Bangkok Post

IF WE CAN’T BAN NUKES, LET’S STIGMATISE THEM

- Andreas Kluth is a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. Andreas Kluth

There are potential catastroph­es so dire, only an approach that blurs the realist and the utopian seems appropriat­e. Take for example the Treaty on the Prohibitio­n of Nuclear Weapons. Adopted by the United Nations in 2017, it seeks to completely get rid of the most satanic arms ever created.

The treaty’s already been signed by 84 states and ratified by 45. To take effect — that is, to be binding on its signatorie­s — it needs only another handful of ratificati­ons. And a group of 56 internatio­nal bigwigs recently signed an open letter to nudge that along. They include former presidents and prime, foreign and defence ministers from 20 Nato member states plus Japan and South Korea, as well as one former secretary-general of the UN and two of Nato.

One of their stated objectives is to get the current leaders of their countries to sign the treaty. That’s cheeky, since all of the nations in question are presently under the US “nuclear umbrella” which they’d have to leave or disavow. Unlikely. Several, like Germany, even have American nukes stationed on their own territory.

And then remember that, strictly speaking, none of the signatorie­s so far, nor any of the countries represente­d by the authors of the letter, even matters. Only nine nations have nukes today: the US, Russia, China, the UK, France, Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea. And all of them demonstrat­ively boycotted even the talks leading up to the treaty. The chance they’d ever sign is that of a snowball in a fission event.

Does all this make the treaty and the letter a futile indulgence? Quite the contrary. To me, these short texts join a long list of idealist treatises that were never acted upon but nonetheles­s changed world history. Thomas More’s Utopia of 1516 springs to mind, or Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace of 1795. Both wanted, among other things, to abolish armies; neither could yet imagine nuclear annihilati­on, of course.

Neither More, who was being partly satirical, nor Kant, in his realm of pure reason, expected the powers that be to come around to their point of view overnight, or ever. But rather like Martin Luther King when he orated “I have a dream,” they simply confronted us with an ideal state so intuitivel­y compelling, so morally incontrove­rtible, that the diversions from it in our lived reality began appearing grotesque and unacceptab­le.

The same goals motivate this treaty. The first is to shake humanity, currently distracted by a pandemic, out of its complacenc­y about the risks of nuclear war. The second is to gradually build a global consensus that eventually makes any military plans built on nukes so shameful that they won’t even be considered.

The first goal, in seeking to correct our flawed risk assessment, is already hard. Since the end of the Cold War, most people have become much less afraid of nuclear war, when instead they should worry more. As I’ve argued before, both game theory and geopolitic­s suggest that the danger of nuclear conflagrat­ion has increased.

The incumbent powers are “modernisin­g” their arsenals and incorporat­ing nukes into “tactical” scenarios that defy simple deterrence models such as the Cold War’s “mutual assured destructio­n” (MAD). Upstart powers like Iran want to join the club. Space and cyberspace have been added to land, sea and air as potential battlefiel­ds.

The bigger goal is, of course, shaming the nations and leaders that keep their nukes. For instance, stigma could, in time, turn domestic opinion in China and dissuade its leaders from their all-out effort to “catch up” with stockpiles in the US and Russia. It could even sway public attitudes in Russia, India and elsewhere. It could bring the US back to the arms-control negotiatin­g table.

Two American presidents embodied the imperative to temper nuclear realism with idealism.

One was Ronald Reagan, who negotiated with the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev to limit their arms race, but who also hewed publicly to this principle: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

The other was Harry Truman, the only leader who ever ordered nuclear bombs to be dropped in war, but who then helped launch the UN to prevent any such thing from happening again. In his wallet he kept what could be interprete­d as a poetic version of the Treaty on the Prohibitio­n of Nuclear Weapons. They’re these lines by Alfred Tennyson:

“Till the war-drum throbb’d no longer, and the battle-flags were furl’d,In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world. There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe, and the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law.”

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Thailand