Throughout its 46 years of existence, the main goal of Pugwash has
been the elimination of all nuclear weapons and, more generally, of
all weapons of mass destruction which have brought the risk of annihilation
to mankind. Scientists (including those who worked on these instruments
of destruction), policy makers, and military people, as well as those
actively involved in supporting disarmament--people of different nationalities
and political opinions--have been brought together over the years
for the purpose of seeking ways of controlling and eliminating the
most deadly weapons and promoting cooperation and peace. After the
end of the Cold War, many of the problems related to nuclear weapons
and WMD did change, but the weapons themselves and the relevant risks
did not disappear. In the last period, the issues related to nuclear
weapons and more generally to WMDs have in fact been at the core of
many political initiatives, military interventions and planning, and
decisions of various nature on the international scene, but unfortunately
most of these actions and decisions were made in directions that many
of us regret. The overall situation, as far as disarmament and the
elimination of WMDs are concerned, is far from reassuring-just as
the status of conflicts and hostilities, particularly in regions where
nuclear weapons or other WMDs are present, is also far from reassuring.
Much of our activities of the last year has been developed in this
very critical environment.
Nuclear weapons, nuclear disarmament and proliferation
Let us recall that the 2000 NPT review conference concluded with
the approval of 13 "immediate" steps for systematic and
progressive efforts to implement article 6 of the NPT, that mandates
the nuclear weapons states "to pursue negotiations in good faith
on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race
at an early date and to nuclear disarmament."
These steps included: entry into force of the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty (CTBT); the banning of the production of fissile material;
the unequivocal undertaking by nuclear weapons states to accomplish
the total elimination of nuclear arsenals; the preservation and strengthening
of the (now defunct) ABM treaty; the reduction of non-strategic warheads,
the reduction of the operational status of nuclear weapons and increased
transparency; the principle of irreversibility applied to nuclear
disarmament; diminishing the role of nuclear weapons in security policies;
and the achievement and maintenance of a nuclear weapons-free world.
Most of these steps have been dismissed since 2000.
These are difficult moments for the arms control regime:
To quote the very candid statement by CIA Director George Tenet (February
2003):
We have entered a new world of proliferation…. This is taking
place side by side with the continued weakening of the International
non-proliferation consensus. Control regimes like the NPT are being
battered by developments such as North Korea's withdrawal from the
NPT and its open repudiation of other agreements. The example of new
nuclear states that seem able to deter threats from more powerful
states simply by brandishing nuclear weapons, will resonate deeply
among other countries that want to enter the nuclear weapons club.
Demand creates the market. The desire for nuclear weapons is on the
upsurge….. ..The domino theory of the 21st century may well be
nuclear.
The risk of nuclear war
The end of the Cold War certainly did significantly reduce the risk
of nuclear conflicts. But this risk is far from being eliminated.
a) The nuclear weapons of the two former antagonist superpowers are
still targeted at each other, and a significant part of them are still
kept on high-alert status, so that today we still have the spectre
of nuclear war by mistake or miscalculation.
b) New nuclear states are in situations where the risk of conventional
conflict and nuclear escalation is significant. The relations between
India and Pakistan (both nuclear-armed) have several times brought
both countries to the verge of conflict. There is high tension in
North-East Asia, where a possible new nuclear actor is present. And
the large Israeli nuclear arsenal is a continuous reminder that any
conflict in the Middle East may very well become nuclear.
c) There is an abundance of fissile material available worldwide,
and its disposal is progressing slowly and with limited resources.
There is still a very serious concern that some fissile material may
be acquired by nuclear-proliferating countries or seized illegally
by sub-national groups. If one were to have available a sufficient
amount of fissile material, then building a rudimentary nuclear weapon
for terrorist use would be a very easy task.
The war on Iraq
The war on Iraq was motivated in part by the claimed need to combat
WMD. The activities of the international inspectors in the country
were halted by the decision of the US to intervene militarily no matter
what the result of the inspections. The US decision was based on what
soon appeared to be false claims of Iraqi activities to acquire nuclear
weapons, exaggerated claims about its CBW capabilities, and unproven
connections with the international terrorists of Al-Quaeda.
Even though the government of Saddam Hussein will be hardly missed,
the use of the motivation to combat WMD as a justification for a military
intervention which is in reality otherwise motivated, is objectively
weakening the international consensus to eradicate such weapons. If
the elimination of WMD is used as a false excuse for a war, the credibility
of the fight against WMD is put under strain.
