The Majority Opinion
Toward a Nuclear-Free World: An Annual Assessment
Janet Bloomfield 
and Pamela S. Meidell
in which representatives of the majority of the world speak their truths about the state of our nuclear world
United Nations Day, October 24, 2002
"It feels as though some kind of contract has been broken, some unspoken agreement guaranteeing that we in the North Atlantic world would be spared the majority human experience of insecurity and physical dread. What Faustian contract did we think had been made on our behalf? How could we imagine that, in a shrinking world, we could forever postpone being touched by the majority experience? In the global village, fire can jump more easily from roof to roof."
Rowan Williams, Archbishop-elect of Canterbury
The Unfinished Agenda
what the countries left out when they agreed to grade themselves on nuclear disarmament
In the year 2000 at the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, all of the countries that had signed the NPT agreed to a set of 13 "practical steps for the systematic and progressive efforts to implement" the disarmament obligations set forth in Article VI[1] of the treaty. With this one step, the countries themselves took up most of the agenda outlined by nuclear abolition groups around the world in the Abolition 2000 Statement of 1995.[2] Since 1996, this document, and the accompanying Moorea Declaration,[3] has served as the criteria for grading the world on progress (or not) on nuclear abolition. Starting in 1996, the Atomic Mirror has produced a series of report cards[4] tracking a diminishing effort by the world in getting rid of nuclear weapons. We are not doing well. Now that the countries themselves have committed to report on a regular basis their compliance with the 13 disarmament steps to which they have agreed,[5] nuclear abolition groups have the opportunity to focus on The Unfinished Agenda, i.e. those points not taken up. In this report, we focus on the two main points neglected by the countries, but outlined in the Abolition 2000 Statement:
Point #11: Create mechanisms to ensure the participation of citizens and NGOs in planning and monitoring the process of nuclear weapons abolition.
The Moorea Declaration (which states in part):
Colonized and indigenous peoples have, in the large part, borne the brunt of ... nuclear devastation... . [Therefore,] indigenous and colonized peoples must be central... in decisions relating to the nuclear weapons cycle – and especially in the abolition of nuclear weapons in all aspects. The inalienable right to self-determination, sovereignty and independence is crucial in allowing all peoples of the world to join in the common struggle to rid the planet forever of nuclear weapons.
Obviously, these two ideas are deeply connected: the involvement of citizens in monitoring and keeping alive their democracies (especially in the current world climate), and the need for the decolonization[6] of us all in the process toward a nuclear-free world. Given the surging activism of the peoples and citizen groups of the world on the issues of globalization, the environment, peace and war, these two points are crucial in our own efforts. We will use them as a lens to look at other parts of The Unfinished Agenda. In this effort, we give center stage to the voices of our colleagues from the majority world[7], a world that fervently desires the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Regional Reports from the Majority World
in which we hear from our global colleagues(i.e., we multilateralize our dialogue...)
In an era of US unilateralism, we believe it is crucial to bring forward the voices from many parts of our world. We asked our colleagues to address these two overlooked points with respect to the realities of life in their regions, specifically: How do you ensure the participation of citizens (including indigenous and/or colonized peoples) and NGOs in your nuclear abolition campaigns and activities? How do you address the issue of decolonization, i.e. what are you doing in your region to free people from reliance[8] on nuclear weapons, and their production? What support do you need or can you offer? What specific proposals do you recommend?
Australia: In our region, the anti-nuclear and anti-war communities work closely together, opposing uranium mining, nuclear and depleted uranium weapons production, and Australia's very close military alliance with the United States. Our country is laced with uranium deposits. In our campaigns, we honor the rights of the aboriginal peoples, who are the traditional owners of the land, by supporting them, and working with sympathetic legislators to enact laws to protect them. A bill currently before the Western Australia State parliament would ban all further uranium mining, the transport of nuclear material, and international dumping of radioactive materials. If enacted, it would effectively make Western Australia a nuclear-free state[9].
On the federal level, we are looking to two Greens senators to initiate legislation blocking Pangea, the international nuclear waste-dumping consortium, from turning Australia into one of the world's nuclear waste dumps. Community education about the dangers of transporting such material across the high seas is required to ensure that it doesn't become a reality. Australia all too often sides with the US in UN debates and votes on nuclear issues. Anything that challenges US nuclear supremacy is a "go-extremely-carefully zone" for Australian Governments of either the ultra-conservative or the moderately conservative kind.
