Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
It's Time to Rid the World of Nuclear Weapons
Skeptics may say a nuclear-free world is an impossible dream, but they said that about slavery and apartheid too
This year the nuclear bomb turns 65 - an appropriate age, by international standards, for compulsory retirement. But do our leaders have the courage and wisdom to rid the planet of this ultimate menace? The five-yearly review of the ailing nuclear non-proliferation treaty, currently under way at the United Nations in New York, will test the strength of governments' commitment to a nuclear-weapon-free world.
If they are serious about realizing this vision, they will work now to shift the focus from the failed policy of nuclear arms control, which assumes that a select few states can be trusted with these weapons, to nuclear abolition. Just as we have outlawed other categories of particularly inhuman and indiscriminate weapons - from biological and chemical agents to anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions - we must now turn our attention to outlawing the most iniquitous weapons of all.
Gains in nuclear disarmament to date have come much too slowly. More than 23,000 nuclear arms remain in global stockpiles, breeding enmity and mistrust among nations, and casting a shadow over us all. None of the nuclear-armed countries appears to be preparing for a future without these terrifying devices. Their failure to disarm has spurred nuclear proliferation, and will continue to destabilize the planet unless we radically alter our trajectory now. Forty years after the NPT entered into force, we should seriously question whether we are on track to abolition.
D is not an option for governments to take up or ignore. It is a moral duty owed by them to their own citizens, and to humanity as a whole. We must not await another Hiroshima or Nagasaki before finally mustering the political will to banish these weapons from global arsenals. Governments should agree at this NPT review conference to toss their nuclear arms into the dustbin of history, along with those other monstrous evils of our time - slavery and apartheid.
Skeptics tell us, and have told us for many years, that we are wasting our time pursuing the dream of a world without nuclear weapons, as it can never be realized. But more than a few people said the same about ending entrenched racial segregation in South Africa and abolishing slavery in the United States. Often they had a perceived interest in maintaining the status quo. Systems and policies that devalue human life, and deprive us all of our right to live in peace with each other, are rarely able to withstand the pressure created by a highly organized public that is determined to see change.
The most obvious and realistic path to a nuclear-weapon-free world is for nations to negotiate a legally binding ban, which would include a timeline for elimination and establish an institutional framework to ensure compliance. Two-thirds of all governments have called for such a treaty, known as a nuclear weapons convention, and UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon has voiced his support for the idea. Only the nuclear weapon states and NATO members are holding us back.
Successful efforts to prohibit other classes of weapons provide evidence that, where there is political momentum and widespread popular support, obstacles which may at first appear insurmountable can very often be torn down. Nuclear abolition is the democratic wish of the world's people, and has been our goal almost since the dawn of the atomic age. Together, we have the power to decide whether the nuclear era ends in a bang or worldwide celebration.
Last April in the Czech capital, Prague, President Barack Obama announced that the United States would seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, but he warned that nations probably would not eliminate their arsenals in his lifetime. I am three decades older than the US president, yet I am confident that both of us will live to see the day when the last nuclear weapon is dismantled. We just need to think outside the bomb.
Desmond Tutu is a patron of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
33 Comments so far
Show AllIt's past time.
God, please, end this argument--at least for the next 100 years. Its not going to happen. Its not going ever going to happen.
Getting control of oil companies, our borders, our treasury, our military and other thugs, our congress and federal government--is enough for now.
Perhaps Mr. Tutu would like to comment on those subjects? (Nah-too political and too real. It would require some real work.)
Copout.
Yeah, too much work for Dennis Tutu, the lazt copout, who does nothing, compared to moonpie.
You have no idea what you talking about.
WHEN DESMOND TUTU speaks, THE ENTIRE PLANET NEEDS to LISTEN!
Well, speaking of oil companies, is not the disaster in the gulf ample testimony to the foibles of man that makes an unspeakable nuclear disaster inevitable? Murphy's Law will prevail, and we will be standing around kicking the radioactive ashes, asking "How could this have happened?"
"Two-thirds of all governments have called for such a treaty, known as a nuclear weapons convention, and UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon has voiced his support for the idea. Only the nuclear weapon states and NATO members are holding us back."
And therein hangs the tale. The nuclear powers hold Security Council seats. When the UN was set up, the "winners" of WW-II were not about to be told what to do by a couple of hundred small nations. Therefore, the SC was formed and has veto power over anything presented by the UN.