Moreover, the war on Iraq highlighted other important problems. First,
the dramatic situation in Iraq after the conquest of Baghdad has demonstrated
up to now that there is a crucial difference between winning a war
militarily and being able to put in motion all the necessary mechanisms
to reconstruct a country, economically, politically and socially.
The issue of reconstruction, of securing necessary international guarantees
and contributions, and of implementing the necessary steps to democratize
the country (hardly the semi-spontaneous phenomenon, with its domino
effect on neighboring countries, that was promised in some pre-war
fairy tales) will be issues that remain with us for a while.
Secondly, the war on Iraq exacerbated the already tense relations
between the west and the Arab/Muslim world. Many Muslims feel that
they are the target of an international campaign that depicts them
as, de facto, the main source of international terrorism. The sentiment
in many Muslim countries is that Muslims are on the losing/ oppressed
side in the international political arena. Accusations that Muslim
countries harbor the goal of acquiring WMD is juxtaposed with the
fact that the West and Israel openly possess such weapons and have
no intention of giving them up.
Thirdly, the war on Iraq has brought to international public attention
a basic question: is the will of one nation alone the basis for the
new international order? And what is the role of existing international
institutions? The controversy between unilateral vs. multilateral
initiatives from the point of view of the only existing superpower
may be one of a choice between two courses of actions that need to
be compared on the basis of actual results. But for other nations
and peoples of the world, the alternative is between having the right
to influence world affairs or being merely passive subjects. Moreover,
it is particularly ironic when unilateral initiatives are imposed
on the rest of the world with the proclaimed goal of spreading democracy.
Pugwash activities in the past year
Pugwash has been working for 46 years towards the goal of eliminating
nuclear weapons and other WMD. For those 46 years Pugwash has been
promoting dialogue between countries on opposite fronts, even when
dialogue was most difficult. The end of the Cold War represented a
dramatic change in that Russia and the US were no longer facing each
other as adversaries. But other countries with smaller nuclear arsenals
confront each other and, as always with nuclear weapons, there is
the risk that there may be a shift from tensions and hostility to
conventional conflict and to nuclear escalation (whether planned or
inadvertent). This is the case with India and Pakistan, as mentioned
before. Pugwash, which has eminent members from both India and Pakistan,
has been very active during the last year in promoting analyses, offering
suggestions for the resumption of the dialogue (at any level) in the
Indian subcontinent, and questioning various aspects of nuclear policies
and strategies that are of particular concern since they contribute
to making nuclear confrontation more likely.. There are of course
many difficult unresolved issues which are at the core of the confrontation
in the Indian subcontinent. The issue of Kashmir is one of the most
difficult. Pugwash promoted in the past year and will do so in the
future a frank discussion about Kashmir and other issues and will
cooperate with other forces in the promotion of dialogue and stability
in the subcontinent.
Another critical region is the Middle East, where nuclear weapons
are also present and the risk of nuclear proliferation is significant.
Having been involved in the region for a long time, Pugwash in the
past year has been focused on the idea of promoting a stable dialogue
on security aspects in the whole middle eastern area. This means not
only Israeli and Palestinians, but the Arab and non-Arab countries
of the Middle East. The Arab (Saudi) plan for the establishment of
normal relations between countries of the Middle East was the subject
of a specific workshop in Amman. The Arab plan is the first significant
recognition by all the Arab states (with no exceptions) of the right
of Israel to exist in peace inside the 1967 border, together with
the Palestinian State. It is an important element in the future peace
architecture of the Middle East that has not received enough attention
and recognition. The goal of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle
East is also very important, both in general and for Pugwash. This
can be attained only in a general framework of significantly reduced
confrontation in the Middle East, and the Arab plan is an important
tool for that goal.
Iran is a vitally important country in the Middle East and Pugwash
has been active in promoting dialogue between Iran and other countries
(including western countries). In reference to allegations about plans
for developing military nuclear capabilities in Iran, Pugwash welcomes
the prospect that Iran may sign the IAEA additional protocol and is
very much interested in working to promote this important development.
North Korea and Iran are countries that in different frameworks have
been mentioned as countries with potential or actual nuclear programs.
Avoiding a further spread of nuclear weapons is one of our fundamental
objectives. But we need to understand the security needs of those
countries that are thinking about acquiring a nuclear weapon capability.
If we want to prevent nuclear proliferation, then a climate of cooperation
needs to be established. Military actions to enforce counter-proliferation
are neither effective nor just. Pugwash has a standing program for
cooperation and dialogue in Northeast Asia that developed slowly in
the last year for various reasons (SARS included). But we are very
much committed to pushing forward this program in the coming year.
We have to acknowledge that the structure of arms control is in crisis.
