Nuke Test Makes Nuclear Abolition More Important Than Ever
North Korea's nuclear testing heightens and underlines the dangers of a world in which nuclear arms are spreading.
The news media treats the North Korea's nuclear weapons program as a story of a bad actor threatening international security, giving it the sort of attention rarely given to calls for constructive action to eliminate the danger of nuclear weapons. In particular, the frayed Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is seldom mentioned, nor the obligation contained in the treaty for the nuclear powers, including the U.S., to eliminate nuclear stockpiles.
The contrast hits home in Hiroshima, Japan, the first city attacked with an atomic bomb. Just eight days before the North Korean test, the city's daily newspaper, the Chugoku Shimbun, released an appeal from 17 Nobel Peace Prize laureates for citizens and governments to act for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Outside of Japan, the laureates' Hiroshima-Nagasaki Declaration has received almost no media attention.
When North Korea held its nuclear test, however, Hiroshima immediately became a media stage, and legitimately so: Citizens gathered in an outdoor protest. At the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, a clock tracking the number of days since the world's last nuclear test, which had been approaching 1,000, went back to one. Reporters sought out aging survivors for their comments. Suzuko Numata, an 85-year-old interviewed by Japan's Mainichi newspaper from her bed at a home for the elderly, raised the real issue looming behind the North Korean test: a world in which nuclear weapons continue to be seen by some nations as something to be sought rather than as a threat to all humans.
Just days before the Nobel Prize winners' declaration, one of the signers, International Atomic Energy Authority head Mohamed ElBaradei, told the United Kingdom's Guardian newspaper that existing agreements on nonproliferation are out of date and that he fears big growth in the number of nuclear powers. The story received at best limited attention, despite ElBaradei's prominence and expertise.
Then, there are the admirable efforts of some of the most prominent former U.S. national security leaders to generate momentum for a non-nuclear world. The group includes former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn. They did get space on the Wall Street Journal to write about their ideas, twice. Until recently, however, one was more likely to come across any details of their undertaking in a progressive magazine like YES! than in the main news media. But, as Shultz told YES! Magazine's editor Sarah van Gelder for the summer 2008 edition, his group was engaging with leaders from all of the nuclear powers, including officially unacknowledged possessor Israel.
Shultz said, "The Nonproliferation Treaty in Article 6 says that those who don't have nuclear weapons will have access to nuclear power technology and they won't try to get nuclear weapons, and those who do have nuclear weapons will phase down their importance eventually to zero. People are looking for governments to live up to that treaty."
More recently, though, the group received considerable media attention, because they met with President Barack Obama in the White House to endorse the vision for a nuclear-free world he unveiled in Prague earlier this spring. By speaking out, Obama has begun to make nonproliferation a more appealing story to a wider spectrum of the media.
Certainly, the Nobel Peace Prize groups's spearhead Mairead Maguire, ElBaradei, the Dalai Lama, Muhammad Yunus, and the rest of their group hope Obama can begin to make a difference. The head of Chugoku Shimbun's Hiroshima Peace Media Center, Akira Tashiro, wrote the appeal, which was revised before publication to take account of Obama's speech in Prague.
The appeal's timing was designed to fall a year ahead of a U.N. conference to review the treaty, including the duty of nuclear states to work towards disarmament. The 2005 review failed to produced substantive agreement, but observers say that the presence of the Obama administration has improved the atmosphere at a just-completed preparatory conference for 2010.
For the treaty's future, North Korea, Iran, or other states with nuclear ambitions are no more than half the problem. The Nobel laureates' Hiroshima-Nagasaki Declaration says, "We are deeply troubled by this threat of proliferation to non-nuclear weapon states, but equally concerned at the faltering will of the nuclear powers to move forward in their obligation to disarm their own nations of these dreadful weapons."
In the same YES! edition as the Shultz interview, author Jonathan Schell wrote of the potential for a safer world if the nuclear powers would bargain to give up their bombs in exchange for enforceable promises by others to stay out of the nuclear business.
In sorting through the likely reasons behind North Korea's nuclear test this week, David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Peace Age Foundation, came to a related point: "North Korea's nuclear testing is a manifestation of a deeper problem in the international system, that of continuing to have a small group of countries possess and implicitly threaten the use of nuclear weapons for deterrence or any other reason."
