Disarmament Diplomacy

Editorial

Nuclear Weapons Treaty: An Idea whose Time Has Come

Rebecca Johnson

Speaking in the UK House of Commons just after participating in the launch of Global Zero in Paris on December 8, 2008, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who held the posts of both Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary in Conservative governments of the 1980s and 1990s, quoted Victor Hugo, that: "More powerful than the march of mighty armies is an idea whose time has come."

The idea whose time has come is that the abolition of nuclear weapons is not only desirable, but possible, achievable and necessary.

If we want a world free of nuclear weapons, we now have to become serious about laying the groundwork for a Nuclear Weapons Convention (NWC). In other words, we have to think about how to start negotiating an appropriate form of framework or comprehensive treaty to codify in law the obligations, responsibilities and controls that will be needed. Among countries with nuclear weapons or 'extended deterrence' nuclear umbrellas, the standard fear is that we would become vulnerable to nuclear attack or blackmail if we gave ours up and another country or terrorist kept a few. We need to develop the norms, safeguards, verification and enforcement tools to make sure that the world becomes a safer place without nuclear weapons.

Since George Shultz, Sam Nunn, William Perry and Henry Kissinger broke traditional ranks to call for a world free of nuclear weapons in January 2007 and 2008, many senior British, French, German and further US political and military figures have found the courage to do likewise. Recently, the UK Foreign Office launched "Lifting the Nuclear Shadow", with a major speech from Foreign Secretary David Miliband on creating the conditions for abolishing nuclear weapons. But there is a major credibility gap where governments are lauding this vision while simultaneously replacing, renewing or modernizing their nuclear weapons or - in the case of NATO countries - still clinging to a cold war strategic doctrine that relies on nuclear sharing and the threat to use nuclear weapons.

One of the most important contributions in recent months was made by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on 24 October 2008. Proposing a five-point plan for nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, the Secretary-General urged "all NPT parties, in particular the nuclear-weapon states, to fulfil their obligation under the treaty to undertake negotiations on effective measures leading to nuclear disarmament. They could agree on a framework of separate, mutually reinforcing instruments. Or they could consider negotiating a nuclear-weapons convention, backed by a strong verification system, as has long been proposed at the UN. I have circulated to all UN members a draft of such a convention, which offers a good point of departure."

Like many of the others, the Secretary-General also spoke of the need for entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, more credible security assurances, negotiations on a fissile materials production ban, deeper cuts in arsenals, progress in verification, and so on. Such measures are part of the familiar "to do list" put forward nowadays by almost everyone. Necessary though they are, such measures need to have an internationally-agreed purpose if they are to increase our security in the long run.

The Secretary-General's proposals are put into a context that is both more visionary and more practical than some of the others. Unlike many of the British, French and US contributions, he does not attempt to square the circle by underscoring the continued importance of nuclear-weapons-based deterrence while seeking arms limitation and non-proliferation. On the contrary, the Secretary-General's identification of negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention as a way to fulfil the NPT obligations puts forward a coherent approach to achieving the obligations and prohibitions, checks and balances, carrots and sticks of a sustainable nuclear 'grand bargain' for the 21st century to shore up the eroding 1960s deal between nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states enshrined in the NPT.

The Secretary-General also suggested that the UN Security Council's permanent members "should begin discussions on security issues in the nuclear disarmament process" and raised the possibility of a high level summit on nuclear disarmament.

After years of being dismissed as impossibly idealistic, the NWC is coming in from the cold. As progressive governments and civil society had to do in order to get other treaties on negotiating agendas in the past, we now have to make the practical objective of a comprehensive nuclear weapons treaty something that governments cannot argue against without looking out of touch and desperate to cling to out-dated, inhumane weapons of terror. With the widening recognition of nuclear dangers and security imperatives we have won the 'why' argument, and must now shift the debate to 'when and how'. With requisite resources and commitment, a nuclear weapon convention could become a reality sooner than most people think. Governments now investing billions to renew nuclear arsenals would then look as foolish and profligate as today's bankers.

Back to the top of page

© 2009 The Acronym Institute.