The Creation of the Abolition 2000 Network
Colin Archer
The nature of the extreme destruction caused by nuclear weapons – and also their enormous economic and political costs – means it is perhaps inevitable that the struggle against them should give rise to fundamentalist or absolutist positions. Abolition 2000, a ‘global network for the elimination of nuclear weapons,’ is proud to display such a badge, and for once, many of us feel comfortable adhering to such a grouping. As the Japanese say, “humanity cannot co-exist with nuclear weapons”.
Precursors
The Abolition 2000 network was created by the confluence of a number of streams:
1. Towards a Nuclear Weapons-Free World – An International Coalition for Non-Proliferation and Disarmament was formed at an IPB seminar in Geneva in 1993 by four internationals: the International Peace Bureau (IPB), the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), the International Network of Engineers and Scientists (INES), and the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). By early 1995 its Founding Declaration had attracted 71 endorsing groups in 20 countries, in addition to the affiliates of the founding federations, who together had members in around 100 nations.
2. The World Campaign for Abolition of Nuclear Weapons was set up by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, based in California. Their Citizens Pledge was circulating rapidly around the movement and had received over 250 signatures.
3. The World Court Project had been launched in Geneva in 1992 by three of the above groups: IPB, IALANA and IPPNW, and by 1995 was well on the way to achieving its primary success: a strong condemnation of nuclear weapons by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This grouping, by the nature of its task which had required a resolution to be passed by one of the UN organs (as it turned out, the General Assembly itself), had a strong network of support and endorsement all over the world.
4. INESAP had set up a study group which published an influential work entitled Beyond the NPT, a compilation of articles by key figures in the Abolition movement. This later developed into the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention (mNWC), thanks to the work of the NWC working group, bringing together the combined expertise of lawyers, scientists, and others.
5. In the early 1990s there had been an intense effort at national and international levels to achieve a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which had involved the creation of a number of national coalitions, and a European Test Ban Coalition that later turned into Abolition 2000 Europe.
6. During the whole process a key role was played by leaders of national anti-nuclear organisations: Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (Britain), Movement de la Paix (France), IPPNW Germany, Gensuikyo and Gensuikin (Japan), Western States Legal Foundation (USA), Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy (USA), Economists Allied Against the Arms Race (USA), Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (USA), and others. Thus, when the key players from nongovernmental organizations came together at the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review and Extension Conference – and later that year in the Hague – they were able to pool together the vast majority of the world’s active abolitionist forces. Politically, it was just the right moment. For the most part, the ‘arms control’ groupings – largely think-tanks based in capitals (and also some US membership-based groups such as Peace Action) – remained outside the network, in part because they did not share the Abolitionist positions on the extension of the NPT. “This not only dissipated the movement’s strength, but led to a sense of betrayal on the part of the Abolitionists, who viewed the NPT supporters as overly cozy with the US government”.[1]
The April 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference
Gathered at the conference in New York, activists rapidly formed what became known as the Abolition Caucus. This came together partly in reaction to a text drawn up by former Ambassador Jonathan Dean, a wellknown figure at NPT gatherings. Feeling that this text did not go far enough, an alternative document was put together, which gradually grew into the Founding Statement of the Abolition Caucus. Contrary to the Dean position, it took a hard line against indefinite extension – seeing this as a essentially a ploy by the nuclear weapons states to maintain their arsenals on a permanent basis. It demanded a secret ballot so that the smaller states would not be intimidated by the US and the other big powers. More importantly, the statement also called for the conclusion by the year 2000 of an international treaty requiring the phased elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide. According to the press release put out at the time, over 200 groups endorsed the Statement. Within a month there were 400.[2]
In parallel with the conference, a large Citizens Assembly was held, away from the conference site, to make the connection between the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of handguns and other small arms creating havoc in (especially US) cities. While the event generated a lot of participation and energy, it (perhaps unsurprisingly) did not manage to create an ongoing campaigning link between the two types of weapons issues.
