Disarmament Diplomacy
Issue No. 36, April 1999
Nuclear Disarmament on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century: Is
This As Good As It Gets?
By Miguel Marin-Bosch
As the world meanders towards a much heralded new international
order, a number of trends are appearing, some of them very
disquieting. It is a time of mixed, often confused and confusing
signals. Many encouraging processes of reconciliation within and
between countries stand in sharp contrast to the increasing number
of cases of civil strife and conflict. However, as the situation in
Kosovo grimly testifies, such internal strife has the terrible
potential to lead to conflict between nations.
As the NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia also testify, the end
of the Cold War has yet to give way to the kind of world envisaged
in the United Nations Charter. Drafted at the end of World War II,
and thus at the height of enlightened internationalism, its
Preamble placed the human being at the centre of the world's
concerns. With the onset of the Cold War, and over the succeeding
forty years, the peoples of this planet were relegated to a
secondary position. Security concerns of the nation State prevailed
over the needs and aspirations of citizens. National security
issues monopolized the attention of most Governments. Now, with the
end of the Cold War and economic globalization, the nation State
has lost much ground to other powerful actors, such as
transnational corporations and other free market forces. But should
the market rule supreme? Should Governments be so concerned with,
and dependent on, the performance of stock markets?
We are told that we are living in an interdependent world, but
recent history shows that some countries are more dependent than
others. We are told that economic globalization is bound to be good
for everyone, but we see that there are the globalizers and the
globalized, and that extreme poverty is on the increase. As an
ideology, globalization could result in a new form of
totalitarianism.
We are told that environmental issues are of vital interest and
yet little has been done since the Rio Conference. Those who
pollute the most are among the slowest to adopt multilaterally
agreed measures. We are told that internal conflicts should be
resolved peacefully, but there are Governments that cannot or will
not do so. We are told that conflict resolution and peace-building
should be pursued, but ethnic conflicts continue to multiply and
the perpetrators of genocide go unpunished.
We are told that non-nuclear threats to peace should be
addressed, but many Governments continue to seek markets for their
conventional weapons and others turn a blind eye to the efforts to
ban anti-personnel landmines or to restrict the transfer of light
weapons. These and other related issues and problems are important.
But nuclear disarmament and the search for a nuclear-weapon-free
world must remain atop of the multilateral agenda.
At the end of the nineties, the situation regarding nuclear
disarmament is much less encouraging than ten years ago. Although
there have been important advances in the strategic arms reduction
(START) process and a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is now
in place (though not in force), the prospects are not good.
The unconditional extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) in 1995 was what the five permanent members of the Security
Council (P-5) wanted and secured in order to continue being the
nuclear haves in a world of, overwhelmingly, nuclear have-nots. The
individual positions of the P-5, however, are certainly not
identical.
Take the United Kingdom White Paper, the Strategic Defence
Review (SDR), of July 1998. It contains some encouraging proposals
and reflects a certain amount of non-governmental organization
(NGO) input. That is how things should be; but how 'strategic' can
the review claim to have been when it accepted at the outset both
that Britain needed to retain the Trident nuclear system,
and that nuclear 'deterrence' remained crucial both to British
security and the security of the NATO Alliance. The British Labour
Party's stance on nuclear issues has long been ambiguous. From a
forthright espousal of unilateral disarmament for much of the
1980s, it has moved closer to the Tories' unquestioning faith that
it is absolutely right for Britain to retain weapons which it would
be absolutely wrong for other nations to obtain. It would seem that
calls for vigorous nuclear disarmament were actually hindering
Labour's electoral prospects; that is most depressing.
The United States Government has recently restated that it would
continue to rely on nuclear deterrence for the foreseeable future.
For its part, Russia has adopted NATO's first-use policy, not least
in response to NATO expansion. The war in the Balkans - allied to a
host of other negative factors, such as the United States'
determination to amend the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty - is
hardly likely to persuade Russia that the time is right to return
to the enlightened nuclear disarmament agenda of the Gorbachev
era.
In all of the P-5, there are moves to seek some adjustments to
nuclear posture, reflecting a desire for smaller, more efficient
weapons systems. But the basic attitude towards nuclear weapons has
not changed. All five States continue to ignore their treaty
obligations to pursue and conclude negotiations aimed at the
elimination of nuclear weapons. They completely disregard the
International Court of Justice's 1996 Advisory Opinion, which
unequivocally stresses the importance of honouring those
obligations.
Take their approach to Israel. They opt for a double-standard on
non-proliferation and ignore the question. Or take their reaction
to the Indian and Pakistani tests. It is simply one of repeating
the same old refrain of "Do as I say, not as I do." They refuse to
accept the new situation in the Subcontinent and think that they
can wish away the nuclear weapons of those two States. At their
behest, the Security Council called on India and Pakistan to join
the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon States. That is no way to deal with
this deplorable development. Finally, take their attitude to the
CTBT. The United States, for example, urges India and Pakistan to
sign a treaty that the US Congress has no current plans to
ratify.
As the NPT prepares for its 2000 Review Conference - a
preparation thus far marked by dissent, acrimony and stalemate - it
is hard to repress fundamental concerns for the future of the
treaty, and with it the international disarmament and
non-proliferation regime. Some States are trying to address, rather
than repress, those fundamental concerns. The nuclear-weapon
States, however, are not among them.
Ambassador Miguel Marin-Bosch is the Consul-General of
Mexico in Barcelona, and former representative to the Conference on
Disarmament. His opinions are not necessarily those of his
Government. This text is an updated and revised version of his
remarks at the final plenary session of the 48th Pugwash Conference
on Science and World Affairs ("The Long Roads to Peace"), held at
the Hacienda Jurica, Queretaro, Mexico, from 29 September to 4
October 1998.
© 1999 The Acronym Institute.
Return to top of page
Return to List of Contents
Return to Acronym Main Page
|
