INES: Dr. Gerson, in 1995 the governments decided about the indefinte extention of the NPT. Why are Review conferences held? What is the political importance of the one in 2010?
Joseph Gerson: As part of the deal made to win the indefinite extension of the NPT in 1995, the nuclear powers, led by the United States, accepted non-nuclear nations’ demand that review conferences be held every five year to monitor implementation of the treaty – especially Article VI which requires the nuclear powers to begin “good faith” negotiations for the elimination of their nuclear arsenals.
Consistent with its belief that unilateral U.S. military actions and threats could enforce what Vice President Cheney termed ‘the arranged for the 21st century,” the Bush Administration subverted the 2005 Review Conference. By refusing to agree to an agenda until the Conference was half way over, and then refusing to engage in good faith negotiations, the Review Conference failed to reach any agreements and collapsed in failure. This resulted in delegitimizing the Treaty, placing it in jeopardy and increasing the likelihood of proliferation of proliferation of genocidal and omnicidal nuclear weapons.
Major sectors of the U.S. elite have recognized this danger, leading people including Henry Kissinger, George Shultz and William Perry – each of whom during wars and international crises prepared and threatened to initiate genocidal nuclear attacks while serving presidents Nixon, Reagan and Clinton –to publicly call for actions that will restore legitimacy to the U.S. negotiating position and demands during the 2010 NPT Review Conference.
Consistent with these calls by Kissinger, Shultz, Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn, President Obama has transformed the international diplomatic landscape with his stated commitment to working for a nuclear weapons free world.
However, President Obama’s statement that abolition is unlikely in his lifetime, his repeated commitments to maintaining the world’s most powerful “deterrent” nuclear force, and the priority he has given to non-proliferation and limited arms control measures (negotiating the very limited START 1 Follow On Treaty, ratification of the CTBT, and beginning negotiations for a Fissile Materials Cut Off Treaty) give lie to Administration’s ostensible commitments.
For those who study the Administration’s statements and actions closely, it has
become clear that what is seeks is not abolition but non-proliferation. With its
reaffirmation of the ultimate goal of nuclear weapons abolition (a goal that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the U.S. Institute of Peace will not be achieved for at least several generations,) and its limited arms control commitments are designed to augment the United States’ negotiating leverage at the Review Conference. The goal is to win adoption of a more (and I believe necessary) intrusive inspection regime to prevent countries like Iran from using their Article VI right to generate nuclear power for peaceful purposes as a means to develop nuclear arsenals of their own.
INES: What do you expect form the conference?
J. Gerson: My expectations for the outcome of the Review Conference are not high. Negotiations between the U.S. and Russia on the START 1 Follow On Treaty that will leave the two superpowers on the order of 95% of the world’s nuclear weapons, the reinforcement of the misnamed U.S. nuclear “umbrella” over dozens of allied and client states, and France’s recent nuclear threat against Iran demonstrate that the world’s leading nuclear powers are in no hurry to dismantle their arsenals.
I expect that, under pressure from non-nuclear nations, the declared nuclear Powers will reaffirm their commitments to ultimately implementing Article VI and a number of the 13 steps agreed during the 2000 Review Conference. My expectation is that these commitments will be made in exchange for limited increases in tightening the inspection regime designed to prevent break outs by non-nuclear powers. Popular pressure from the outside will be needed to win even these modest concessions.
INES: What is the role of the NGOs and what are they planing to organise?
J. Gerson: In the 1800s, the former slave and U.S. abolitionist leader, Fredrick Douglas, taught that “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will.” The role of civil society in the run up to and during the NPT Review Conference is to demand what humanity needs for its survival: nuclear weapons abolition. Given political and technological realities, this means demanding that the Review Conference conclude with a commitment by the nuclear powers to commence their required “good faith” negotiations.
Why demand more than I expect is likely to be achieved during the Review Conference? Our Japanese colleagues have put it well: We have the moral responsibility to demand what humanity needs, which is also what international law requires. If governments fail to fulfill these demands and legal requirements, they – not we – are at fault.
There is also another dimension to the moral imperatives faced by NGOs and popular movements: We must build the popular movements that will ultimately overcome the entrenched power of the nuclear powers and achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, and the NPT Review Conference provides us with a unique opportunity to do so. We need to educate the populace in our respective nations, build anti-nuclear consciousness and commitments, and create the organizational structures and alliances needed increase political pressure on the nuclear powers in the months and – I’m sorry to say years -- following the 2010 NPT Review so that we can create a nuclear weapons free world in our lifetimes.
It was with sufficient commitment and willingness to educate, organize and take risks, that the power of the people prevailed in almost completely abolishing slavery, ending the Cold War, defeating apartheid, and achieving women’s liberation in many countries. As the bumper sticker tells us, “If the people lead, the leaders will follow.”
Dr. Joseph Gerson is chair of the international NGO organising committee preparing the adjoining activities and events at the 8th NPT Review conference.
He is Director of Programs and Director of the Peace and Economic Security Program for the AFSC in New England.
See:www.afsc.org