It's time to abolish nuclear weapons1

Abstract

Michael Wesley has proposed a way to address the problem of nuclear weapons in light of the failure of the 2005 Review Conference of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) to further the goals of disarmament and nonproliferation. He states that the NPT should be scrapped, and recommends that we accept the inevitability of nuclear weapons spread and learn to manage the situation (Wesley 2005). While Wesley’s article serves to maintain debate on one of the most important security issues of our time, his arguments present only two possible conclusions*/either that nuclear weapons can be retained indefinitely and never used, or that we must accept the inevitability of their use and all the attendant consequences. This rejoinder challenges both these propositions, argues instead that nuclear weapons must be abolished and offers a way forward. Wesley correctly recognises one of the NPT’s shortcomings as being its historical and discriminatory division of NPT member states into ‘nuclear weapon states’ and ‘non-nuclear weapon states’, and says that this division encourages opaque weapons proliferation. However, this division must be seen firmly in the context of the NPT’s unequivocal call for nuclear disarmament, a process which, if fulfilled, would remove the distinction. Each of the NPT’s nuclear weapon states has consistently violated the treaty by refusing to disarm, and it is this violation that is the major spur to proliferation, be it opaque or transparent. This point has been stated forcefully and repeatedly by Mohamed ElBaradei, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who has written: The very existence of nuclear weapons gives rise to the pursuit of them. They are seen as a source of global influence, and are valued for their perceived deterrent effect. And as long as some countries possess them (or are protected by them in alliances) and others do not, this asymmetry breeds chronic global insecurity (ElBaradei 2003: 51).