You can see how that works when the UN overwhelmingly votes to restrict Israel's genocide, or its aggressive wars; and especially when they try to force Israel to divulge any details of its massive nuclear weapons program and its nuclear arsenal. The US vetoes it and Israel pats it on the back, says "Good boy!" and receives its annual $3 billion gift in weapons technology and hardware, courtesy of the US taxpayer.
As long as the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex (MICC) can maximize its profits through war and nuclear technology, we will not see any progress.
The United States government is supposed to be governed, and limited by, a Constitution put in place by "the consent of the governed," We the People. In actuality, if two-thirds of the American populace were to rise up and insist on an end to nuclear weaponry, or to war itself, our alleged Representatives would check with the MICC, who would tell them to vote "No" or face losing their corporate contribution gravy train.
We would quickly find out what the voice and opinion of We the People is worth, as we have many times in the past. The wishes of a few billionaires outweighs the will of the people at a ratio of about three or four billionaires to two hundred million people.
The United States has turned into a fascist government, a marriage of government with big corporations. We the people have only the duty to provide tax money and cannon fodder for our wars of aggression. We are no longer citizens of the United States, we are now subjects of the American Empire, just as we were subjects of the British Empire and the King of England prior to 1776.
If you look at what is happening in the Gulf today, you can see the proof. BP has done incalculable damage to the world's ecosystem, damage which continues to grow. Has the government stepped in, taken control, mobilized most of the planetary oil recovery experts and equipment, seizing BP's funds to finance the effort?
No, BP is still in charge, doing what they wish, holding off any outside agencies, refusing to divulge vital information, and telling the government to back off. The government has even been running reporters off the Louisiana beaches and confiscating cameras.
Do you think we still have a representative government? Technically, yes, but it represents the corporate "persons," not We the People.
Moonpie-It's all important and is all connected. Personally, I don't think we hear enough discussion about dismantling nukes. Obviously Obama doesn't hear it since he wants to build more nuclear power plants.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, 2002
"We do not need nuclear power. The world does not need nuclear power. To visit death upon current and future generations from radiation is unforgivable."
"...do our leaders have the courage and wisdom to [insert any issue whatsoever]...?
No, they have neither courage nor wisdom.
"If they are serious about realizing this vision..."
No, they are not serious about realizing any vision other than the continued growth of the Corporate/Military and concomitant world domination.
"It is a moral duty owed by them to their own citizens, and to humanity..."
Sorry, the PTB don't do 'moral duty'.
"Nuclear abolition is the democratic wish of the world's people ... we have the power to decide..."
This part is true. Soon, I hope, we will reach up and cut off the foot that's on our necks. We are already sacrificing - why not do it for a better world?
Dear Desmond Tutu:
It is also time to rid the world of the Catholic church.
Please lead the way.
Tutu is not Catholic, he's Anglican. FWIW.
Yikes! And I've made the same mistake before! I forgot he was Catholic-Lite!
Ha! as if the flavour of superstition matters??
Let"s take President Obama at his word. We and the Russians must lead the way in disposing our nuclear stockpiles. Otherwise proliferation will continue.
Tutu NEEDS to speak about nuclear power since it is at the very least unsustainable...
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/05/07-4
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0427-02.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/02/17-4
http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=297
They are almost interchangeable.
Tutu is absolutely right in calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. This is one thing that Obama has been radical in doing, and those of us critical of his shortcomings should give thanks for where he has delivered.
This is a call we have not heard since Reykjavik when it nearly became a reality with Reagan calling for the destruction of the arsenal before his handlers muzzled him once again. But either nuclear obliteration or global warming will devastate this planet unless we educate each other away from madness.
When Einstein was asked how he thought the Third World War would be fought, he deferred, but said he did know how the Fourth World War would be fought, with sticks and stones.
This is part of what our President has done to negotiate a new treaty with the Russkies, and I am no supporter of new 'missile shields'. For one thing, they don't work. But that's another story.
What I am saying is that our nuclear strategy with SALT talks was making agreements to limit weapons. The START talks which succeeded them, achieved nuclear arms reductions. Under GWB, unfortunately, everything not only ground to a halt, but the pressure on the two largest powers--the US and Russia--were ratcheted up.
As I have said in other posts on this site, the horsemen of the apocalypse are nuclear war and global warming (though it appears dead oceans may be another horseman)--and nuclear war offers us little hope to pull back from the brink.
A report published in Scientific American a few months ago laid out the scenario for a Pakistani-Indian exchange in which a hundred or more nuclear weapons used by these countries would obliterate each other. The result? Nuclear winter, and the death of billions of people, if not life on Earth.