The nuclear industry, a misguided experiment of the twentieth century, is the granddaddy of globalization. Its international cartel, from the 1940s on, has demonstrated how an industry can work together for its own benefit, beyond the confines of national governments, and most often, with their support—strongly motivated by both profit and power. In its attempts to lie its way into the hearts and minds of the world's people, it has failed. It is our responsibility as citizens of the twenty-first century to see that the demise of this ghastly industry is speedy and conclusive. For that we need international solidarity, which is forthcoming largely because the deceptions and the pain caused by the nuclear industry are universal. Surely, our first step is to stop producing more contaminated material to add to the huge stockpile.
Jo Vallentine, former Green Senator and member, Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia, Australia
Europe: Since the election of the Bush administration, a widening rift has been developing between Europe and the United States. The row over the International Criminal Court highlighted the differences, with Europe in favor of a strong legal forum to put war criminals and others on trial, and the United States strongly resisting the idea on the basis of a desire to protect its perceived national interests above all else. Most European governments, with the support of their populations, are committed to maintaining and developing the multilateral structures created after the Second World War. They see these as vital to international stability and peace. The dramatic result of the recent elections in Germany, which was won by Chancellor Schroeder only after he repudiated the United States' drive to war against Iraq, presages the possibility of a rift across the Atlantic which could completely transform global politics. Only the British government seems to be willing to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the Bush administration over Iraq. In this they do not have the support of the British public.
Europe still remains a nuclear continent. Britain and France continue to maintain and invest in the development of nuclear weapons. US nuclear weapons are still stationed in Belgium, Britain, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. European activists have been among the most determined in using the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion of 1996 to challenge the illegality of nuclear weapons installations. Thousands of people have taken action in Scotland against the Trident nuclear submarine system, and in Belgium against NATO.
Janet Bloomfield, British Coordinator, The Atomic Mirror, Britain
India/South Asia: The world remains very much under the nuclear shadow. Barring the first few years after the end of the Cold War (when genuine steps towards actual nuclear disarmament and not just arms management were being made) in the post-Cold War period now unfolding, the dangers of nuclear war are even greater, albeit different, from what they were during that past. Then the justified fear was of a global holocaust. Now it is of a regional or 'limited' nuclear war or exchange. Supporters of nuclear weapons in India do not want to believe this reality. On the contrary, they want to use the example of that Cold War past, as the reassurance that we need not fear the use of nuclear weapons now. Deterrence assured peace then, so it will do so now! Nuclear peace was not the result of deterrence but much more because of the existence of a nuclear taboo established by the very horror of what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki 57 years ago. The longer this taboo lasted—and credit here must go to the much derided peace movements and to the general public sentiment that viewed these instruments of war as uniquely evil—the more difficult it became to break the taboo. Now, it is a very different situation.... There are three possible positions one can take regarding the prospects of a nuclear war in South Asia arising from an India-Pakistan conventional military conflict escalating into a nuclear exchange. The first view, widespread outside India and Pakistan among both pro-nuclearists and anti-nuclearists, is that such an exchange sometime in the future between the two countries is almost inevitable. A second view is that the danger of this is so small it is negligible. This is certainly the position of most of those in India who supported India going nuclear. Interestingly, among Pakistani supporters of the bomb there is a greater degree of pessimism, with a greater proportion who, even as they support Pakistan's acquisition of the bomb, are fearful that there could well be a nuclear exchange between the two countries. There is, of course, a third position that is far and away the most sober one - the possibility of a nuclear exchange is not negligible nor inevitable but in-between; that is to say, it is a real-case scenario, not just a worst-case one, and that its likelihood varies depending on how serious conjunctural tensions are between the countries. Short of again creating a disarmament momentum, it will be folly to think that over the next 57 years, nuclear weapons will not be used.
(excerpted from Unlimited Damage by Achin Vanaik, The Telegraph, Calcutta, September 10, 2002)
Achin Vanaik, The Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, India
Middle East: In the Middle East, the only way to involve broad masses of people in disarmament campaigns is to highlight the interrelationship between the arms build up and the arms race with the current economic, political, and national clashes of interests. These activities lead to wars and military conflicts, and consequently underscore the necessity of disarmament, nuclear and conventional, as a major factor for the solution of people's problems. Disarmament in this case is not merely technical measures leading to a model of zero nuclear weapons, but a socio-political phenomenon. Therefore, the disarmament measures stipulated by the documents of NPT Conferences must be tightly connected to the steps necessary to eliminate political, economic and social causes of wars and military conflicts. This approach will help bring the basic interests of people to the core of our campaigns. One of the best ways to address this core issue is to transform the Middle East into a zone free from all weapons of mass destruction (WMD), together with their delivery systems[10]. Such a step would free the Middle East from Israeli nuclear weapons, and WMDs that may be acquired by other states in the region. It will also deal a severe blow, for example, to the US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)[11] which lays out contingency plans to target several Middle Eastern states with nuclear weapons[12]. Instead of US aggression, the only assured way to prevent the proliferation of WMD is to free the region from these weapons. The political will necessary for this reality to happen will only manifest itself when the efforts to free the region from all WMD are tied with efforts to ensure the basic needs of the people are met.
