Former top U.S. officials present vision of a nuclear weapons-free world
Apr. 25, 2008
by Kenji Namba, Senior Staff Writer
“They're right, but what they propose will never happen.” The aim of abolishing nuclear weapons from the earth, which finds wide agreement in principle, is still often viewed as an unattainable goal. However, former UN Under-Secretary General Jayantha Dhanapala sees a “revolutionary change” in the movement to rid the world of these weapons. Mr. Dhanapala was responding to one essay issued in January 2007 and another in January of this year, both by former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and three other senior U.S. officials. The two essays created such a stir that a conference was convened in Oslo, Norway in February to discuss how to implement the proposals they made. The G8 Summit will be held in Lake Toya, Hokkaido this July, and the Summit for Lower House Speakers will be held in Hiroshima in September. With Japan hosting two major international conferences this year, the Hiroshima Peace Media Center examined recent progress toward nuclear disarmament.
Support from Russia and the UK
The three men who joined Kissinger on two occasions to call for a “nuclear-free world” in op-eds published by the Wall Street Journal were George P. Shultz, former Secretary of State; William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense; and Sam Nunn, former Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. All four at one time held responsibility for the nuclear arms policy of the United States. They have come together to ask the world to unite to prevent nuclear proliferation and move toward the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons.
Men whose life paths did not suggest that they would become campaigners for nuclear disarmament have put out a concrete vision for accomplishing precisely that.
Voices quickly rose in support. Mikhail Gorbachev, former General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its last head of state, said, “It is becoming clearer that nuclear weapons are no longer a means of achieving security.” He added, “As long as nuclear weapons exist, we will live in the midst of their peril.” At an international conference, then UK Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett urged action toward nuclear abolition and restated her own country's commitment to eventual complete elimination.
Other senior U.S. leaders who have expressed support include former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brezinski, former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Why have two op-eds by four men attracted so much attention? Esteem for their historical prominence plays a role, but so does respect for the specificity of their plan. Their assertion that “political will” of leaders must play a decisive role in abolishing nuclear weapons is also persuasive.
Cold War policies are outdated
The 2007 op-ed, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” pointed out that the nuclear deterrence doctrine is outdated in the wake of the Cold War. Nuclear policy must change, they insist, because of the growing threat from terrorist groups who may ultimately obtain nuclear devices and the danger of nuclear weapons states continuing to proliferate, as in the cases of Iran and North Korea.
Nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation. The United States must launch new initiatives to ward off these dangers, they say, and the means is eliminating the weapons and gaining control over fissile materials.
To bring this about, they urge the United States to strive to make nuclear weapons abolition a joint enterprise of the leaders of nuclear weapon states. They advocate eight urgent measures, including these: (1) Change the Cold War posture of deployed nuclear weapons to increase warning time and thereby reduce the danger of accidental or unauthorized use of a weapon; (2) Continue to reduce substantially the size of nuclear forces in all states that possess them; (3) Eliminate short-range nuclear weapons designed to be forward-deployed; (4) Initiate a bipartisan process with the Senate. . . to achieve ratification of the CTBT. . . .
The 2008 op-ed, “Toward a Nuclear-Free World,” contains more specific proposals targeting the U.S. and Russia, which together possess 95% of the world's nuclear warheads, along with those targeting other countries.
Hiromichi Umebayashi, former representative of the Japan non-profit Peace Depot, which collects and organizes information and conducts studies on peace and nuclear issues, analyzes this year's op-ed as follows:
“I'm struck by the rather conservative, practical steps it asks of the U.S. and Russia. It asks for consolidation, rather than removal, of nuclear warheads currently deployed on seven bases in the six NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) nations. The idea is to reduce the number of bases deploying nuclear weapons. This is not a drastic measure, and in any case Russia is not likely to agree. But the suggestions will be helpful in stimulating the current intra-NATO debate on revising its nuclear policies.”
Mr. Umebayashi views the CTBT-related proposals as attempts to enlist the support of conservative forces in the Bush administration and Congress. “They encourage bipartisan review of progress made in ensuring the effectiveness of nuclear weapons--they want Congress to reach consensus that the verification of CTBT is reliable and the U.S. can maintain its nuclear arsenal without resuming underground testing.” He adds, “Because the suggestion could be interpreted as meant to bolster the continuing possession of nuclear weapons, we need to repeatedly clarify that the higher goal is to move toward their elimination.”
Gathering momentum for nuclear disarmament
Multilateral movement toward nuclear disarmament began 40 years ago (1968) when countries signed the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty), which went into force in 1970. The international community was able to agree that both the nuclear disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation aspects of the NPT regime should be strengthened while the signatories, which include most countries, move forward with negotiations toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons. The final goal is a treaty that would completely ban nuclear weapons, as already exists for biological and chemical weapons.
The world has proceeded gradually on this course. A 1996 decision by the International Criminal Court in Geneva requires nuclear weapon states not only to negotiate in good faith toward nuclear abolition, but to make the negotiations bear fruit. In response, Sweden, Mexico, and five other non-nuclear weapon states formed the New Agenda Coalition in 1998. Under the powerful leadership of these seven nations, the final document of the NPT Review Conference in 2000 incorporated language calling for the nuclear weapon states to make an “unequivocal commitment” to achieve the complete abolition of their nuclear arsenals.
