Nuclear Deterrence to a Nuclear Weapons Free World
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Moving Beyond Nuclear Deterrence to a Nuclear Weapons Free World ISSUE NO. 2, 2013 Moving Beyond Nuclear Deterrence to a Nuclear Weapons Free World Nuclear Abolition Forum · Issue No. 2 CONTRIBUTORS Ward Wilson Christopher Ford Paul Quilès Bruno Tertrais Sheel Kant Sharma Manpreet Sethi Alyn Ware Kiho Yi Hiromishi Umebayashi Nobuyasu Abe Hirofumi Tosaki Bill Kidd John Ainslie Uta Zapf Jonathan Granoff Rob van Riet David Krieger Richard Falk Teresa Bergman GUEST CO-EDITORS Marc Finaud Paul Meyer Manpreet Sethi Alyn Ware EDITOR Rob van Riet Dialogue on the Process to Achieve and Sustain a Nuclear Weapons Free World 46 ||`¬I Nuclear Abolition Forum · Issue No. 2 Nuclear Deterrence and Advocacy for the elimination of nuclear weapons Changing the Framework has not succeeded. One reason is that the debate is of the Debate: framed within a traditional ‘national risk vs. bene- fit’ analysis. The debate poses the question incor- Obtaining National Self Interests by rectly. It presumes that nuclear weapons provide a Advancing Global Public Goods unique benefit to the security of privileged states, whilst also having controllable risks. On the other Jonathan Granoff1 hand, most arms-control advocates argue the risk is too great; that some having the weapons is a stimu- Twenty-first century security challenges are nu- lant for proliferation, and that by accident, design, merous, complex, and, more often than not, inter- or madness a use will occur that will be catastro- connected. At their core, each of these most press- phic. This might be true but this approach to the ing challenges requires cooperation and collective debate has not succeeded. action. Persistent military competition and vio- lence, along with less-than-adequate international Within this analytical frame, an argument difficult security infrastructure, undermine efforts to coop- to overcome is that these weapons provide a bene- eratively address these challenges. While the ficial deterrent against a potential, as yet unrealized, world’s economies and businesses have long unforeseen, unknown and unknowable threat. This adapted to globalization, the political and security threat could be existential and thus eliminating the structures, debates, and frameworks remain mired weapon becomes too risky. According to nuclear in the past. weapons advocates, we have a known risk, which is being managed, but the unknown risk could be far New risks, such as those arising from sub-state ac- worse. They thus successfully advance the solution tors and abuses of cyber-space are growing, while of improving the management system and making critically important matters that require new levels concerted efforts to stop proliferation. of cooperation, such as eliminating weapons of mass destruction, ending poverty and protecting The reality is that nuclear weapons are a present the living systems upon which civilisation depends, existential threat and do not provide national secu- are being neglected. Nuclear deterrence policies are rity. In fact, they constitute a pillar in a systemically incompatible with the cooperative security system dysfunctional international security order, which is that is needed to address very real pressing threats not adequately addressing a set of global threats. to us all. Nuclear weapons are a critical logjam for progress beyond a large complex systemic problem: the lack It is foolish to say that a healthy global climate, of a sufficiently broad common security framework oceans with a proper balance of acid and alkaline, that integrates nuclear weapons elimination into or rainforests that give off adequate oxygen are the process of addressing all shared threats to hu- primarily national security goods. Is a stable global man survival. So long as nuclear arms control prac- economy best understood as a national good? How titioners insist on pursuing arms control and dis- about a functioning communications network like armament goals outside of a broader framework the Internet? Is it not more accurate to describe defined by cooperation and collective security, we these as global public goods? The elimination of will have a very hard time achieving success. We nuclear weapons is a similar global public good, must place the elimination of nuclear weapons in and reliance by some on nuclear deterrence is con- the context of achieving the entire menu of exis- trary to pursuing that good. tential global public goods. 