Bahig Nassar, Coordinator of Arab Coordination Center of NGOs, Egypt
Russia: The world was shaken twice in the last decade: once when the USSR dissolved, and once when terrorists attacked the US on September 11. In the Gorbachev era, we actually lost our way to change the world for the better. We lost some wonderful possibilities to begin a process for deep reductions of the stockpile, and to eliminate nuclear weapons once and for all. Now one of the main obstacles to achieving a nuclear-free world is the new US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). What can we do? Leaders are still sure that peace is possible because their countries have nuclear weapons. I am sure nuclear threats and nuclear weapons are the last argument of weak, stressed and irresponsible politicians. People must act very quicky to stop the movement to nuclear war. But Russian people do not wish to spend money for new weapons of mass destruction; Russian people wish to build a new peaceful life after years of the Communists' totalitarian regime and many years of transition-period chaos. Russia today wishes to build its civil economy, not military industry. But the US NPR and the US deployment of space-based national missile defense (NMD) will provoke Russia to build new nuclear armaments. Combined with NATO expansion (to the Russian border), these US initiatives will break down the whole world order, and every nation will pay their own political and economic price for that nuclear apartheid.
Alla Yaroshinskaya, Ph.D., former advisor to President Boris Yeltsin, current advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev, Russia
The United States: In an era when the US unilateral policies sail forth on a regular basis, US citizens need to remember more than ever their responsibilities as citizens —of the US and of the world. We live in a democracy, and we must practice it on a regular basis or risk losing it. Citizen groups in the US, meeting to craft a nuclear abolition campaign in the heart of the beast, drafted a document entitled "Democracy, Power and Nuclear Weapons." Here are some excerpts:
"Organizing to abolish nuclear weapons is a significant moral and ethical undertaking that inherently defies the status quo. Because nuclear weapons are so closely bound to the power of the governments that hold them, promoting open public debate regarding nuclear weapons policies requires us to question state authority directly. Thus, efforts to abolish nuclear weapons can lead to citizens reclaiming sovereignty over society's decision-making processes, and hence to an expansion and reinvigoration of democracy... The process for getting rid of the bomb will both require and make possible increased openness, truthfulness, cooperation and citizen participation. ... Nuclear weapons, like slavery, are symptoms of social degradation and a climate of fear and confusion, which have much deeper roots. History teaches today's Abolitionists (here we refer to the slavery abolitionists in the 19th Century who we recognize as our forebears) that the road to world security, justice, and to the abolition of nuclear weapons must lead as well to a fundamental reconstruction of our economy and our politics."[13]
Many voices of resistance cry out around the United States. In Nevada, despite decades of persistent protest and opposition, the US government continues to conduct various kinds of nuclear weapons tests on Western Shoshone land and has plans to bury the nation's nuclear waste there. First steps in siting National Missile Defenses in Alaska met citizen opposition, as we hear from the far North:
The state of Alaska needs increased citizen involvement in planning and monitoring the nuclear weapons industry. Information is the first step in ensuring citizen involvement in a robust democracy and abolishing nuclear weapons. Historically, the nuclear and defense industries have taken advantage of the size and remoteness of Alaska for their most dangerous testing and experiments. The environment, upon which many indigenous peoples depend for subsistence, already has widespread negative impacts from decades of military pollution. Today, the people of this state are purposefully kept uninformed about Missile Defense Agency activities that could endanger them. Promoting educated opposition to missile defense in Alaska by disseminating critical information is the primary goal of No Nukes North.
An excellent model of how communities can work together to gain some control over the nuclear industry's actions did evolve during the past year. An investigative journalist in Fairbanks exposed a secret Missile Defense Agency plan to launch Scud missiles from the University's rocket research facility. This information resulted in public knowledge of the project's risks and the true safety record of the launch facility, and raised questions about future Missile Defense Agency projects. Subsequently, there was enough support within the University to set up a diverse panel of faculty and community leaders to review and make recommendations to accept or reject each proposed classified military project, based partially on if and how projects would serve local residents.
NGOs had to sue the Department of Defense to enforce adherence to the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) laws for new Alaska missile defense sites. Meaningful observance of those laws and respect for their intent would benefit citizens, the land, and the public's trust in their defenders, yet the national trend of increasing secrecy and exemptions from environmental standards has direct negative impacts on both environment and attitudes.
Stacy Fritz, No Nukes North, Alaska, USA
The Way Forward
in which we set forth three specific proposals for action
(1) What Shall We Do? The Unfinished Agenda Expands...
Our regional rapporteurs' comments revealed yet additional items ignored by the countries that agreed to the 13 points of the 2000 NPT Review Conference. All three of these points have a crucial bearing on current events in our world:
Immediately make an unconditional pledge not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. (#2 of the Abolition 2000 Statement) One strategy for dealing with potential nuclear terrorism and "rogue states" would be to stop threatening nuclear use (as the US does in the NPR), especially against countries that don't have or haven't been shown to have nuclear weapons. Public diplomacy is not enhanced with such a stance. How can we work together across borders to address the ultimate injustice of the NPR and the shift in US policy from deterrence to pre-emptive strikes?
Subject all weapons-usable radioactive materials and nuclear facilities in all states to international accounting, monitoring, and safeguards, and establish a public international registry of all weapons-usable radioactive materials. (#6 of the Abolition 2000 Statement) The problem of "loose nukes" and potential terrorist access to nuclear materials could be minimized immensely with the common sense move to create a single standard of nuclear accounting. Such an act would give weapons inspections real credibility in all quarters. How do we ensure that this inventory takes place?
Create additional Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zones (NWFZ) such as those established by the treaties of Tlatelolco and Rarotonga. (#8 of the Abolition 2000 Statement) The world's Nuclear Weapons Free Zones form the heart of the untold success story of the road to a nuclear-free world; they are one of our best hopes for bringing it into being. Currently, NWFZ treaties cover nearly half the globe (most of the global Southern Hemisphere): Treaty of Rarotonga (South Pacific), Treaty of Tlatelolco (South America), Treaty of Bangkok (Southeast Asia), Treaty of Pelindaba (Africa). NWFZs in the Middle East, South Asia, Northeast Asia, Central Asia, and Central Europe are currently under discussion at the UN and in respective regions. It's a glaring omission that the states parties to the NPT left out such a likely path to our goal. Our majority opinion contributors see NWFZs as preventive disarmament measures that could be negotiated by regional bodies as a way of taking action without the need for US involvement. In the US itself (which has never acknowledged the genocidal nature of its foundations with respect to the original inhabitants of the land), First Peoples have been successful in enacting the lion's share of the region's NWFZs. Citizen groups of all persuasions can build on these successful initiatives.
(2) How Shall We Do It? Democracy, Dialogue, Direct Action
It's all well and good to lay out what should happen. But the real question remains: How is it going to happen? Joseph Rotblat, in his critique of the US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)[14], cites the immorality and rampant destruction of nuclear weapons as ethical imperatives for abolishing them. But Bahig Nassar argues that, like the goals reiterated above, "these are already among the main bases which NGOs have been adopting in their campaigns for many years. Yet these campaigns get nowhere." He's right. Where are we? This analysis begs disarmament/abolition NGOs to conduct a serious and thoroughgoing assessment and critique of ourselves, especially in light of the anti-globalization campaigns of the last few years. Clearly, people will act when they perceive that their interests are ignored. How they take action is as important as the actions they take. We propose the following approach: democracy, dialogue, direct action.
In engaging with our democracies, we need to recapture politics from the politicians. We need to recapture it for the people, and recognize that politics is what we are practicing. Politics, as a full public discourse that engages all citizens, has been atrophying for too long in the comfortable democracies of the North. Notice the word, "discourse." That means talk, as in talk to your neighbors, to your elected representatives, to people on the street and to people standing in line at the post office. Have a dialogue, air the issues that concern you, practice freedom of speech. And then embark on the next step of reclaiming our democracies. As Mary Kaldor of the Centre for the Study of Global Governance at the London School of Economics says: "What is needed, above all, is a political project based on inclusion, democracy, and the international rule of law. Such a project can supplant the exclusivist political thinking that leads to war; it does not offer technical solutions but changes the way people perceive the world. This is just as important in the societies that are considered peaceful, such as the United States or Europe, as in the regions currently engulfed by war... But the task of grassroots activists is not to educate (or miseducate) the public about technical approaches; the task is to change global consciousness."
