Keynote Speech at the Opening Ceremony
26th Annual Plenary Meeting
25 June 2008
Stockholm, Sweden
By Hans Blix, Former Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission
Download the PDF
It is a great honour to introduce your discussion of the
present state of the world. The Charter of the Interaction
Council directs you to develop recommendations on and
practical solutions for political, economic and social
problems confronting humanity. I take it then that my role
at this opening morning session is to deliver problems and
the role of the Council in the afternoon session is to
deliver practical solutions.
Let me first make some comments on how we go about
defining problems. Then to point to some major
developments that have taken place and that may continue
to raise challenges to the world community. Thereafter, I
propose to devote a more extensive discussion to two major
issues:
- the novel issue of the relation between our energy use and the threat of global warming; and
- the age-old question how we can avoid the threat or use of force between states and achieve disarmament.
How do we define our problems?
As makers of decisions on many complex questions, you are
familiar with both the need and the difficulty to have an
accurate picture of the reality in which you are asked to
intervene. You know also that it may often be necessary to
take decisions and act before all the facts are known with
certainty.
Before they decide on therapy, medical doctors must
observe and analyze symptoms and set the right diagnosis.
In the same way, political leaders need first to
critically examine dossiers of data coming from different
sources, e.g. from supposedly competent and objective
civil services, NGOs, media and various interest groups.
It may be natural for political leaders – and for their
voters – to look to data from their own familiar national
sources. Yet, reports from the international scientific
community and from the international civil service often
bring valuable impartiality and a credibility on which
international agreement and action can be reached.
- I need hardly argue the crucial importance of the International Panel on Climate Change. All its conclusions over the years are not unanimously endorsed. That is as it should be in a world where critical thinking is part of progress. Yet, to the policy-maker, the views and conclusions of a panel representing a very large multinational scientific community rightly carry greater weight than views of limited groups.
- Another example – one that may be forgotten – was the advice that was given by the United Nations Scientific Committee on Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) about the dangers of the fallout from atmospheric nuclear testing. It was of crucial importance to persuade the world of the necessity for the Partial Test Ban Treaty that was concluded in 1963.
- It is sad that the reports of the international inspectors were ignored by the governments of the Alliance of Willing States that intervened in Iraq in March 2003. Even today, when the errors of national intelligence have been laid bare in key states, many in these states still seem to ignore that by the time of the intervention independent international inspection had provided no support for national intelligence claiming the existence of a continued Iraqi WMD program. Indeed, some significant parts of the national intelligence had been rebutted. Had the international inspection mandated by the Security Council been taken seriously by all and been allowed to continue for a few months more, the war might well have been precluded.
I would like to submit to you that in general - and
especially on contentious international issues – more
attention should be paid to the reports and analyses that
states actually mandate from international organizations.
In the future, we shall undoubtedly see a growing use of
international reports, and of monitoring and inspection
not only in the area of arms control and disarmament but
also the fields of the environment, fisheries and
exploitation of other natural resources, finance, health,
etc. Is it not natural – and economic -- that conclusions
and actions of the international community should be based
on inquiries and analyses mandated and paid for by that
community?
I shall point now to some major developments that impact
on our future.
A little girl was told by her mother that the crayfish is
moving backward and does not see where it is going. No,
said the wise little girl, but it knows where it is coming
from…
Indeed, looking backward we can see that a number of major
developments since the Second World War raise promises and
threats for the future. Let me mention some:
- The SCIENTIFIC and TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT will continue and further accelerate the revolutions in communication, transport, international trade, productivity and health. Some people will want the planet to stop to allow them to jump off. However, we shall go on plucking apples from the tree of knowledge. Many innovations will lead to further globalization. We have thought of this development mainly in the fields of economics, finance, science and information. However, it will bring people and states closer and the accelerating interdependence will have a heavy impact on state relations.
- Life expectancy will go further up and child mortality will go further down. There will be more of us and more who will need to be taken care of. Many of the problems relating to food shortages, competition about energy and environmental destruction and degradation are connected with the rapid POPULATION INCREASE.