Americans need to grow up. Every leader is imperfect, and will not be loved by everyone. Obama governs from the center, and tries to muddle through. He has screwed up big time with BP, he sucks on Iran, but his spoken intention to abolish nuclear weapons is an admirable goal which needs support.
The realists on the world stage deride the idea, and attack Obama for being naive.
Well, this is one naive retiree who thinks Obama is right to call for the abolition of the Bomb, and the more of us who support him on this, the better it will be to make it a reality.
Because an American leader expressing the belief in the abolition of nuclear weapons is as groundshaking as an American leader expressing a belief in the abolition of slavery. I seem to remember the last time a President did something like that, he didn't have many supporters on his side either.
So here's to Barack for at least honoring one of his campaign promises--that he has declared a RADICAL shift in US nuclear strategy is commendable. My philosophy is whenever a president gets it right, he is to be commended for it, party be damned.
(W.A.B.O.T.B. is an apt saying for the species: We're All Bozos On This Bus.
I believe the best antidote to political hoohahism is not Orwell but Swift. Read your Fourth Voyage daily, especially that disturbing extermination of Yahoos debate where rational minds cooly discuss genocide. It reads like the Final Solution and reeks of death camps or of Herman Kahns discussion of megadeaths and mutually assured destruction, the real Dr Strangelove.
Unfortunately the Lefties understand little of this because 1)W.A.B.O.T.B. and 2)We're so dumb we want to put Young Snotty--GWB on trial for war crimes while we lay wreaths at Daniel Ellsberg's feet, even though he wrote up the war plans for using nukes on North Vietnam, a plan that would have ended in World War Three.
But I digress.)
Of course, the other reason is that maybe I'm one of the few writers who show up on this comment page who remembers the Cuban Missile Crisis, and how we were an hour away from annihilation for a dozen or so days in 1962. I remember the fear that ran through the world, as people wondered if it was the End.
Only a tiny voice, one that said, "I disagree, Mr President," broke that crisis.
When a former American ambassador said to President Kennedy that Premier Kruschev would accept a deal on removing missiles, he was the only one in the room who had the courage to go up against the overwhelming consensus to bomb Cuba and invade the country. Just think, one person talking to the president prevented the nuclear war
that would have meant all the people we know in the world today, all the people born in the last (almost) 50 years--and alive then, would have never been born--or would have been killed.
In the aftermath of that crisis, Kennedy gave his American University Speech, in which he said 'the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step' and announced a test ban treaty and negotiations on a nuclear proliferation treaty.
That speech was delivered 45 years before Obama was elected president. As a result of that beginning, however, both the US and Russia have reached the point where they are willing to explore the topic of the abolition of nuclear weapons.
So, let's hope we're closer to the end of the thousand mile journey, but it seems the way we argue it's just a dream--look at this site, we're mostly lefties--and what do we do: nitpick.
Oh, Obama, he gets more more from BP than anybody. Nobody fails to notice that BP gives more money to Republicans by at least a 2-1 (often 3-1) margin.
So I always hear this hoohah from lefties and righties, Oh the parties are ALL the same. Uh-huh. That's why this (clearly imperfect) healthcare bill passed.
But try passing ANY healthcare bill in a Republican congress.
Am I disappointed in the Democrats? Hell, yes! Have I been one all my life? Hell, yes! What's the alternative? You wanna support the yahoos?* I don't.
Count your blessings. We have social security, we have government and teachers pensions because of Democrats. The yahoos want to abolish these.
Here's a questionnaire for all y'all: Which would you rather abolish? Nuclear weapons or social security? Tough one, huh?
Be thankful for what you've got. I wonder what Sarah Palin's take on abolishing nukes are: nahh, I won't go there. It's so much better when progressives beat up on each other while Tea Parties and Mad Hatters are all the rage.
*By the way, the yahoos I use here are different from Swift's yahoos.
It's a nice thought, isn't it? Unfortunately, as long as the technical nuclear know-how exists (and you can't get rid of that), it seems a bit pointless to call for the abolition of the physical weapons.
What actually could happen--realistically speaking, that is--is for a few countries who are willing to stand up to the United States and Israel to acquire nukes, which I think would change the world balance of power in quite a positive direction.
You wouldn't see political commentators in the U.S. brazenly talking about the option of invading Iran, for instance, if it had a few nukes.
When is Hillary going to call for sanctions on Israel?
"Declassified documents cast new light on Israel's nuclear arsenals, revealing an offer by Israel to provide South Africa's apartheid regime with nuclear arms.
