What's New

Previous Events

Current Events for July

On June 14, the United States of America launched a nuclear-capable missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. It flew 6000 miles and crashed into the Kwajelein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. On June 30, Russia launched a Tula ballistic missile that flew from the Barents Sea to Kamchatka. Perfectly routine. Happens all the time. Meanwhile, according to Reuters:

“Last week Russia’s Foreign Ministry summoned North Korea’s ambassador over reports its secretive neighbor was planning to test launch a ballistic missile. Washington has warned Pyongyang not to fire the missile, saying it would be a clear threat to international peace.”

The struggle being played out in Iran and North Korea over who may and who may not have nuclear weapons involves an issue that is deeper than hypocrisy. It is deeper than, though directly related to, bullying of the weak by the strong. The crucial issue here is the rule of law, the essence of democracy.

The main thing we serfs did not like about being ruled by kings was that the law was capricious and arbitrary. The law and taxes were whatever the king decided they should be this year or this week or in this case. We celebrate the Magna Carta because it represented a successful effort to subject the king to the rule of law. Now, in a constitutional democracy, we are fond of saying that no one, not even the president, is above the law. The law must be obeyed by the strong as well as the weak.

It would be naïve to actually believe that the strong are equally subject to the law. In practice, a man who cannot afford to hire a lawyer receives different treatment from the man who can afford to buy the judge. Still, the American ideal is equality under the law.

When the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) went into effect in 1970, everyone knew it was designed to be discriminatory. At the time, there were five nuclear powers (US, USSR, England, France, and China), and the whole point of the treaty was to keep it that way. After some discussion, the treaty was signed by 189 countries (only India, Pakistan and Israel refused). It represented a bargain between the non-nuclear states, who agreed not to develop nuclear weapons, and the nuclear-weapon states, who agreed to 1) help the non-nuclear states obtain peaceful nuclear technology (primarily nuclear energy and medical technology), and 2) negotiate in good faith to eliminate their nuclear weapons.

This bargain was kept remarkably well by the non-nuclear states, but not by the nuclear weapon states. Throughout the Cold War, the nuclear weapon states claimed at every treaty review that they could not possibly negotiate nuclear disarmament because nuclear weapons were essential to their national security.

Though other nations often wondered why nuclear weapons were essential to the security of the nuclear weapon states but not to anyone else, the perceived dangers of the Cold War kept most nations committed to one side or the other. With most nations under some nation’s nuclear umbrella, the elimination of nuclear weapons was considered so politically impossible, it was never seriously discussed.

Then the Cold War ended, but amazingly, the international community failed to grasp that opportunity to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether. Instead, in 1998, India and Pakistan went nuclear. A few years later, North Korea withdrew from the NPT and now claims to be in possession of nuclear weapons, though it has never tested one. In 2005, an NPT review conference failed even to produce a final document. Now, the treaty is teetering on the brink of collapse.

Why is the treaty falling apart now? Because since the end of the Cold War, the United States, the lone remaining superpower, has consistently chosen not to pursue negotiated control and elimination of nuclear weapons. Instead, it chose to take advantage of its victory in the Cold War and is still seeking to enhance its own unilateral ability to control the world and its resources. This reality is symbolized by the shift in US nuclear policy away from “non-proliferation” based on dialogue and treaties and toward “counter-proliferation” based on economic and military power, including when necessary, preemptive war. In place of the NPT or any other treaty, the United States intends to decide who may and who may not have a nuclear weapon.

This effort by the US to retain its own nuclear weapons while making sure that no enemies obtain them leads back to our key issue. Will the world be governed by democratic principles and the rule of law? Or will it be governed by whatever nation or group of nations has the power to economically or militarily inflict its will on the rest?

The question of nuclear weapons brings this fundamental issue into clear relief. It is undeniable that the vast majority of nations and people on this planet wish to eliminate nuclear weapons. If the world were a democracy, we would be rid of nuclear weapons. The only reason we still live under this obscene threat is because some nations imagine they can obtain an advantage by holding our civilization hostage.

The United States believes nuclear weapons will be useful in its role as king of the world. And certain nations that may be inclined to resist the king feel they can obtain or maintain their freedom just by having some nuclear weapons. The big problem for both of these erroneous fantasies is this: as long as nuclear weapons exist, and until all fissile materials are under strict and effective international control, the great equalizers can fall into the hands of non-state actors.

The most powerful generals are always fighting the last war. The fact is, there is no legitimate or even rational role for nuclear weapons in the war on terror. Terrorists are immune to deterrent, and even a primitive atomic bomb is enough to obliterate a city, cripple a nation, and send shock waves through the global psyche and economy. The only solution is a nuclear-weapon-free world, and the only way to achieve such a world is through multilateral negotiations and a firm commitment by the strong as well as the weak to the democratic rule of law.

In May 2006 a commission headed by Hans Blix concluded that the leaders of all nations must gather for a special summit on weapons of mass destruction, and at that meeting, they must begin planning a nuclear-weapon-free world. You can find the report at: www.wmdcommission.org/files/Weapons_of_Terror.pdf
I found it extremely persuasive. Let’s hope our leaders read it and begin implementing its recommendations. If not, let’s elect new leaders.