Nothing is better at changing people's consciousness than creative, non-violent direct action. One of the most innovative campaigns on the planet is currently underway in a quiet loch on Scotland's West Coast, aiming to rid Britain of its Trident submarines and their nuclear weapons. Using the legal and moral weight of the 1996 World Court Judgement[15], Trident Ploughshares 2000[16] involves thousands of people in an open, accountable and non-violent campaign challenging nuclear weapons. It organizes regular large acts of resistance at the UK Trident base at Faslane, Scotland. Since the formal launch of the campaign on May 2, 1998, over 1800 people have signed the Pledge to Prevent Nuclear Crime, over 1700 people have been arrested, and 277 trials have taken place. Trident Ploughshares 2000 has given people a supportive framework in which to exercise their responsibilities as global citizens, and kept Trident in the public eye at a time when nuclear weapons have been low on the media agenda.
Another new global initiative developed in the wake of the highly publicized United Nations weapons inspections of Iraqi sites, and the 1996 ICJ opinion. Teams of citizens have taken up implementation of the ICJ opinion by attempting to conduct "citizen verification inspections" at nuclear sites around the world. Citing international law affirmed by the ICJ, these Citizen Inspection Teams inspect nuclear weapons facilities, with varying degrees of success, to ascertain whether illegal activities are continuing.[17]
We would further recommend the following steps: Increase citizen involvement by requiring all states to include NGO representatives in their delegations to future NPT PrepComs and Review Conferences. Bring the issue of nuclear abolition to other regional and international arenas, including bilateral talks between the nuclear weapons states. Continue to develop mechanisms to make the nuclear weapons states more accountable to their treaty obligations and to their citizens.
(3) The Moorea Declaration: Decolonizing Our Hearts and Minds
In using the term "decolonization" here, we remember the admonition of Gabriel Tetiarahi, our Maohi colleague in Frenchoccupied Polynesia, to "Decolonize your minds!" We assert that the planet has been colonized by the nuclear enterprise and those responsible for it, since nuclear activities were undertaken in secret and therefore without consultation and the Janet Bloomfield and Pamela S. Meidell consent of the people. We are all colonized. We need to work in solidarity with our brothers and sisters of the indigenous lands and communities around the world, because they can teach us so much about what it means to decolonize our minds. They have the intimate experience and the awareness: they've been awake to colonization and we are just beginning to wake up to it. So, with the people of the Pacific (and especially the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific movement), we agree that decolonization and denuclearization must go hand in hand.
With these reflections in mind, we propose the following recommendations: Return French-occupied Polynesia to the United Nations decolonization list. Hold the nuclear weapons states, and other responsible parties, legally accountable for the human and environmental consequences of usurping land and resources for nuclear enterprises. Honor the sovereignty of indigenous peoples, and uphold treaties made with them. Support the efforts of local, affected and indigenous peoples to restore the natural balance of their environments, and to preserve knowledge about nuclear materials for future generations. Decolonize our own minds and hearts.
To inspire us, we offer the following heartening example, which occurred during the writing of this report. On Wednesday, September 25, the US government returned Thule Air Force Base[18] in Dundas, Greenland to the local citizenry. In three years, it will revert to the Inuit people[19].
Last Words
In this report, we have set forth the views of a number of people who are not normally heard in the corridors of power. They represent the vast majority of the world's citizens whose basic needs for real human security in jobs, health and education are not being met. Let us reflect too, on Albert Einstein's words for Americans, spoken in 1921, which are still valid today. Speaking of his first impressions on a visit to US shores, the famous scientist described a state of affairs that is identical or perhaps even worse today. He said in a news interview for Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant:
"The United States is the most powerful among the technically advanced countries in the world today. Its influence on the shaping of international relations is absolutely incalculable. But America is a large country, and its people have so far not shown much interest in great international problems, among which the problem of disarmament occupies first place today. This must be changed, if only in America's own interest. The last war [WWI] has shown that there are no longer any barriers between the continents and that the destinies of all countries are closely interwoven. The people of this country must realize that they have a great responsibility in the sphere of international politics. The part of passive spectator is unworthy of this country and is bound in the end to lead to disaster all round." (emphasis added)
"Recall the face of the poorest and most helpless man whom you may have seen and ask yourself if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him. Will he be able to gain anything by it? Will it restore him to a control over his own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj (self-rule) for the hungry and also spiritually starved millions of our countrymen."
Mohandas K. Gandhi (known as The Gandhi Talisman and engraved at his house/ashram in New Delhi)
(...)
Copyright c 2002 The Atomic Mirror
October 24, 2002
|
The Atomic Mirror is a project of the EarthWays Foundation of Malibu, California, a 501(c)3 charitable and educational organization. The Atomic Mirror reflects the truths of our nuclear era and transforms them through creativity and the arts. The EarthWays Foundation acts as a catalyst for personal and global awareness and social and environmental activism. |
