We
cannot intimidate others into behaving well when we ourselves are
misbehaving. Yet that is precisely what nations armed with nuclear
weapons hope to do by censuring North Korea for its nuclear tests and
sounding alarm bells over Iran's pursuit of enriched uranium. According
to their logic, a select few nations can ensure the security of all by
having the capacity to destroy all.
Until
we overcome this double standard - until we accept that nuclear weapons
are abhorrent and a grave danger no matter who possesses them, that
threatening a city with radioactive incineration is intolerable no
matter the nationality or religion of its inhabitants - we are unlikely
to make meaningful progress in halting the spread of these monstrous
devices, let alone banishing them from national arsenals.
Why,
for instance, would a proliferating state pay heed to the exhortations
of the US and Russia, which retain thousands of their nuclear warheads
on high alert? How can Britain, France and China expect a hearing on
non-proliferation while they squander billions modernising their nuclear
forces? What standing has Israel to urge Iran not to acquire the bomb
when it harbours its own atomic arsenal?
Nuclear
weapons do not discriminate; nor should our leaders. The nuclear powers
must apply the same standard to themselves as to others: zero nuclear
weapons. Whereas the international community has imposed blanket bans on
other weapons with horrendous effects - from biological and chemical
agents to landmines and cluster munitions - it has not yet done so for
the very worst weapons of all. Nuclear weapons are still seen as
legitimate in the hands of some. This must change.
Around
130 governments, various UN agencies, the Red Cross and the
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons are gathering in Oslo
this week to examine the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons
and the inability of relief agencies to provide an effective response in
the event of a nuclear attack. For too long, debates about nuclear arms
have been divorced from such realities, focusing instead on geopolitics
and narrow concepts of national security.
With
enough public pressure, I believe that governments can move beyond the
hypocrisy that has stymied multilateral disarmament discussions for
decades, and be inspired and persuaded to embark on negotiations for a
treaty to outlaw and eradicate these ultimate weapons of terror.
Achieving such a ban would require somewhat of a revolution in our
thinking, but it is not out of the question. Entrenched systems can be
turned on their head almost overnight if there's the will.
Let
us not forget that it was only a few years ago when those who spoke
about green energy and climate change were considered peculiar. Now it
is widely accepted that an environmental disaster is upon us. There was
once a time when people bought and sold other human beings as if they
were mere chattels, things. But people eventually came to their senses.
So it will be the case for nuclear arms, sooner or later.
Indeed,
184 nations have already made a legal undertaking never to obtain
nuclear weapons, and three in four support a universal ban. In the early
1990s, with the collapse of apartheid nigh, South Africa voluntarily
dismantled its nuclear stockpile, becoming the first nation to do so.
This was an essential part of its transition from a pariah state to an
accepted member of the family of nations. Around the same time,
Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine also relinquished their Soviet-era
atomic arsenals.
But
today nine nations still consider it their prerogative to possess these
ghastly bombs, each capable of obliterating many thousands of innocent
civilians, including children, in a flash. They appear to think that
nuclear weapons afford them prestige in the international arena. But
nothing could be further from the truth. Any nuclear-armed state, big or
small, whatever its stripes, ought to be condemned in the strongest
terms for possessing these indiscriminate, immoral weapons.