- At the time of Christ there were – it has been calculated – some 350 million people on the Earth
-- by the year 1900 we had become 1.5 billion;
-- in 1990 we had attained the 5 billion level; and
-- in the year 2000 we were around 6 billion.
- Thus, in the last decade of the 20th century, we increased by roughly the same number – 1 billion – as we did during the 19 centuries from the time of Christ! Are we to continue like this until the sign ‘standing room only’ goes up in more places? If we have been urged to multiply and populate the world, could we not declare ‘mission accomplished’?
- It is true that fertility rates have gone down faster than earlier expected and that the currently drawn curve for global population increase has flattened somewhat. Yet, we don’t seem to worry that the change is too slow.
- In countries where negative growth has occurred this seems sometimes to have been lamented as national calamities. Should it not rather be welcomed
- Economists used to tell us, to be sure, that increases in population were needed to boost economic expansion. Can’t they give us some less problematic way of achieving expansion?
- Can’t we also recognize that greater equality for women, including the right to education, is not only a moral imperative but is also – with better health care – the best way to smaller, healthier families.
- ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION and DISASTERS are not new in the history of mankind but – as it has been said – while in the past we used considerable effort and talent to destroy each other, we now seem to be joining hands to destroy our common environment. Population increase and the tools of modern technology and chemistry have expanded the environmental damages from being local, to becoming regional and now global.
- Groucho Marx, pondering the admonition that we should do something for future generations, said he did not understand it; “They never did anything for us…” He was joking. I am sure he would have agreed that, to feel a duty to pursue a sustainable development, we need do no more than recognizing our natural wish to leave a livable world to our grand children.
I shall turn in a moment to the specific, currently overwhelming question of the relation between energy use and global warming and, thereafter, to the questions of disarmament and the non-use of force. In this broad survey of developments let me also mention
- that the establishment of the UNITED NATIONS over 60 years ago and the creation of a host of intergovernmental organizations of universal membership have provided the states of the world vital fora in which they can discuss and jointly address common problems. Let us remember that this organizational evolution that we take for granted began only about a hundred years ago. The specialized agencies are for the world what government departments are in individual states. They provide mechanisms through which governments can act together on issues that they cannot manage on their own;
- that the emancipation of the COLONIAL WORLD made the UN universal and it also revealed the enormous challenge to bridge the gap in standards of living between different parts of mankind. While tremendous strides have been made in many developing countries large scale extreme poverty continues to exist and calls for attitudes of solidarity;
- that the universal declaration of HUMAN RIGHTS might perhaps be seen as the emancipation of the individual human being, giving him or her rights to claim wherever he or she might be and whatever ethnic or religious group he or she might belong to. Although human rights are subject to violations everywhere and gross violations occur in many areas, common global standards now exist. They are not rooted in any particular religion, political creed or civilization but might perhaps be seen as a globalization of ethics. They need to be supported and fora must be maintained where complaints can be lodged and heard; and
- that although the last hundred years have seen two world wars, vast oppression, mega killings and genocide, the recognition of human rights reflects a broad revulsion of brutality and cruelty. The evolution has clearly been going and continues to go toward more humane attitudes:
-- The death penalty and other cruel forms of punishment
have been practiced throughout history. These are
abandoned in one country after another.
-- Duelling was once a legally accepted and honorable way
of settling controversies. No longer.
-- The spanking of children was normal in most cultures
but is increasingly rejected and even forbidden.
-- Genital mutilation has been and remains common in some
cultures but is increasingly rejected and forbidden.
- The wider global acceptance of democracy – and corresponding rejection of autocracy -- may perhaps be seen as a recognition of the human right of each individual to participate in setting the political, economic, and social conditions and norms that he or she will have to live by.
- The implosion of the Soviet empire, the END of the COLD WAR and the acceptance of different shades of market economy practically everywhere, including China, have given new chances for the creative initiative of individuals. The result has been rapid economic rise in many countries – especially China, India and many other states in Asia. The result is also a need for new rules of the road in the political and economic landscape. More states are invited to join the World Trade Organization and rules in the World Bank and IMF will need to be modified.
- The end of the Cold War also marked the end of a ‘bipolar world’. I shall discuss this in a little while.
Major developments obviously include new REGIONAL
COOPERATION and organization. While ASEAN, NAFTA, and
MERCOSUR mark regional cooperation, the EUROPEAN UNION
marks an integration and transformation of Europe.
Perhaps one can discern three phases. The first was driven
by a wish to preclude war between European states through
the merger of key industries. The second was the creation
of a vast internal market that has called for extensive
unification of law and joint institutions. The third –
ongoing – phase is marked by a wish to reshape joint
institutions and procedures to work more efficiently and
to enable the participating states to project the
considerable aggregate power of the expanding union.
The EU is an exciting project in which the original
incentive to ensure peace is now a given. Having in my
student days traveled with a passport stamped with an
allied military permit to go through occupied Germany, I
enjoy the freedom to move around much of Europe without a
passport, to use the same currency, to see the merger of
European corporations and ties between trade unions is
gradually creating a family – with quarrels and
all.
I turn now to the relation between energy and global
warming
In the beginning of my presentation I noted that although
not everybody is convinced about the gravity of global
warming and although not all data are there delaying
action may be risky. It may get too late.
A basic political and ethical dilemma is well known:
during the last couple of hundred years the industrialized
states have raised their living standards to unprecedented
levels and an important means of doing this has been
relying on energy from the burning of increasing volumes
of fossil fuels. They all result in the emission of
carbon-dioxide.
When developing countries begin to follow the same pattern
as the industrialized countries, the rich world stands up
and warns: ‘Sorry, we have already emitted more CO2,
methane and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
than is prudent. Adding any more would be reckless! We
need to reduce these emissions. Developing countries might
answer: ‘OK, but how about some equity – perhaps we can
agree on per capita emission limits ensuring that the
total emissions of greenhouse gases do not become
imprudent?’
So, what shall we do?
Most will agree that our global village needs to consider
prudent aggregate limits for future emissions of CO2 and
other greenhouse gases and needs arrangements how such
limits can be effectively implemented globally.
Let us first note that although carbon-dioxide may be the
biggest single factor, we should not overlook action on
other greenhouse gases. An agreement last year to
accelerate the implementation of the Montreal Protocol on
phasing out CFC’s (chloroflouorcarbons and
hydrochlorofluorcarbons) by 10 years was very welcome not
only to help rescue the ozone layer, but also because it
contributed significantly to reduce the emission of a
potent greenhouse gas.
Today the fossil fuels provide some 85 % of the world’s
energy and either ways must be found to limit their use or
to limit emissions of CO2 from them.
To limit the use of energy, some, especially in the
richest countries, urge us going back to simpler living
with less use of fossil fuels. Some gains are undoubtedly
available on this account, but we should be aware that
most of humanity has no opulent life styles to shed. Even
though the price of oil now is far above 100 dollars per
barrel, fast developing countries will increase their
demand. As the famous Indian nuclear scientist Homi Bhaba
said: ‘No energy is more expensive than no
energy’.
Currently, our increasingly energy hungry world is both
looking for ways of increasing the production and use of
fossil fuels --- oil, gas and coal – and for reducing
consumption and the emissions linked to the consumption.
The pumping of more oil and gas is urged for the sake of
the world economy but feared by the world ecology. For the
time being the concern about the economy seems to prevail
over that of the ecology. Let me give an example:
The Arctic ice is melting fast and much of it may
disappear due to the climate change caused in large part
by the burning of oil and gas. The first reaction is
enthusiasm that with the ice gone it may be possible to
drill for and exploit new oil and gas resources that used
to be inaccessible… Perhaps governments could allow
themselves to be inspired by what they did in the
Antarctic, where an environmental protocol was reached,
prohibiting the exploitation of minerals and other
resources. After all, for the world it would be like
keeping valuable capital in the bank for use later
on.
We should note that apart from environmental consequences
increased global use of oil and gas resources may have
negative security implications. As someone said, if Iraq’s
main export had been kumquats, there would have been no
wars in the Gulf. Today, we can see that Central Asia,
rich in oil and gas, is becoming another area of great
power tensions. Thus, both international security and
environmental security would benefit from restraint in the
demand for oil and gas.
When it comes to ways of reducing the amounts of carbon
dioxide, many measures are discussed. It is
uncontroversial to say that we should look for all
possible ways – technologies and economic measures – that
result in reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. A major
approach is to seek to expand the use of energy sources
that generate little or no greenhouse gases, like nuclear
power, hydropower, solar power and other renewables.
Regrettably, some of these sources and methods may raise
only faint or distant hopes and others are
controversial.
Research and development of energy from fusion is
desirable but practical results can hardly come in the
foreseeable future. High hopes are currently pinned at the
testing of techniques of catching (sequestering) CO2 from
the burning of fossil fuels and injecting it into cavities
in the earth. However, it is too early to know whether the
methods are practicable and affordable.
One practical, significant and uncontroversial approach is
to increase efficiency so that more energy is obtained
from any given amount of fuel. When the number of cars
increases it is obviously desirable that their engines use
less gas per mile. However, the introduction of energy
saving techniques in many cases requires time and is most
practical when investments are made in new machinery and
methods.
Stopping deforestation, especially of tropical rain
forests, would preserve vast lungs that soak up carbon
dioxide. Perhaps states that undertake to set such lungs
aside as ‘global parks’ could be compensated by the
international community– just as private owners are
compensated by states for land set aside as national
parks?
Switching from coal to oil and from oil to gas is helpful
to reduce CO2 emissions, as the burning of gas results in
half as much CO2 as does coal per energy unit
generated.
While not much hydropower remains to exploit, other
‘renewables’ – i.e. solar and wind energy, biomass and
ethanol, wave and tidal power – remain the chief option to
some. Many of these sources may become more economic than
they are now but few believe they can become of more than
marginal importance.
Let me give some figures comparing the energy content of
different fuels:
1kg of wood has an energy content corresponding to 1
kWh
1 kg of coal
---------------------------------------------to 3 kWh
1 kg of oil
----------------------------------------------- to 4
kWh
while
1 kg of uranium ----------------------------------------to
50.000 kWh,
If it is reprocessed after use, the U and Pu will
have
an energy content corresponding ----------------to
3.500.000 kWh
If there were some break-throughs in our ability to store
electric energy – better batteries – some of the
intermittent energies, like wind and solar would become
more useful.
Let me turn, lastly, to nuclear power
Nuclear power currently provides the world about 4 percent
of its energy and about 16 percent of its electric energy.
There is little doubt that after a long period of
stagnation nuclear power is now experiencing spring and
could in time give the world vast amounts of energy.
Construction is going on in Asia and Russia, Eastern
Europe, Finland and France. In the UK, the government is
determined to replace its aging park of nuclear plants
with a new generation. In the US new nuclear power
reactors have been ordered in Georgia and many more are
expected. In the Persian Gulf a number of reactors may be
ordered to meet rapidly increasing electricity demand and
to desalinate water.
While it is generally accepted that nuclear power can give
the world significant amounts of carbon- dioxide free
energy, objections are raised on other grounds. Let me
deal with the principal objections.
It is objected that uranium is a ‘finite’ resource.
However, a future use of breeder reactors will make these
resources ample even for many centuries of increased
reliance on nuclear power. Utilizing the thorium resources
of the world is another avenue that remains open and may
offer several advantages.
It is objected that the Chernobyl accident showed that
nuclear power is not safe and that accidents can have long
lasting unacceptable consequences. However, in some forty
years of nuclear power reactor operations, the unusual
Chernobyl reactor is the only one that suffered an
accident causing significant radioactive releases into the
environment. Since Chernobyl there has been much
development in nuclear safety. The risks of accidents
cannot go to zero, but the availability of nuclear power
plants has gone up from a global figure of some 70 % in
the 1970s to well over 90 % in the 1990s. This points to a
much greater reliability and, at the same time, better
economy. Care is now also taken that even in the worst
kind of accident, releases of radioactivity into the
environment should not occur.
It is objected that there is no solution to the question
of nuclear waste. However, the concepts and technical
solutions do exist for secure and very long term disposal
of high level nuclear. New technology may bring even
better solutions. A wise woman chairing a Swedish
commission on the question of nuclear waste said that
‘Waste is what you have when imagination has run out.’
Finland is the first country building a repository for
high level waste and I am sure that Sweden will not be
very far behind. Further, however you assess the small
risk of leakage of radioactive waste, perhaps thousands of
years from now, you must compare that risk with the
certainty of the negative impact even in the next 50 years
of the wastes from the main alternative – fossil
fuels.
It is claimed, lastly, that an expansion of nuclear power
would increase the risk of further spread of nuclear
weapons. However, while clearly more nuclear fuel would
have to be produced for more nuclear reactors, the risk of
misuse or diversion of enriched uranium or plutonium can
be minimized. The major part of any expansion of nuclear
power would occur in countries that already have nuclear
power – the US, UK, China, Russia, Japan, India etc.
Whether the US would have 200 nuclear power plants rather
than 100, or Sweden would have 20 instead of 10, would
hardly risk increasing the number of nuclear weapons in
the world.
The construction of installations for the enrichment of
uranium and production of plutonium where it would not be
economically justified would, however, be a cause of
concern. It would have to be addressed on a case by case
basis – as is now done with North Korea and Iran. One
should remember, nevertheless, that even if there were no
expansion of nuclear power in the world, the construction
of such installations could occur and would have to be
addressed. To remove or reduce incentives for the
construction of indigenous fuel cycle installations
international arrangements are now discussed about
assurances of supply of nuclear fuel for power reactors in
bona fide non-nuclear weapon states.
A last comment: in their stands on nuclear power,
political parties and leaders seem often to have been led
by tactical considerations whether on balance votes would
be gained or lost by support or opposition to nuclear
power. In my view they should rather weigh arguments of
substance and seek to inform and lead public opinion. It
is true that many people have felt anguish about nuclear
power just as many people feel anguish about flying. If
political leaders conclude that using more nuclear power
has increasing advantages, inter alia, as one of several
means of generating energy without CO2 and if they are of
the view that these advantages outweigh the decreasing
risks, they should say so.
I turn now from the energy-environment issue to the issue
of non-use of armed force between states and
disarmament.
Visions of a worldwide outlawing of nuclear weapons have
often been ignored as well meaning fantasies. The
situation has changed in the past year by a shift of
opinion in a large part of the US security oriented elite,
led by the so-called Gang of 4, comprised of former US
Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger,
former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and former Senator
Sam Nunn. They – and their many supporters – have argued
that while during the Cold War nuclear deterrence was
rational and necessary, “such reliance is becoming
increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective.” They
urge that we should accept the vision of a nuclear weapon
free world and they propose a large number of steps in the
fields of arms control and disarmament.
The views advanced have received significant support.
Senator Obama has cited the stand of the 4 with approval
and Senator McCain has advanced several proposals that are
in line with steps suggested by the 4 regarding nuclear
weapons. It must be assumed that both candidates believe
that US voters are with them. Perhaps the time is turning
against nuclear weapons.
Before the nuclear weapons existed another – even grander
– vision used to draw ridicule: the vision of a world free
of the use of armed force between states.
We should recognize that to rise above dreams both visions
and even the steps toward them require not only a genuine
revulsion against the use of armed force but also a
positive wish for cooperation instead of confrontation. A
climate of confrontation – like that of the Cold War – may
yield important arms control restraint when this is deemed
mutually advantageous. Yet, it is also likely to yield
crises – as in the case of Cuba in 1962– and arms races. A
climate of détente and cooperation is likely to yield
greater mutual confidence and resulting from that,
disarmament and an absence of the threat or use of force.
There is not only a vicious circle of arms races but also
a virtuous circle of détente and disarmament.
Thus, we cannot today or ever ignore the global political
context when we assess the outlook for disarmament and
non-use of force. In this regard let me first note some
hopeful long-term trends.
Looking back in history we cannot fail to see how over the
centuries larger and larger areas have become pacified.
For the last 200 years any armed conflict between Nordic
states has been highly improbable and today such a
conflict is unthinkable between members of the EU. On the
North American continent war could no longer take place
between the US and Mexico and in South America interstate
wars are also a thing of the past.
Although armed conflicts – mostly civil wars – arise in
Africa, in the Mid-East and although Taiwan and Kashmir
remain flashpoints, overall the risks of armed conflicts
have gone down in ever larger areas. The Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute’s Yearbook reports
that although the world’s military expenditures for 2007
attained 1339 billion dollars, the number of interstate
wars has been declining. There was none in 2007.
It is easy to see that important factors that often
triggered war in the past have disappeared
- Borders have become settled in ever larger parts of the world
- Conquest of territory was often an aim of kings and other leaders. Perhaps Saddam Hussein was the last ruler bent on conquest? However, while colonialism is over, seeking regime change may not be over and may still cause military action.
- Seeking independence is no longer a cause of war as practically all colonial areas have become states
- Religion and ideology are no longer the cause of war. Crusades and jihads are things of the past.
With the end of the Cold War, the contest between the
Marxist-influenced ideology and the market-influenced
ideology disappeared. Practically all states now practice
some kind of market economy and most – at least – profess
aiming at participatory democracy. To warn against a
coming war of civilizations is to attribute much too great
importance to small groups of militants within a vast
Muslim world of moderates. Saying this is not ignoring the
risk that such groups could use terrorist methods, but we
lose our sense of proportion, if we arm against them as
with war between states. Terrorism does not justify
maintaining nuclear arsenals or blue sea navies.
It is possible – even probable – that globally and
regionally, accelerating interdependence and economic
integration are key factors reducing the temptation to
rely on the threat and use of armed force. Japan and
China, Europe and Russia have good reasons to tread
cautiously. Sky-rocketing trade and communications –
globalization – while having some negative consequences,
have yielded tremendous benefits that would be lost in
military confrontations. Fortunately, the evolution of
interdependence will continue as it is driven by
relentless scientific and technical developments that are
largely outside the control of governments.
Yet, I must note that there remains thinking that is based
upon a less optimistic outlook. Ministries of defense are
often less inclined to think that growing interdependence
may be changing the world. Rather, they may stress that
the future is uncertain and that their governments should
not lower the guard but maintain a readiness to meet all
eventualities and show this readiness, for instance, by
sending warships and air planes on patrol here and there.
The United States’ security doctrine retains the option of
armed intervention against ‘growing threats’ at all times
– even as a preventive measure.
Others will disagree with me, but I see the efforts to
continue expanding NATO and perhaps also the idea of a
League of Democracies – that would exclude Russia and
China – as a revival of the policy of containment that was
once both necessary and successful during the period of
Russian Communist expansionism. I fear born again policies
of exclusion – whether the object is Russia or China –
will be seen as threats by the excluded and could have the
very result they seek to avoid, namely stronger
nationalism, stronger military, and hurt pride leading to
increased tensions and possible arms races.
In my view, policies of active cooperation are needed to
strengthen peace. There is no lack of problems that
require global cooperation for their solution. It is time
we begin to confront threats that are common to all, like
climate change, energy and other resource constraints, and
time to jointly promote global development and human
rights and HIV, economic instability and the gap between
the rich and the poor countries.
The end of the Cold War opened a window of opportunity for
the expansion of such cooperation but it was only used
partially and for a limited time. Disarmament made strides
in the first half of the 1990s but stopped and regressed
thereafter. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was rejected
by the US Senate in 1998 and with the Bush administration
taking over in 2001 and with 9/11 occurring the same year
the window was closing. The unilateral moment that arose
for the United States through the collapse of the Soviet
empire developed into a decade. The Iraq war was initiated
in a conviction that cooperation in the UN would have
inaction and paralysis as the result, while instant
disarmament and democracy could be achieved by the use of
US superior military power.
This atmosphere prevailed even in the spring of 2006 when
the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission that I headed
published its report “Weapons of Terror. Freeing the World
of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms” with 60 concrete
proposals. However, since then the atmosphere has changed
considerably. The faith in superior military power as a
fixer has been undermined in Iraq and also in the Lebanon.
By contrast, the value of UN legitimacy has been
rediscovered and even in the diplomatically exasperating
case of DPRK and – so far – in the case of Iran,
negotiations have been preferred to the use of
force.
Is the world ready more generally to step on the path to
disarmament and peace?
When we look for ways of leading the world to disarmament
and non-use of military force, it may be of interest to
consider what brought this desirable result within modern
states. There were no doubt many elements but let me
single out three:
- The emergence of a monopoly on the possession and use of arms,
- The emergence of institutions – legislatures – authorized to adopt laws by majority vote and valid within the whole society,
- The emergence of institutions, including courts to decide in differences and authorities for governance.
Where on the road to this desirable organization is the
world community?
In the world community we have evidently no legislature,
nor are we likely to get one in the foreseeable future.
The General Assembly is a valuable council in the global
village, a forum in which all states can participate in
the discussion of common world problems and action can be
stimulated. However, the result is recommendations – not
law.
It is perhaps amazing that it has been possible to create
a vast amount of international rules through the adoption
of treaties, which become binding as law only through the
individual consent given to them by states. Yet, as was
well described by the Commission on Global Governance, the
shortcomings are glaring. The Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol and the EU Lisbon treaty are
cases in point.
In spite of the difficulties some fundamental rules
governing state conduct have emerged. The UN Charter
contains rules that oblige members – not to disarm but –
to refrain from using armed force against each other
except in self defense against an armed attack. In
national laws we have rules that prohibit people from
assaulting, killing and injuring each other, unless it is
done in self defense that is proportionate to an attack or
attempted attack. The UN rule is similar – for states.
The Charter also allows the Security Council to mandate or
authorize the use of force in the wider sphere of
situations where it decides that there is a threat to the
peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.
We must note, however, that the UN Charter restriction on
the threat or use of force has been violated many times.
The political cost of violations has varied depending upon
the circumstances. In the case of Iraq in 2003, where
there was neither a prior attack nor an authorization by
the Security Council the incompatibility with the UN
Charter was glaring in the eyes of most states, especially
when the case was compared with the collective
intervention that occurred in Iraq in 1991, when Iraq had
launched an armed attack on Kuwait.
As to international courts and institutions of governance,
more and more are established by treaty. Some courts judge
in differences between states. Many have been set up to
try war crimes cases.
While the citizens of states are disarmed, the member
states of the international community have evidently not
disarmed. By treaties they have, however, renounced or
restricted the possession or use of certain arms and
methods of warfare. Biological weapons were banned in 1972
and a similar complete outlawing, supplemented by an
elaborate system of verification, was adopted in 1993 for
chemical weapons.
During the Cold War the US and the Soviet Union agreed on
many bilateral restraints deemed mutually advantageous.
Yet, at the peak of the Cold War there were some 55,000
nuclear warheads in the world, the vast majority in the
Soviet Union and the United States. Multilateral treaties
introduced a partial ban on nuclear testing in 1963 and
later prohibited the placing of nuclear weapons in the
Antarctic, on the seabed and in space.
Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty signed in 1968 the then
non-nuclear weapon states were invited to renounce nuclear
weapons and all parties, including the then nuclear weapon
states committed themselves to negotiate toward nuclear
and general disarmament.
The end of the Cold War drastically lowered tension in
Europe and allowed the states belonging to NATO and those
belonging to the Warsaw Pact to agree on important
reductions in the levels of conventional weaponry in
Europe (CFE) and to a large measure of transparency,
including mutual inspections. In the nuclear sphere, the
US and the Soviet Union undertook drastic parallel
reductions in the deployment and stocks of tactical
nuclear weapons.
Could the window of opportunity for disarmament that
opened in the early part of the 1990s and closed toward
the end of the decade again open? That is the hope that
the new thinking in the US raises. It suggests that the US
should take the lead with Russia and the other nuclear
weapon states to move to nuclear disarmament. They argue
that the principal dangers facing the world are coming
from a possible spread of nuclear weapons to further
states and to non-state actors. In their view, the nuclear
weapon states themselves need to move away from nuclear
weapons in order to mobilize the world community against
the risk of proliferation. All would agree that the
Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 must be the starting
point for constructive discussions. Under the treaty
- The then non-nuclear weapon states parties committed themselves not to acquire nuclear weapons, and
- The then five nuclear-weapon states committed themselves to negotiate toward nuclear disarmament.
The 2005 conference for the review of the treaty ended in
recrimination. Non-nuclear weapon states accused the
nuclear weapon states of not taking seriously their duty
to negotiate toward disarmament, inter alia, not
fulfilling promises made at the review conferences in 1995
and 2000. The nuclear-weapon states rejected these
arguments, pointed to reductions they had made in their
nuclear arsenals and voiced concern about the violations
of the treaty by Iraq, Libya and North Korea, about
suspicions raised against Iran and about the lack of
provisions covering non-state actors.
The next review of the NPT will take place in 2010 and
while some have warned against the possible collapse of
the treaty, the preparatory meetings held so far suggest
that efforts will be made to strengthen the treaty and
compliance with it. The reality is that in important ways
the treaty has been a great success. Although it failed to
get India, Israel and Pakistan as parties and North Korea
has given notice of withdrawal, it has the widest
adherence of any arms control treaty. South Africa
dismantled its nuclear weapons and joined the treaty. When
they seceded from the Soviet Union, Byelorussia,
Kazakhstan and Ukraine transferred the nuclear weapons on
their territories to Russia.
Non-nuclear weapon states parties are not averse to
strengthening the barriers against proliferation. They see
no advantage in a world in which there are more fingers on
nuclear triggers. And they are fully aware that the
technical difficulties of making weapons are shrinking and
that the main obstacles remain producing or otherwise
acquiring enough highly enriched uranium or plutonium.
They support control measures to prevent that sensitive
nuclear material, know how and equipment are acquired by
non-state actors and may well agree to make withdrawal
from the treaty more difficult and many may accept more
far-reaching inspection. Without positive action by the
nuclear weapon states’ parties to significant measures in
the sphere of nuclear disarmament, however, progress is
unlikely.
While the Bush administration has not so far signaled
agreement to any such measures its tone has become more
conciliatory. The next preparatory meeting will take place
in 2009. There will be new policy-makers in Washington and
rather new leadership also in other nuclear weapon states.
If the views of the large non-partisan group of the US
security elite that favours nuclear disarmament were to
have significant impact in the new US administration,
which seems plausible, there would be good chances for an
active international disarmament agenda and a constructive
NPT review conference. Such an agenda would require steps
of conciliation in the presently rather poisoned US-Russia
relations and probably also that the ongoing negotiations
with DPRK and Iran do not end in failure.
The order of items on a new agenda for disarmament agenda
is less important than the early establishment of such an
agenda. However, there is wide recognition about the high
priority of some items:
- Bringing into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) would send a stronger signal than any other measure could do that disarmament are seriously back. If the US Senate reconsidered its rejection of the treaty and ratified it, the prospects are good that other states would follow suit.
- The US and Russia, who have the largest stocks of nuclear weapons, should take the initiative to a reduction - and not just redeployment - of nuclear weapons.
- Talks should be started to ensure that no weapons be placed in space.
- Nuclear weapons should be taken off hair trigger alert to avoid war by accidents or misunderstandings.
- Nuclear weapons should be removed from Western Europe and Western Russia. Their presence is a relic of the Cold War and their removal would help reduce tensions that have been building up.
- The long proposed treaty providing a verified ban on the production of fissile material for weapons should now be negotiated to prevent that more enriched uranium and plutonium be produced for weapons.
Let me conclude. The WMD Commission that I headed stressed
that when we want to convince states to stay away from, or
do away with, nuclear weapons, the best approach is that
which makes the states feel they do not need nuclear
weapons for their security.
Cooperative foreign, security and economic policies may be
the most important means to reach that result and to
promote peace. In this process the United Nations is
fundamental to provide norms and mechanisms for practical
cooperation.
The window for cooperation that opened at the end of the
Cold War has been allowed to hang flapping in the wind. It
is high time that it be fully opened and lead to peace
based on a multilateral cooperative security
order.
Mr. Hammarskjöld said: the UN will not take us to heaven
but it might help us to avoid hell.