Resistance by the U.S. and other factors prevented the 2005 NPT Review Conference from moving forward under this consensus. With two years remaining until the next NPT Review Conference (held every five years), important suggestions are emerging on what steps should be taken to fulfill this “unequivocal commitment.”
Summit is chance to convey the realities of atomic bombing
Inspired by the op-ed, a conference in Oslo, Norway convened in February on Achieving the Vision of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons. Five key principles that emerged from the discussion included assertions of the necessity for involvement and guidance of top political leaders. In contrast to the second op-ed, which emphasized negotiations between the U.S. and Russia, the Oslo conference stressed the importance of holding a series of multilateral conferences, such as the NPT Review Conference.
The ideas of the four co-authors are beginning to influence the US presidential election. At the end of March, Republican nominee Senator John McCain, who had not previously mentioned nuclear policy, said, “We need to lead the way for a reduction in nuclear weapons throughout the world.”
What will Japan do? Although the G8 Summit of Lower House Speakers to be hosted by Japan has set nuclear proliferation as a main theme, it will not directly tackle the issue of nuclear abolition. As host, Japan could make concrete proposals for the abolition path and communicate the destruction of the atomic bomb by, for example, inviting hibakusha (A-bomb survivor) representatives. Hiroshima and Nagasaki should make use of this chance to accelerate the pace toward nuclear disarmament.
Recent key proposals aimed at the abolition of nuclear weapons
Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (WMDC) report “Weapons of Terror--Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Arms” (June 1, 2006)
Based on intensive study by 14 specialists, the committee made 60 proposals on how the world could be freed of all weapons of mass destruction. Among 30 recommendations pertaining to nuclear weapons is a call for countries to “start preparing for the outlawing of nuclear weapons.” Specific, realistic proposals are put forth under three issue categories: (1) Existing nuclear weapons (2) Nuclear weapons proliferation (3) Nuclear weapons and terrorism. The chairperson was Hans Blix, former chief UN weapons inspector. Also called the Blix Commission Report.
Kofi Annan's speech on nuclear weapons given on the occasion of his retirement from the post of Secretary General of the United Nations (November 28, 2006, Princeton University, United States)
After summarizing the nuclear situation, Annan urged greater speed in efforts for both nuclear disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation. He asked all states with nuclear weapons to develop concrete plans with specific timetables to move the world toward their total abolition, in line with the “unequivocal commitment” they made at the NPT Review Conference in 2000.
“They're right, but what they propose will never happen.” The aim of abolishing nuclear weapons from the earth, which finds wide agreement in principle, is still often viewed as an unattainable goal. However, former UN Under-Secretary General Jayantha Dhanapala sees a “revolutionary change” in the movement to rid the world of these weapons. Mr. Dhanapala was responding to one essay issued in January 2007 and another in January of this year, both by former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and three other senior U.S. officials. The two essays created such a stir that a conference was convened in Oslo, Norway in February to discuss how to implement the proposals they made. The G8 Summit will be held in Lake Toya, Hokkaido this July, and the Summit for Lower House Speakers will be held in Hiroshima in September. With Japan hosting two major international conferences this year, the Hiroshima Peace Media Center examined recent progress toward nuclear disarmament.
Support from Russia and the UK
The three men who joined Kissinger on two occasions to call for a “nuclear-free world” in op-eds published by the Wall Street Journal were George P. Shultz, former Secretary of State; William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense; and Sam Nunn, former Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. All four at one time held responsibility for the nuclear arms policy of the United States. They have come together to ask the world to unite to prevent nuclear proliferation and move toward the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons.
Men whose life paths did not suggest that they would become campaigners for nuclear disarmament have put out a concrete vision for accomplishing precisely that.
Voices quickly rose in support. Mikhail Gorbachev, former General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its last head of state, said, “It is becoming clearer that nuclear weapons are no longer a means of achieving security.” He added, “As long as nuclear weapons exist, we will live in the midst of their peril.” At an international conference, then UK Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett urged action toward nuclear abolition and restated her own country's commitment to eventual complete elimination.
Other senior U.S. leaders who have expressed support include former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State James Baker, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brezinski, former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Why have two op-eds by four men attracted so much attention? Esteem for their historical prominence plays a role, but so does respect for the specificity of their plan. Their assertion that “political will” of leaders must play a decisive role in abolishing nuclear weapons is also persuasive.
Cold War policies are outdated
The 2007 op-ed, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” pointed out that the nuclear deterrence doctrine is outdated in the wake of the Cold War. Nuclear policy must change, they insist, because of the growing threat from terrorist groups who may ultimately obtain nuclear devices and the danger of nuclear weapons states continuing to proliferate, as in the cases of Iran and North Korea.
Nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation. The United States must launch new initiatives to ward off these dangers, they say, and the means is eliminating the weapons and gaining control over fissile materials.