In the end the Treaty was indeed extended indefinitely. It became apparent that there was a substantial majority of states in favour of such an outcome, and the ingenious solution proposed by conference President Jayantha Dhanapala (a consensus resolution noting the majority opinion) was adopted.
The Summer of 1995
Several important developments took place over the ensuing months, causing the issue to ‘hot up’. The announcement of a nuclear test by China, and then the declaration by President Chirac in June that France would be resuming nuclear testing at Moruroa in September let loose a powerful global wave of anger that did more than anything else that year to bring nuclear issues back into the forefront of public awareness. In addition, the media coverage given to the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki reminded the world of the movement’s origin and of the high cost of inaction on this issue. Paradoxically, the row that broke out between anti-nuclear campaigners, veterans and others over the withdrawal of a commemorative ‘Hiroshima’ exhibition at the prestigious Smithsonian Institute in Washington, probably did more to re-focus US opinion on the nuclear danger than if the exhibition had been allowed to proceed on the original basis.
A Marriage of Networks
The meeting to follow up the Caucus activity at the NPT conference, planned for Geneva, was switched to the Hague in November when it became clear that there would be oral hearings at the ICJ at that time in relation to the ‘World Court Project’ resolution that had been approved by the UN General Assembly. It was here that Abolition 2000 was officially founded. One of the key participants spoke of it as a ‘marriage’ of the different precursor networks, the Caucus at the Extension Conference having been the ‘engagement’ phase. By this time there were several hundred endorsers. The grouping was given its official title: Abolition 2000: a Global Network for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. The network secretariat was hosted by the Atomic Mirror who also organised the Abolition Summit in Tahiti/Moorea in January 1997. The office was later transferred to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and since 2002 has been housed at Global Resource and Action Centre on the Environment (GRACE) in New York. The detailed work of the abolition effort has taken place – and still does today – in the Working Groups, of which there are currently thirteen.[3]
Later Developments
The network saw further growth at the time of the publication of the report drawn up by the 1996 Canberra Commission – an expert grouping set up by the Australian Government which recommended a comprehensive set of steps towards nuclear abolition, many of which were later echoed in the ‘13 practical steps’ agreed by States Parties at the 2000 NPT Review Confeence. This was followed in December 1996 by a powerful statement by 61 active and retired generals and admirals, outlining a similar strong position. Just as the NWC group drew in non-Abolition 2000 people, so the Middle Powers Initiative (MPI) – set up in 1997 to lobby the medium-size states with influence on the big powers had its own separate identity and programme. While sharing both the longterm vision of Abolition 2000 and indeed some of the key abolitionist organisations and individuals, it developed its own image and contact with high-level decision-makers such as Sen. Alan Cranston (USA) and former US President Jimmy Carter.[4] MPI played an important role in supporting the emergence of the New Agenda Coalition of states. MPI later merged with the Global Security Institute.[5]
The Abolition 2000 network set itself the goal of recruiting 2000 member groups by the year 2000, and this was indeed achieved. In April of that year it was able to present the President of the Review Conference a worldwide petition in favour of abolition, signed by 13.4 million persons. However though this represents an impressive breadth of support, the core activists were aware that in many places the level of commitment and engagement remained thin.[6]
The Information Supermarket
The period just described coincided with the exponential growth in the use of email and the creation of websites on the internet. This revolutionary shift in the pattern of communication had many effects, extending networks, accelerating discussion and information sharing, but also leading to a certain dispersal of energies. Peace advocates must now compete for attention in an immense information supermarket, in which each cause – no matter how critical for the survival of the planet is on an equal basis with all the others. As activists gather for the 2005 NPT Review Conference – under dark clouds labelled ‘Iran’, ‘North Korea’ and ‘mini-nukes’ – the members of Abolition 2000 know they have to attract, and hold, the attention of millions among the general public. Otherwise there will be little chance of successfully pressuring the nuclear decision-makers into taking the bold steps necessary for the world to finally put aside permanently this most ultimate of threats.
