Hans Blix in panel on ‘building an international commitment’

As delivered

Global Zero has been dedicated and successful in building much popular commitment for nuclear disarmament and it is striking that the list of supporters comprise a very large number of former ministers in many countries.  It is also welcome and encouraging that Presidents Obama and Medvedev and the SG of the UN support the aim of Global Zero.

I am confident that in the long run not only Global Zero nuclear weapons but also broad disarmament of which nuclear disarmament is a part will become a reality. The main reason is that whatever stabilizing effect, if any, MAD – mutually assured destruction – might have had, stability and peace today is increasingly supplied by MED – mutual economic dependence.

Globalization is not without problems, but it does force most states to pay attention to the concerns of states on which they are dependent. Hence, I am optimistic. My optimism is further underpinned by the awareness that there are no border or territorial conflicts between the biggest states and no ideological conflict between them – as there was during the Cold War.

However, my optimism for the long term is not matched by one for the short term. At the moment there is an intermission in the field of disarmament. The financial crisis and unemployment are the sad big items on the global agenda. The democratic uprisings in the Arab world do engage us and rightly get attention as something truly important, but both disarmament and global warming are right now below governments’ political horizons.

It is as if the entry into force of the START with its modest but important reductions in deployed nuclear warheads and weapons carriers had exhausted all political energy. One might have thought that NATO tactical nuclear weapons in Europe and Russian tactical nuclear weapons in the West should have been like low hanging fruit to be removed, but NO! They are stuck! Further, the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva seems to be going into a second decade of coma, paralyzed by a rule of consensus that could perhaps be understood when it had 18 members but is now absurd. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is not yet in force. The important Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty is in limbo and negotiations with the DPRK and Iran do not seem to move forward… Armament goes on in a great many countries. The annual military expenses globally are some 1.600 billion dollars. This at a time when we are not able to scrape together 100 billion annually to make a package to counter global warming. Why is this?

It is striking that a large number of veteran civilian statesmen seem convinced that after the end of the Cold War nuclear deterrence is obsolete or obsolescent. I am thinking of the famous American four – Shultz, Kissinger, Perry and Nunn – but also of four famous Russians – Primakov, Ivanov, Velikhov and Moissev. They all advocate nuclear disarmament and they have a big following in the world.

Yet, many security thinkers in the military, in defense ministries and parliaments warn against lowering the military readiness and budgets. While declaring that the main threat today are rogue states and terrorists they still prevail in budgeting for new air craft carriers, submarines, superbombers and space fighting capacity  designed for ever more improbable  big power war.  This way, budget deficits are exacerbated by military expenditures that remain at levels which were understandable during the Cold War – but not now.

Paradoxically, the absurdity of this level of armaments and expenditures may provoke something hopeful!  The tax payers – not least in the US – are tired of war.  If they see no major real threats they will turn against current levels of armaments – especially nuclear. We have seen this tendency in Europe and we now see the first signs of it in the US. Perhaps the ministers of finance will join the wishes of the taxpayers and become ministers of disarmament?

I must add something important.  I am not suggesting that full solutions of regional differences are indispensable to a reduction in armaments. But the executive branches of government in the biggest states need to pursue foreign policies that strengthen détente between themselves. There is much each of them can do.  A main key lies in the US. I agree with the questioning of the need for the US-NATO proposed missile shield. Whatever protection it could give ­– if any – against a threat from Iran would be outweighed by damaged relations with Russia.  – Russia could develop policies of good neighbour with the Baltic and other states. China and its neighbours could seek to resolve many differences in the South China Sea and elsewhere by arbitration or judicial settlements before the International Court of Justice.

Lastly, I agree about the need to influence public opinion – not least students. No one has done more in this regard than Global Zero.