Helping to promote the arms control and disarmament process in all
areas where this is more feasible and where there is hope of obtaining
results is an important task to which Pugwash is fully committed.
The idea of preventing the weaponization of space is one such endeavor.
It is a goal where international cooperation can likely be achieved
and which could attract the attention of the public opinion. Non-weaponizing
space means to prevent aggressive behavior in space, and to prevent
dangers to the scientific and technological developments that require
the use of space. It means to limit anti-satellite activities and
the spread of ballistic missile defense. It means to avoid the spread
of activities that are dangerous from many points of view, ranging
from the risk of polluting space with increased debris to the risks
associated to destabilizing current useful military activities.
Another important activity conducted by Pugwash over the years has
been the continuous monitoring of arms control activities related
to chemical and biological weapons. Two workshops are held annually
on these issues which directly affect the work that is being done
by the international institutions that deal with chemical and biological
weapons, by providing analyses, proposals and by promoting dialogue.
Since 2001, Pugwash has been also active in seeking to promote understanding
of the various aspects of the new evolution of terrorism. This Pugwash
interest, I would say with particular emphasis, also extends to the
consequences of the present antiterrorist campaign (the so called
"war against terror"). We want to understand how much the
present anti-terrorist policies affect human rights worldwide and
the mutual understanding of cultures and peoples, and also how such
policies in reality affect the evolution of terrorist activities.
As an example, it is obvious that invading a country with the reported
goal of eliminating the risk of terrorism, and then not effectively
carrying on its reconstruction, is most likely to backfire in term
of terrorist activities.
One of the risks to which Pugwash has been very active in calling
the attention of public opinion has been the risk associated with
a possible terrorist use of WMD in general, and of nuclear weapons
in particular. The Pugwash approach has focused on the fact that,
in order to prevent nuclear terrorism, one immediate goal is to effectively
control and dispose of all the fissile material that comes from the
dismantling of nuclear weapons and from other military and civilian
activities. If the nuclear powers want to help to reduce the risk
of nuclear terrorism, they do not need to keep their nuclear arsenals
intact, as they are doing now. Nuclear weapons are irrelevant to preventing
nuclear terrorism. What matters is that no group (either a sub-national
group or a critical nation) should have access to uncontrolled fissile
material. In this sense Pugwash has been promoting various initiatives
to accelerate the disposal of the most dangerous of all fissile materials,
Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU). One of these initiatives has been supported
by the Swedish Foreign Ministry, which organized a case study analyzing
a possible European role in the disposal of excess Russian HEU.
One of the fundamental goals of Pugwash has been, since its foundation,
the elimination of all nuclear weapons. In this moment we feel that
Pugwash is one of the few voices that are still demanding nuclear
disarmament and the full implementation of article 6 of the NPT. It
is ineffective and unjust to demand that smaller countries give up
their nuclear options when the more powerful countries refuse to proceed
in the same direction. To this end, Pugwash organized a workshop on
the feasibility of No First Use, and participants discussed how declarations
of No First Use can be part of a general awareness that nuclear weapons
are totally ineffective in addressing concrete military and political
problems and in fact serve no other role than in preventing others
to use nuclear weapons first. This approach to nuclear weapons, which
is in fact a time-honored approach, is very much at odds with present
trends in which the idea is to build new types of (smaller) nuclear
weapons for tactical purposes and to think of resuming nuclear testing.
The goal of eliminating nuclear weapons brings to mind the general
problem of the social responsibility of scientists and the more general
ethical problems which are associated with many types of scientific
activity. Pugwash began as a group of (mainly) physicists who were
concerned about their responsibility in bringing to life the risk
of nuclear annihilation. Today, other risks have been brought to life
by scientists in many areas, most obviously in biology and biotechnology.
On these issues Pugwash has started an initiative for dialogue in
Paris which will continue in the future.
Summary
In conclusion, Pugwash is a small but very active community, which
is spread over all the continents. We are truly an international NGO,
with a variety of interests and a variety of approaches. We are very
much aware that we were born as a community of natural scientists,
concerned about their social responsibility, but we are happy that
the evolution of the last 46 years has brought more and more political
scientists, diplomats, policy makers, and military experts into the
Pugwash community. Thus, our approaches are diverse and concern many
different things, as the list of topics addressed in the last year
(and before) shows. But we are very conscious that the risk of nuclear
annihilation, the risk of war, and the need to prevent war with dialogue
and the promotion of cooperation, are a common denominator for all
the members of the Pugwash community. On this common denominator we
built our activities in the last year and we will continue doing so
for the foreseeable future.