To bring this about, they urge the United States to strive to make nuclear weapons abolition a joint enterprise of the leaders of nuclear weapon states. They advocate eight urgent measures, including these: (1) Change the Cold War posture of deployed nuclear weapons to increase warning time and thereby reduce the danger of accidental or unauthorized use of a weapon; (2) Continue to reduce substantially the size of nuclear forces in all states that possess them; (3) Eliminate short-range nuclear weapons designed to be forward-deployed; (4) Initiate a bipartisan process with the Senate. . . to achieve ratification of the CTBT. . . .
The 2008 op-ed, “Toward a Nuclear-Free World,” contains more specific proposals targeting the U.S. and Russia, which together possess 95% of the world's nuclear warheads, along with those targeting other countries.
Hiromichi Umebayashi, former representative of the Japan non-profit Peace Depot, which collects and organizes information and conducts studies on peace and nuclear issues, analyzes this year's op-ed as follows:
“I'm struck by the rather conservative, practical steps it asks of the U.S. and Russia. It asks for consolidation, rather than removal, of nuclear warheads currently deployed on seven bases in the six NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) nations. The idea is to reduce the number of bases deploying nuclear weapons. This is not a drastic measure, and in any case Russia is not likely to agree. But the suggestions will be helpful in stimulating the current intra-NATO debate on revising its nuclear policies.”
Mr. Umebayashi views the CTBT-related proposals as attempts to enlist the support of conservative forces in the Bush administration and Congress. “They encourage bipartisan review of progress made in ensuring the effectiveness of nuclear weapons--they want Congress to reach consensus that the verification of CTBT is reliable and the U.S. can maintain its nuclear arsenal without resuming underground testing.” He adds, “Because the suggestion could be interpreted as meant to bolster the continuing possession of nuclear weapons, we need to repeatedly clarify that the higher goal is to move toward their elimination.”
Gathering momentum for nuclear disarmament
Multilateral movement toward nuclear disarmament began 40 years ago (1968) when countries signed the NPT (Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty), which went into force in 1970. The international community was able to agree that both the nuclear disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation aspects of the NPT regime should be strengthened while the signatories, which include most countries, move forward with negotiations toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons. The final goal is a treaty that would completely ban nuclear weapons, as already exists for biological and chemical weapons.
The world has proceeded gradually on this course. A 1996 decision by the International Criminal Court in Geneva requires nuclear weapon states not only to negotiate in good faith toward nuclear abolition, but to make the negotiations bear fruit. In response, Sweden, Mexico, and five other non-nuclear weapon states formed the New Agenda Coalition in 1998. Under the powerful leadership of these seven nations, the final document of the NPT Review Conference in 2000 incorporated language calling for the nuclear weapon states to make an “unequivocal commitment” to achieve the complete abolition of their nuclear arsenals.
Resistance by the U.S. and other factors prevented the 2005 NPT Review Conference from moving forward under this consensus. With two years remaining until the next NPT Review Conference (held every five years), important suggestions are emerging on what steps should be taken to fulfill this “unequivocal commitment.”
Summit is chance to convey the realities of atomic bombing
Inspired by the op-ed, a conference in Oslo, Norway convened in February on Achieving the Vision of a World Free of Nuclear Weapons. Five key principles that emerged from the discussion included assertions of the necessity for involvement and guidance of top political leaders. In contrast to the second op-ed, which emphasized negotiations between the U.S. and Russia, the Oslo conference stressed the importance of holding a series of multilateral conferences, such as the NPT Review Conference.
The ideas of the four co-authors are beginning to influence the US presidential election. At the end of March, Republican nominee Senator John McCain, who had not previously mentioned nuclear policy, said, “We need to lead the way for a reduction in nuclear weapons throughout the world.”
What will Japan do? Although the G8 Summit of Lower House Speakers to be hosted by Japan has set nuclear proliferation as a main theme, it will not directly tackle the issue of nuclear abolition. As host, Japan could make concrete proposals for the abolition path and communicate the destruction of the atomic bomb by, for example, inviting hibakusha (A-bomb survivor) representatives. Hiroshima and Nagasaki should make use of this chance to accelerate the pace toward nuclear disarmament.
Recent key proposals aimed at the abolition of nuclear weapons
Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (WMDC) report “Weapons of Terror--Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Arms” (June 1, 2006)
Based on intensive study by 14 specialists, the committee made 60 proposals on how the world could be freed of all weapons of mass destruction. Among 30 recommendations pertaining to nuclear weapons is a call for countries to “start preparing for the outlawing of nuclear weapons.” Specific, realistic proposals are put forth under three issue categories: (1) Existing nuclear weapons (2) Nuclear weapons proliferation (3) Nuclear weapons and terrorism. The chairperson was Hans Blix, former chief UN weapons inspector. Also called the Blix Commission Report.
Kofi Annan's speech on nuclear weapons given on the occasion of his retirement from the post of Secretary General of the United Nations (November 28, 2006, Princeton University, United States)
After summarizing the nuclear situation, Annan urged greater speed in efforts for both nuclear disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation. He asked all states with nuclear weapons to develop concrete plans with specific timetables to move the world toward their total abolition, in line with the “unequivocal commitment” they made at the NPT Review Conference in 2000.
