along with international anti-nuclear movements such as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a campaign initiated by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), a federation of medical professionals in 60 countries that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 1985.
"The aim of the People's Decade is to increase the number of people who reject nuclear weapons. Ordinary citizens and civil society must be the protagonists, creating a groundswell of demand for nuclear abolition that will influence decision makers," Terasaki said.
SGI was one of three civil society organisations that took part in the Rome conference; the other two being the Italian Peace Roundtable - a network that unites more than 1,500 civil society organisations and local authorities, and the Global Security Institute (GSI), a U.S.-based group that aims to strengthen international cooperation and security based on the rule of law, with a particular focus on nuclear arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament.
"We have a situation where chemical weapons and biological weapons are condemned universally but nuclear weapons, which are even more horrific than biological or chemical, are allegedly acceptable in the hands of nine countries (Britain, France, Russia, China, Canada and the United States as well as India, Pakistan and North Korea). This is incoherent and unsustainable," GSI president Jonathan Granoff told IPS.
"The only solution is to either allow all countries to use these terrific devices - clearly unacceptable - or to universally ban them," he said.
"They are not over-ambitious in saying that we are going to achieve this in five years time or so because they know they have to create a climate of opinion and then the principal players - U.S. and Russia - have to be persuaded to act and then gradually we go towards the summit which is ridding the world of nuclear weapons," India's former foreign secretary and disarmament expert Lalit Mansingh told IPS.
- Posted in
26 Comments so far
Show AllIs there a soul who is reading this article who believes the US will give up its nuclear weapons?...without divine or extraterrestrial intervention? ...Anyone?...Huh?...
The key to achieving this will be to diminish the political power of the military industrial media complex. Arms trade is 100% driven by potential profits, not need.
I have never seen a revolutionary situation like the world is in now where the planet and the people are on the edge of world wide war and system failures.
If USA and Russia are talking about this, it is a good sign and the coming inflation and other growing catastrophes may make the outlawing of preemptive Wars, pushing false Intel, and war profiteering an economic necessity for National Security.
Economics is the main trump card for the Nuclear Question in the End. Time is on our side because time seems to be running out.
It is not just the Left that sees the world is in deep trouble from the past policies and war economies.
So either banning all nukes or living with the fact that more nations will get them and using that as a deterrent like Mutually Assured Destruction has saved us so far... but banning nukes will become possible only after we have a more peaceful world in my own view.
Pushing peace, truth and justice is the Way forward.
Agreed. Even harder to believe is Israel giving up theirs.
"Is there a soul who is reading this article who believes the US will give up its nuclear weapons?...without divine or extraterrestrial intervention? ...Anyone?...Huh?..."
I do angryoldman,
It's really in their best interests to do so. The day those old rusty nukes are finally eliminated and destroyed per the terms of the New SALT III Treaty will be the same day they break the treaty and approve replacements and..... a new arms race will be born! JUST THINK OF THE AEROSPACE PROFITS!
Just like in the Fortune 500 world: Merger; spinoff; Merger: spinoff....
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
CQ from Maine
From one angry old man to another, I agree, but you have to start if you want to finish. We could nuke everyone who won't give up their nukes and then disarm ourselves. But perhaps you detect a flaw in my logic. I don't care for the mountain climbing metaphors but there certainly is no easy breezy solution to the problem of nuclear weapons--only the total banning of war--and I don't know who you do that given the vested interests in defense and given people's general irritability with other people unlike their good selves. And stupidity and greed and belief in spirits singing "and with God on our side."
Dylan's cutting words reverberate to this day...even louder....
Joke.
they forgot israeli nukes
"Oh, promises, their kind of promises
can just destroy a life,
Oh, promises, those kind of promises
take all the joy from life..."
"Promises Promises" by Burt Bacharach
""The only solution is to either allow all countries to use these terrific devices - clearly unacceptable - or to universally ban them," he said."
The only solution is to ban conservative politicians.
There will be more nuclear weapons in the future, not less. Any other view I'm afraid is simply naive unless a super race swoops down and imposes a non nuclear world.
Considering the increasing tensions between Russia and the USA, over Bush provoking Georgia to invade South Ossetia, over the desire of the US military to place anti missile missiles conveniently close to Russia's border it may be a good thing they are talking.
As long as the major powers insist that they can retain their own arsenals while ordering other nations to give up theirs or refrain from building them in the first place we are not going to see much progress toward disarmament.