In an article published on Sunday, UK-based daily The Guardian explained how South African officials asked for nuclear warheads and Tel Aviv promised to sell them to the apartheid regime.
According to the report, in 1975, then South African Defense Minister Pieter Willem Botha held a clandestine meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres, who served as Israel's defense minister at the time.
A secret military cooperation agreement was signed at the meeting, during which Botha reportedly requested nuclear weapons and Peres offered three warhead versions for sale." (PressTV)
Have you ever noticed that these Countries called their armies "The Israeli Defence Force" and under Apartheid the "South African Defence Force" respectively - and the similarities don't end there ........................?
Speaking of nuclear issues, I noticed that Mordecai Vanunu was back in jail again. Seems he'd been talking to someone foreign again, a girlfriend no less, so he was sentenced to do community service. But, he felt at risk from the public and refused, so do not pass go for him. Notice the news reports, but you'll have to look for them somewhere else as they aren't on CD as far as I could tell, all say he violated the terms of his parole. But he wasn't paroled, he completely served his sentence and then had additional terms put on him when they released him.
Who's going to bell that Israeli cat?
Sounds alot like a recent SCOTUS ruling.... No It Can't Happen Here! Can It?
If we really want a world free of nuclear warfare we should first work - world wide - on eliminating sex on weekends. This beats, hands down, putting a man on the moon.
From first flight at Kitty Hawk it was a blip in time before aviation was conscripted to help good people kill evil people. The cool thing was that, if you got ABOVE evil people then you could drop things on them: anvils, wagon wheels, bags of shit.
Some ethical pundits bewailed that science and technology now enabled humans to fight war IN THREE DIMENSIONS. There were calls for international meetings and treaties to preserve war as a two-dimensional enterprise, and to use air planes merely for transportation, sky high clubs, and other peaceful purposes. Nobody paid much attention to the case that the use of tunnels and submarines likewise add a third dimension to war fair.
Trylon
This is a footnote to the above.
I have high regard for Desmond Tutu, but he forgets that his argument is based upon the premise: Human beings have a right to exist and to survive.
This argument, I believe, is challenged by our entire history. If we are stupid enough to invent technical means to kill each other - on a scale from hand guns to hydrogen bombs - that case passes a fair sentence upon our failed species and the honorable way to leave, in front of our species's inferiors, is seppuku. Begin distribution of atomic weapons to ALL nations, proportionate to population - and then wait. Whatever happens next is what we deserve.
We do not have a right to survive. Humans do not inhabit Earth, we infest it. Each year, innumerable species of life pass away, and not a few of them merely because of the existence of humans. How many such extinctions of other species are due to giraffes? Consider at this exact moment what our species is doing to whales. What did those poor creatures ever do to deserve US? We need kitchen samplers with these words in cross stitching: Homo Sapiens are revolting.
Trylon
Oh please, Mr. Tutu: Like the nuclear weapon called fractionalized usury banking? IMF? Too big to fail? Those nuclear weapons?
Because the ones that Israel has are not really there; they are actually only rumors, and that's why they have jailed and harassed a citizen mercilessly about them, those nuclear weapons that don't exist.
Or the nuclear weapon aimed at all of Africa: AIDS?
Just which nuclear weapons, Mr. Tutu?
Nuclear weapons are a threat; no question. But they are NOT the problem that is most urgent for the world today. They are safely contained, and no one will actually use them. Thank you for pandering to fear mongers.
Please get to work emasculating the bankers instead. Thank you for patting us on the head.
Desmond Tutu is a greater man than I. But in a way he is fundamentally wrong. Wrong to ban nuclear weapons- of course not...But the real is question- why are there nuclear weapons- why does that world have enough stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction to destroy life many times over? In this age, we have no choice but to honestly and directly face this question. No longer can we say, "it is human nature." In fact, if this is the case, then it is clear that human nature must change. It will not change by taking away one weapon- exchanging it for another. It will change when we recognize our common humanity and work together to create a genuinely just world. We really have no other choice if we are to retain the very best of what it means to be human- the creativity, the capacity for compassion and the love of freedom. Otherwise we will live, as we do now, in a world that is moving to a nightmare state. A militaristic global nightmare where security is sought at all expense- where there is no freedom and no security. Where self destruction is the inevitable outcome.
We have to realize that the nightmare is us- and seek to change things at the root. If we can imagine a different world than the one I just described- a just world- then it is possible- and there is hope.
LJG100, your post strongly reminded me of a certain essay by Einstein:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php