The Global Zero Initiative

If Barack Obama presented the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to Congress in order for it to be ratified at the beginning of the new session, this would for sure be an excellent start.

Since it was signed in 1996, 148 other countries have ratified this Treaty. However, it won’t be possible for it to come into effect until the United States ratifies it. Then, the American presidential-elect would be able to go on with the process by not only forbidding nuclear weapons, but nuclear tests as well.

A new initiative was launched in Paris last Tuesday (December 9) under the title “Global Zero” in which more than one hundred leaders from all over the world propose to completely suppress nuclear weapons. Wouldn’t this be somewhat antediluvian? Are they aware that the cold war came to an end ages ago?

The truth is nuclear weapons still do exist. There are about 20,000 of them left. Last July, during a meeting in Berlin, Barack Obama publicly declared his goal: “It’s time to act for peace and this can only be done in a demilitarized world.”

The “Retired” Ones

All right, these “leaders of the world” are, for the most part, ex-leaders that might suffer from the “retired generals syndrome.” Throughout their careers, these generals have been loyal to the predominant orthodoxy regarding nuclear weapons. They were rewarded for this. Once the hour of retirement came, they have seen the rewards and status disappear. This is why some of them keep asking aloud if they really believed in all this. Some pacifist militants sarcastically call them “generals of peace” and suggest they could have been more useful if they had anticipated what would happen in the future while they still had a little bit of authority and power.

Out of more than one hundred notables who signed the Global Zero declaration, many of them are not former generals, although their careers have been fairly remarkable. There is the ex-president of the U.S., Jimmy Carter, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbatchev, the British ex-Minister of the Foreign Office Margaret Beckett, the former leader of the German diplomacy Hans-Dietrich Genscher and the French ex-Prime Minister Michel Rocard. Not to forget the former counselor to National Security Zbigniew Buzzinski, the British ex- Minister of Defence Malcolm Rifkind, the Japanese former Minister of Foreign Office Yoriko Kawaguchi, Ehsan Ul-Haq, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Pakistan, and Brajesh Mishra, the Indian ex-counselor to National Security. However, for once, these “exes” are not the only ones to show some sort of common sense.

Global Zero is different from the usual empty speeches one can hear due to the fact that this time, all the leaders of the main powers sound like they are on the same wavelength. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has called for an elimination of nuclear weapons. As for British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, he declared in March that the United Kingdom is ready to work for a “world about to get rid of its nuclear weapons.” On December 8, French President Nicolas Sarkozy firmly supported an eventual and generalized nuclear disarmament.

Two Reticent Countries

Last June, the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, agreed with the same objective, claiming that “the only efficient form of nuclear disarmament and elimination of nuclear weapons consists of a disarmament on a globe scale.” Pakistan and China very clearly explained that they support the Global Zero initiative. The only countries owning nuclear weapons and remaining silent about it are North Korea and Israel.

North Korea is actually less problematic than it seems. This big country could likely be convinced to give up its nuclear weapons-–it only owns one or two of them–in exchange for solid guarantees of its safety and and large amounts of foreign aid, especially if the United States were, themselves, giving their nuclear arsenals up.

Israel’s situation is much more ticklish as the Hebrew state doesn’t even admit it owns nuclear weapons (it actually is in possession of several hundreds of them) but for the first time, it could be confronted by pressure from the only country able to influence Israeli politics: the United States.

One of the most striking sides of the Global Zero conference in Paris relies upon the point made by Richard Burt, who is responsible for organizing the press conference: Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal should have been taken into account. This caused dismay in Israel. Although Mr. Burt is presently holding no official function within the American government, he was the American person responsible for negotiations during the talks about the reduction of strategic weapons between the United States and the ex- Soviet Union (this agreement is called START). He would probably have said no such word if American politics hadn’t taken this direction.

So, here is the true question: is the United States really ready to give up their nuclear weapons? It’s the first country endowed with them, and it’s from this moment on that it elaborated an ambitious strategy 64 years ago. If America was disposed to give such weapons up, and if Russians were ready, as well, to follow in the United States’ footsteps, this would represent 96% of the nuclear weaponry of the whole world. Compelling other reticent countries, in either a soft or a stronger way to do so, would not be that difficult then.

Horizon: Ten Years

A dozen years would at least be needed to bring back to zero the number of nuclear weapons. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty first has to be ratified. Then, during the talks to come, which seeks to renew or replace the START Treaty concluded between the United States and Russia (which will expire next year), a drastic reduction of the American and Russian weapons has to be agreed on. Eventually, the rest of the world has to take part in the final negotiations, which has an aim to completely proscribe nuclear weapons.

There is a constant feeling that this project is a chimerical one. The situation has never been more favorable though. If Barack Obama takes the lead on this movement, this project has a true chance of being executed. Even in the middle of a recession, it would cost nothing.