Yeah, but the thing is the U.s. has placed themselves in the unprotected position of having attacked a country for no valid reason other than profit. That is going to reverberate all through the activities of the U.s. and it is inevitable that their business declines in concert with their stature. Especially so in times of recession when the inclination is to look inward. Expecting the U.s. representatives to be accorded the same deferential treatment of years past is illogical because they clearly do not have the influence they once had and money can't buy the kind of influence they need now.
I do agree that our nations stature suffers, but I believe that money and economic concerns will safeguard the US with respect to trade. We are simply too large a market to ignore, and we owe the nations like Russia and especially China far too much dough. Thus we can use trade as leverage, sadly.
I reject nuclear weapons.
How did the nuclear bomb ever become a usable weapon? Military strategists realized that once started, a nuclear war would be game over. The concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) by using nuclesr weapons is the most irresposible idea ever developed. Everybody wants to continue living. Let's come to our senses and outlaw nuclear weapons now.
A nuclear war can never be won. Not strategically, not defensively, not ecologically, and not morally. So then why do we keep a weapon whos' best possible outcome is to lose in the worst possible way?
The only option is to go nuke free. All other solutions are just expensive pig lipstick. Star Wars promised to shoot down nukes in space. The problem being, that it itself lead to more arms racing, more missiles attempting to 'outnumber' and 'overwhelm' the space based defense system. Also, Star Wars would have led to the weaponization of space... which would eventually mean having nukes flying around over our heads.
Missile Defense is also a false comfort. So you shoot down an enemies incoming missiles, over your territory? Frying the upper atmosphere? Sending all the fallout to be carried around the world by the wind? Or again, you just encourage your opponent to build more nukes, to overwhelm your defense? Or maybe missile defense makes some crazed war planner a little over confident in his offensive abilities... leading him to figure he can start a war under the cover of missile defense... only to possibly find out he was wrong?
Shall we just sit under the umbrella of the MAD doctrine forever? No way! There have been so many near accidental launches due to simple technical glitches and communication misunderstandings.... we are seriously lucky to still be here today. But eventually a mistake will happen if we keep nukes on standby. MAD should be ammended to MMAD. "Mistaken Mutually Assured Destruction".
The only way to keep our kids safe is to eliminate nuclear weapons. Otherwise what are we going to do... hand them a bunch of aging, outdated and unreliable ICBM's to play with? Or encourage them to build even newer, bigger, fiercer missiles for the purpose of flirting with oblivion? Been there, done that- lucky to have survived that. Earth is not flat. Let's finally act like an intelligent civilization for once.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.", Albert Einstein.
Talk is not enough.
But no good action was not preceeded by dialouge.
Saashkavilli, Rick Davis, Israel...Georgia...?
How far is Lieberman from a button, a mile, an assassination? "All right children, when I blow the whistle, jump under your desks, cover your ears, and close your eyes."
Obama has long advocated nuclear arms-reduction, progress here won't make up for killing people in AfPak, but it is great.
JCotton
Would a "Nuke-Free-World" be more peaceful? I take one look at history and conclude with a resounding no! Most likely there will be not only more wars in a "Nuke-Free-World" but wars with again tens if not hundreds of millions of dead and maimed because the non-nuclear and even non-chemical and non-biological techniques for killing have become increasingly more sophisticated and powerful since the end of WW2. The big powers will return to having standing armies of tens of millions of conscripts. Cities of the losers will be destroyed to a degree that will make the devastation of Dresden and Hamburg in WW2 look like amateurism.
Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, T.R.W, Science Applications International, Honeywell, these are the players, they own the present US government. All have on going contracts to build W.M.D's, all are taking billions from the treasury will they be stopped, unlikely.
Lawrence Livermore, Sandia, Los Almos, and Oakridge Laboratory's billions more, can the government control their creations, unlikely.
TURN OFF THE MACHINE
Uh, huh. A nuclear weapons free world?
Only after all of them are used on each other.
only nuclear powers are safe, that is to the time of next 9\11 madness, which will be nuclear one - and no country to blame
edweg
Rhetoric. Your lead-butted president will have to be pushed on this issue as with all the rest. Get to work, people!
Dear Friends of Nuclear Disarmament,
While we (most of us anyway) are very much behind the President's wonderful new nuclear disarmament initiative, it's helpful to remember this is a both/and world. In this case that means BOTH yes to American leadership on nuclear disarmament AND yes to a global bottom up network of cities. We are that global bottom up network and we need to aim high if we are to create the heartfelt human unity which will make success possible.
Let's make it happen!
-- Roger Eaton
http://globalassembly.net
http://laandc.org