For global nuclear disarmament

At a meeting in London under the auspices of the Pugwash Conference India and Pakistan are criticised for testing nuclear weapons and the five other nuclear powers for not reducing their stockpiles.

THOMAS ABRAHAM
in London

THE post-Cold War years have not entirely been happy times for the world nuclear disarmament movement. Although the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, which provided the rationale for the arms race during the Cold War years, had ended, the nuclear weapon powers made very slow progress in reducing their nuclear stockpiles. An ambitious arms reduction treaty that the U.S. and Russia signed on January 3, 1993, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty 2 (START 2), remains unratified by the Russian Parliament, and there is little prospect of the weapons reduction that the treaty envisages coming into effect in the near future.

On top of all this, the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in May 1998 have demonstrated that a world based on only five declared nuclear powers is increasingly untenable unless these states take definite steps to reduce their own nuclear stockpiles. It was against this backdrop that experts from the five major nuclear weapon states gathered in London in the first week of November under the banner of the Pugwash Conference to examine the prospects of moving towards a nuclear weapon-free world.

The Pugwash Conference is a grouping of scientists, formed early in the Cold War era to campaign for an end to nuclear weapons. The meeting was also a commemoration of the 90th birthday of one of the founders of the Pugwash movement, Sir Joseph Rotblat, the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize winner.

EDDIE MULHOLLAND/ GAMMA
Joseph Rotblat, the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize winner and co-founder of the Pugwash Conference, a scientists' grouping campaigning for nuclear disarmament.

Rotblat summed up the sense of disappointment felt by the disarmament community when he said that even though the Cold War had ended nearly a decade ago, "the mindset of the Cold War seems to have survived, particularly in the United States...looking at recent statements from Washington, it looks as if they intend to hold on to their nuclear weapon stockpiles into the foreseeable future."

Qian Jiadong, a former Chinese diplomat, pointed out that the Cold War mentality seemed to be alive, with military alliances being strengthened and new weapons and missile systems tested. The nuclear weapon powers had tended to emphasise the reductions they had made in their weapons stocks over the past few years, but the size of their nuclear stockpiles was enough to destroy the world several times over, he pointed out.

Professor Paul Doty, a veteran of the U.S. disarmament movement, said that the U.S. and Russia had reduced their warheads from around 65,000 before the end of the Cold War to around 30,000 now. Although this might seem impressive, Doty pointed out that just 100 warheads were enough to cause destruction of the same scale as that occurred during the Second World War.

Doty said a crisis appeared to have hit the framework of arms reductions that the U.S. and Russia had agreed upon in the early 1990s. He said that Russia seemed to have decided that as the reliability of its conventional forces declined, only nuclear forces could guarantee the country's security. He blamed the decision to extend the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) towards eastern Europe as another factor that caused a rethink in Russia about the wisdom of abandoning its nuclear stockpiles.

Professor Alexander Nikitin from Moscow State University confirmed that the Russian establishment was reluctant to abandon its nuclear stockpiles. He pointed out that Russia felt humiliated at the decline in its fortunes. Perceptions of threat from the developments ranging from the expansion of the NATO to the instability in Georgia and the Caucuses had made it difficult for Russia to think of nuclear arms reductions, he said. At the same time, he felt that the Russian Duma would eventually ratify START 2 and pave the way for the next round of arms reduction talks.

Speakers at the meeting pointed out that the impasse in Russia had provided a reason for the U.S. to go slow on its own efforts to reduce its nuclear stockpiles. "The most important thing is to persuade the United States that it is in its interests to move towards an elimination of nuclear weapons," said Doty.

A former chief of staff of the British defence forces, Lord Carver, made a plea for the three so-called minor nuclear powers to take immediate steps to eliminate their own nuclear weapons rather than wait for the big nuclear powers to reduce their stockpiles first. He described nuclear arms as "useless weapons". He urged Britain to give up its weapons and pointed out that the country was not threatened by hostile neighbours. He dismissed arguments in favour of Britain maintaining its nuclear weapons and said that there was no conceivable circumstances under which these weapons could ever be used. He said that conventional weapons were equally effective to tackle countries that threaten the world with chemical and biological weapons.

However, Lord Carver's advocacy of immediate nuclear elimination did not find favour with the Chinese and French speakers at the meeting. Former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard said logic demanded that the U.S. and Russia reduce their nuclear stockpiles before the minor nuclear powers complied. He said that France had made progress in reducing its own stockpiles - the land-based Pluto missile system had been cancelled, and airborne nuclear weapons had been reduced by a third. Fissile material production had also been frozen, he said.

Qian Jiadong said that China would not disarm unilaterally until the big powers reduced their weapon stocks. "It is unrealistic to expect the minor nuclear powers to begin reductions given the disparities between their stockpiles and those of the two bigger powers. China will join the process of arms reductions at the appropriate time," he said. He pointed out that in a white paper published four months ago China had committed itself to the elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide.

Qian said that China believed that the abandoning of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence was an essential first step towards eliminating nuclear weapons. He said that a commitment by all nuclear powers to a 'no first use' policy, detargeting of nuclear weapons, and withdrawal of nuclear weapons stationed outside the borders of the nuclear weapon states would be important steps towards the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The recommendations that emerged from the meeting were perhaps best summed up in a statement that the Pugwash Conference had adopted in October 1998. It criticised India and Pakistan for testing nuclear weapons, and the five other nuclear powers for not eliminating their own weapons and thus giving India and Pakistan a reason to go nuclear. It also criticised the five nuclear powers for failing to live up to their responsibility under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to reduce their stockpiles. "After a period of reductions and adaptions following the end of the Cold War, the nuclear weapon countries seem determined to keep enough nuclear weapons in their arsenals to inflict unacceptable damage should they ever be used in combat."

It said: "If the United States, the mightiest state in the world, resolves that it needs nuclear weapons for security, how can one expect states that have a real reason to feel insecure forgo such weapons?"

The meeting suggested a number of steps towards building a nuclear-free world, including a trilateral 'no first use' commitment between India, China and Russia. "Building on the long-standing Chinese and recent Indian pledges of 'no first use', a trilateral no first use commitment between India, China and Russia is certainly desirable, and may now be possible." The meeting also urged NATO to adopt a ' no first use' policy, pointing out that "its reasons for maintaining a 'first use' option have long since disappeared."

The meeting also urged that all nuclear weapons be taken off alert status to reduce the risk of their unauthorised use, or that of a nuclear war by misunderstanding or accident. It also suggested that "another important step would be to take all warheads off the delivery vehicles and store them separately." It added that "if the five nuclear weapon powers would adopt safer postures of this kind, the argument that India and Pakistan should refrain from putting warheads on their delivery vehicles would become a strong and consistent one."

Table of Contents

Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar