Desmond Tutu writes:
We cannot intimidate others into behaving well
when we ourselves are misbehaving. Yet that is precisely what nations armed
with nuclear weapons hope to do by censuring North Korea for its nuclear tests and sounding alarm bells over
Iran's pursuit of enriched uranium. According to their logic, a select few nations
can ensure the security of all by having the capacity to destroy all.
Until we overcome this double standard – until we
accept that nuclear weapons are abhorrent and a grave danger no matter who
possesses them, that threatening a city with radioactive incineration is
intolerable no matter the nationality or religion of its inhabitants – we are
unlikely to make meaningful progress in halting the spread of these monstrous
devices, let alone banishing them from national arsenals.
Why, for instance, would a proliferating state
pay heed to the exhortations of the US and Russia, which retain thousands of
their nuclear warheads on high alert? How can Britain, France and China expect
a hearing on non-proliferation while they squander billions modernising their
nuclear forces? What standing has Israel to urge Iran not to acquire the bomb
when it harbours its own atomic arsenal?
Nuclear weapons do not discriminate; nor should
our leaders. The nuclear powers must apply the same standard to themselves as
to others: zero nuclear weapons. Whereas the international community has
imposed blanket bans on other weapons with horrendous effects – from biological
and chemical agents to landmines and cluster munitions – it has not yet done so
for the very worst weapons of all. Nuclear weapons are still seen as legitimate
in the hands of some. This must change.
Around 130 governments, various UN agencies, the
Red Cross and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons are
gathering in Oslo this week to examine the catastrophic consequences of
nuclear weapons and the inability of relief agencies to provide an effective
response in the event of a nuclear attack. For too long, debates about nuclear
arms have been divorced from such realities, focusing instead on geopolitics
and narrow concepts of national security.
With enough public pressure, I believe that
governments can move beyond the hypocrisy that has stymied multilateral
disarmament discussions for decades, and be inspired and persuaded to embark on
negotiations for a treaty to outlaw and eradicate these ultimate weapons of
terror. Achieving such a ban would require somewhat of a revolution in our
thinking, but it is not out of the question. Entrenched systems can be turned
on their head almost overnight if there's the will.
Let us not forget that it was only a few years
ago when those who spoke about green energy and climate change were considered
peculiar. Now it is widely accepted that an environmental disaster is upon us.
There was once a time when people bought and sold other human beings as if they
were mere chattels, things. But people eventually came to their senses. So it
will be the case for nuclear arms, sooner or later.
Indeed, 184 nations have already made a legal
undertaking never to obtain nuclear weapons, and three in four support a
universal ban. In the early 1990s, with the collapse of apartheid nigh, South
Africa voluntarily dismantled its nuclear stockpile, becoming the first nation
to do so. This was an essential part of its transition from a pariah state to
an accepted member of the family of nations. Around the same time, Kazakhstan,
Belarus and Ukraine also relinquished their Soviet-era atomic arsenals.
But today nine nations still consider it their
prerogative to possess these ghastly bombs, each capable of obliterating many thousands
of innocent civilians, including children, in a flash. They appear to think
that nuclear weapons afford them prestige in the international arena. But
nothing could be further from the truth. Any nuclear-armed state, big or small,
whatever its stripes, ought to be condemned in the strongest terms for
possessing these indiscriminate, immoral weapons.
No comments:
Post a Comment