Reframing the Debate
Against Nuclear Weapons

« Previous | Next »

by Rhianna Tyson

Page 2 of 3

Prohibition vs. Control

We must reclaim the ground that has been eroded in recent years by the vertical and horizontal proliferation threats stemming from various corners of the globe.

The chemical and biological regimes, by contrast, are not predicated on a "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" mentality, even though, at the time of the CWC and BTWC negotiations (in 1997 and 1972, respectively) the weapons programs of a few States were decidedly more advanced than that of others. The key to these conventions, contrary to that of the NPT, is that they sought to delegitimize the weapons themselves. Governments at that time did not recognize the "use" and "threat of use" of biological and chemical weapons (BCWs) as evil; rather, it was the weapons themselves that abhorred governmental representatives and brought them to the negotiating table. Through negotiating a convention outlawing not only their use and threat of use, but also their production, development and stockpiling, governments implicitly recognized that complete prohibition remained the only way to guarantee against their use or threat.

The nuclear weapons regime, by contrast, continually thinks of new and innovative ways of controlling these deadly weapons, rather than of criminalizing the pursuit and possession of them, by States as well as non-State actors. Over the past few decades of WMD non-proliferation discourse, there occurred a severe disconnect: we have demonized the use of anthrax and sarin gas against soldiers and civilians, yet the destruction and radiation of generations of peoples remain an acceptable, albeit undesirable, option for some governments.

Human Security

Most of the major progress made toward disarmament in many areas can be attributed to the successful employment of a human security approach to the weapons. Advocates of a ban on landmines, for instance, constantly emphasized the devastating humanitarian effects of these weapons, even after the conflict had desisted. The success of the campaign to ban nuclear testing, too, was in large part due to the public attention to the levels of radioactive strontium-90 in the teeth of babies around the world as a result of atmospheric testing.

This type of advocacy effectively utilizes a human security approach to the disarmament discourse. The Independent Commission on Human Security (CHS) defines a framework of human security as one that protects "the vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfillment."

A human security framework focuses on the threats to personal and communal safety, rather than the defense of borders. It looks at what human beings need to feel secure in their daily lives.

A human security framework focuses on the threats to personal and communal safety, rather than the defense of borders. It looks at what human beings need to feel secure in their daily lives. Do they have enough to eat? Are they literate and educated and able to make choices in their lives? Are they comfortable walking the streets, free from the fear of gun violence, sexual violence, racial violence? Do they feel safe traveling outside of their native areas, without fear of retribution for what their government has done to others in their name?

A national security framework, by contrast, focuses first and foremost on the defense of borders and the perpetuation of the current power structures on the national level. "National security" is often invoked as justification for the rejection of important security treaties such as the Ottawa Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or even the NPT. National security is also used to legitimize the development, deployment, use and threat of use of a weapon with the potential of eradicating an entire people.

It could be argued that our failure to suffuse a human security framework with that of national security has resulted in the current inadequacies of the nuclear regime. It is precisely this type of synthesized framework that can facilitate the shift from a control regime to one of prohibition.

Allies in the Fight

Civil society can help to reframe the nuclear debate. We include doctors who understand the disastrous effects of the nuclear age, from mining to testing to actual use. We are comprised of indigenous peoples who have suffered for more than 60 years. We include women who have given birth to jellyfish babies, whose radioactive environment ate away at their bones before they could fully develop in their mothers' wombs. We are also comprised of scientists and engineers, whose ingenuity that brought about the nuclear age, can help devise ways of getting the genie back into the lamp and create verifiable mechanisms for keeping him there.

It could be argued that our failure to suffuse a human security framework with that of national security has resulted in the current inadequacies of the nuclear regime.

Many States have already recognized the invaluable contribution that NGOs have provided in the campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons. New Zealand, in its statement to the General Debate at the 59th session of the First Committee noted "the tireless and often unpaid work (of NGOs) in keeping information and debate flowing about these issues, and for keeping up the pressure on governments to take practical steps toward disarmament."

On an immediate level, NGOs have the ability to concretize and demonstrate the potential of agreements reached by governments. Step 12 of the 13 Practical Steps adopted by NPT States in 2000, for instance, calls for "regular reports, within the framework of the NPT strengthened review process, by all States parties on the implementation of Article VI". To support this decision, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom offers an annual "Shadow Report: Accountability is Democracy, Transparency is Security," which accounts for all nuclear holdings, both military and civilian around the world. The report demonstrates the utility of such transparency, not only under the Step 12 framework, but also in the campaign to create a global inventory of all nuclear materials, as suggested by Germany in a working paper submitted to the Preparatory Committee (NPT/CONF.2005/PC.III/WP.16).

The utility of NGOs is illustrated not only in what they could help governments accomplish, but what they themselves have already achieved. The huge progress made in creating a prohibition regime of anti-personnel landmines was largely attributed to the work of NGO coalitions such as the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Likewise, the International Action Network on Small Arms was also instrumental in bringing about the first Conference on the Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects, held in July 2001.

The UN Secretary-General reflected the potential of increased interaction with NGOs when, in his response to the Cardoso panel on UN reforms, he acknowledged the "need for a more organized and sustained dialogue with the NGO community", recognizing that "(m)ore effective engagement with NGOs. increases the likelihood that United Nations decisions will be better understood and supported by a broad and diverse public."

All governments should be urged to recognize, as Croatia has, "the growing beneficial role that civil society plays in the field of disarmament... (which) may give additional impetus to initiatives to break the deadlock and finally move the multilateral disarmament agenda forward."

If the 2005 NPT Review Conference is to avoid the type of stalemate that has mired so much else of the disarmament machinery, any additional impetus is needed more than ever.

« Previous | Next »

Page 2 of 3