47 ||`¬I Nuclear Abolition Forum · Issue No. 2 Each of us knows that our individual life is pre- deference to short-term parochial interests. Our cious and fragile. What is more our capacity for collective challenges require principles that are up- existential planetary destruction reminds us that lifting, inspiring and affirmative of our highest po- our collective existence is fragile. The future of all tential. They must be based on universal values people is interconnected as never before, as we that weave peace and human security, rather than face numerous issues, for which we must work to- divisiveness and violent competition. gether to succeed. To address inter alia ensuring Nine countries directly, and about 30 indirectly - by bio-diversity and ending the destruction of thou- virtue of their respective ‘nuclear umbrellas’ - claim sands of species; reversing the depletion of fishing that threatening to use nuclear weapons is a legiti- stocks; controlling ocean dumping; preventing mate way for them to pursue security, but not a ozone depletion; halting global warming; control- legitimate way for others to do so. This violent ling and eliminating all weapons of mass destruc- double standard undermines the political environ- tion and preventing new ones from emerging; end- ment necessary to obtain cooperation to address ing terrorism whether by States or non-State ac- integrated threats facing humanity. But those who tors; fighting pandemic diseases; ending crushing play geopolitics believe that rules of morality and poverty; providing clean drinking water; and ad- equity are not necessary in the affairs of States. dressing crises from States in chaos - we must re- mind ourselves that no nation or even a small Niccolo Machiavelli stated it in, “The Prince”: group of nations can succeed alone. “Where the safety of the country depends upon resolutions to be taken, no consideration of justice Some solutions must be universal. Chlorofluoro- or injustice, humanity or cruelty, nor of glory or carbon from a refrigerant in the U.S. or China can 2 shame, should be allowed to prevail.” harm the ozone in Chile, New Zealand or any- where. If one country allows oceanic dumping, This policy of “emergency” can hardly make sense others will follow. Viruses do not recognize relig- as a norm if we are to be ethical beings living in ions, races or borders. New levels of human unity community. Such so-called ‘realists’ invariably as- and cooperation are needed. Governance to ad- sert that power in their own hands is necessary to dress these challenges can be ad hoc no longer. ensure the security of their individual State. Over- looking the intricate interconnectedness of living Nuclear deterrence arguments must be framed systems, they exalt Social Darwinism. Strength is within this new and accurate context of holistic good, ultimate strength is better. In the quest for global security. I furthermore suggest placing the the ultimate weapon, an absurd result is obtained. issue in the context of accepted moral imperatives The means to security and the pursuit of strength and existential necessities as part of changing the undermine the end of security. Such improved framework of the debate. means to an unimproved end is most aptly articu- lated by nuclear weapons whereby the means of The Need for Cooperative Security from an pursuing security undermines the end of security. Ethical Standpoint This is not realistic. This is irresponsible. Wise people have been instructing us for millennia to recognize our deeper human unity and have Realists furthermore rely on a rigid worldview, in even encouraged seeing the human family as one. which the pursuit of the good and the pursuit of Now necessity alerts us: the galvanizing power of the real are divisible. Some even say only that moral global leadership cannot be postponed in which can be measured, predicted and controlled is relevant in policy discussion. What gives our lives 48 ||`¬I Nuclear Abolition Forum · Issue No. 2 meaning, what makes us human, what ex- Is nuclear deterrence in accordance with the principles of alts our lives, is not considered. They leave religious faiths and philosophical traditions? little room in the making of policy for conscience, love, or other immeasurable, Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find formless, human treasures. Not the least of hurtful.” Udana Varga, 5:18; “A state that is not pleasing or delightful to these treasures is caring for the welfare of me, how could I inflict that upon another?” Samyutta Nikaya v. 353. others, precisely one of the aspects of hu- Christianity: “All things whatsoever you would that men should do to man existence that provides meaning. It is you, do you even so to them.” Matthew 7:12. our capacity for compassion. Confucianism: “Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” Analects 15:23; Compassion is essential to our ethical na- “Tsi-kung asked, ‘Is there one word that can serve as a principle of ture and has universally guided every suc- conduct for life?’ Confucius replied, ‘It is the word ‘shu’ – reciprocity. cessful culture. It is upon the foundation Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.’” Doctrine of of ethical principles that policies must be- the Mean 13.3; “One should not behave towards others in a way which come based. Without compassion, law is disagreeable to oneself.” Mencius Vii.A.4. cannot attain justice, and without justice, Hinduism: “This is the sum of duty: do not unto others which would there is never peace.