In an interview, Tashiro said he hoped that Americans would support nuclear disarmament on the grounds-expressed by Shultz, Kissinger, and others-of the threat created by proliferation and the potential for terrorists to acquire nuclear materials. But, to come to that conclusion, Americans need more information on the issue than they usually receive.
Even with Obama talking about ending nuclear weapons, he and other nations' leaders will need the support of an informed, engaged public if they are to create meaningful progress toward nuclear disarmament. In their conclusion, the declaration signers say, "As Nobel Peace laureates, we call on the citizens of the world to press their leaders to grasp the peril of inaction and summon the political will to advance toward nuclear disarmament and abolition." That idea resonates in Hiroshima, a city that tries to make a better future out of horrible suffering. Perhaps as the world comes to terms with the dangerous possibilities of a nuclear-armed North Korea and Iran, the obligations of the current nuclear power to work towards abolition will get the attention required for action.
YES! Magazine encourages you to make free use of this article by taking these easy steps.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
12 Comments so far
Show AllIf Mr. Obama was serious about nuclear disarmament, he would order the immediate reduction of the USA nuke arsenal to 1000 warheads/deliverable.
This would not change the schedule, but would signal a significant change in political policy.
It would show something Mr. Obama has nothing of-leadership.
The Japanese are hypocrites. For more than sixty years they have housed US nukes and even today it is home to a nuke powered and nuke armed aircraft carrier.
It's safe to say that just about every country condemning the DPRK is massively hypocritical. North Korea is one of the few nations that has never, ever attacked anyone. And as usual, the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons on civilian populations* is leading the hypocrite's charge.
*for the sole purpose of putting the fear of God into its Cold War rivals: http://libcom.org/history/1945-us-responses-atomic-bombing-hiroshima-nagasaki
Nuclear power like coal is here to stay. You will need all that power to generate all the electricity so that you can keep your keybaords tapping. LOL !
It's amazing how you can be denser than DU
I remember a Republican President that flooded the world with highly enriched Atoms For Peace.
Now we say 'stop your WMDs' just like Saddam did.
Now we say 'destroy your rockets' just like Saddam did.
Now we say 'What a succer Saddam was to let us destroy and plunder Iraq for Oil and Israel.'
Now we say 'Who's next?'
Nuclear power and weapons are this era's Pandora's Box: an area of science that would have best been left undiscovered.
Of course, that is not possible in any way, shape, or form.
What is truly scary about nukes is the radiation, its' half-life is equivalent to four of mankind's prior evolutionary stages, and its' storage calls for building containment structures of a better quality than the Pyramids of Giza.
Humans must give up nuclear power generation as well, or the threat of nuclear war will continue.
The title of the article can't stress enough the importance of "Nuclear Abolition".
We HAVE TO STOP engaging in nuclear tests & production. That means 'just say no' to nuclear power as well.
Every time a nuclear test or explosion happens, fallout enters the atmosphere. This action like continuing to burn coal or supporting industries that pollute waterways should be part of the dialogue at world summits.
IE.. If you (the culprit) are burning coal and polluting the air or have industries that pollute the water and creating 'dead zones' where the the river meets the ocean then YOU ARE A THREAT TO ME!
You do not have the right to pollute my air and water!
'We the People' must address China and the US for polluting the air with coal fired power plants and North Korea for testing nukes or the US and Israel for using bunker busters which contaminate with depleted uranium.
The hypocrisy of one nation to tell another 'we can have nukes but you can't' will never work.
Someone has to set the example.
The idea behind the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was to 'stop the spread of nuclear weapons', does not go far enough. Logic would dictate that nuclear weapons and power must be banned.
Anyone that doesn't address the toxic threat to this planet is in denial.
imo
http://opinionsandreasons.blogspot.com/
Along with a Nuclear weapons ban , any such treaty MUST include a cut in conventional forces and Military spending worldwide, and particularly amongst members of the security council.
True. It's like trying to diet by cutting out only sweets - a diet only works when part of an overall health program.
Obama is clearly a man of peace, who would never think about killing anyone poor and brown.
--
Eric Patton
Cincinnati, OH
ebpatton@yahoo.com