Global Zero
By Mikael on Monday 6 July 2009, 12:42 - Permalink
Dear F.,
I signed the Avaaz petition for Global Zero, although without enthusiasm. Yes, I believe in the good will of Queen Noor. But I don't believe in interstate negotiations on nuclear disarmament -- 'the disarmament game', as Alva Myrdal called it in the title of her 1976 book. The more realistic way, in my opinion, is unilateral nuclear abolition. Bertrand Russell, at least, would have agreed. (I just re-read his 17 February 1961 article in "The New Statesman", in which he called for massive civil disobedience against the nuclear rulers.) Probably also Tony Benn is of the same opinion, and perhaps yourself, too, when you take a close look at the matter.
The nuclear rulers are hypocrites. Not only are they usual fools, like we all are. They are worse, because the nuclear power, both in the political and the physical sense, is irreconcilable with truth and democracy. Their nuclear power is dictatorship and catastrophe, and they know it.
When I let such a judgment flow out from my keyboard, I always feel that it is necessary to exemplify. This time, I would like to point to Mr Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs who, at the opening plenary of the 2009 meeting of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, said:
"In recent times, nuclear energy has become more and more important. The "nuclear renaissance" is not just a trend, it is a fact of life. For several reasons more and more countries want to use, develop or import nuclear energy. Diversification of the energy mix, reduction of CO2 emissions and a general increasing demand for energy are all valid reasons to invest into nuclear energy. The Dutch government regards nuclear energy as one of the available instruments to combat climate change and reinforce energy security. A decision on the future of nuclear energy in the Netherlands is presently being prepared. Many developing countries see nuclear energy as an important way to deal with their fast growing energy needs. Worldwide, 45 new nuclear power plants are under construction. Of course, we have to make sure that non-proliferation standards and safeguards like the Additional Protocol are respected. Great powers and safeguards like the Additional Protocol are respected. Great powers and possibilities come with great responsibilities."
This statement should be read together with the final paragraph of the chapter on nuclear energy in E.F.Schumacher's book "Small is Beautiful. Economics As If People Mattered" (1973):
"No degree of prosperity could justify the accumulation of large amounts of highly toxic substances which nobody knows how to make safe and which remain an incalculable danger to the whole of creation for historical or even geological ages. To do such a thing is a transgression against life itself, a transgression infinitely more serious than any crime perpetrated by man. The idea that a civilization could sustain itself on such a transgression is an ethical, spiritual, and metaphysical monstrosity. It means conducting the economical affairs of man as if people did not matter at all." -- E. F. Schumacher Small is Beautiful
How is your website going? You know, our web might become our salvation, if we can avoid that it becomes the Spider's web. Just consider how utterly obsolete the system of "sovereign" national states, with all their WMD, has become in this era of the World Wide Web.
All the best.
- Mika
Comments
Well, I share most of your concerns. However, we also have to realize that
> sovereign national states are, till today, the only ones who can take formal
> decisions and implement them. They are still the 'masters' of the
> international scene. So, whatever strategy we develop, whatever we want to
> change, we cannot ignore or neglect them.
> And I also believe in Immanuel Wallerstein's recommendations for change: try
> to work out a strategy for the long term, and start with small reforms on
> the short term, the 'less evil' decisions.
>
That state governments can take formal decisions and implement them on the international scene is important, but not always decisive. Examine any historical turning-point or culmination, and you might, in the end, find it difficult to assess the role of the formal decisions. (Cf. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, by Graham T. Allison)
Our efforts to formalize the decisions, which coincide with our efforts to democratize them (make them obey to the laws of us, the peoples), equal our efforts to cope with the general difficulty to know exactly who decides what, and where.
However, the peoples may henceforward use their internet to force upon the national states an international state where decisions are taken by statement and criticism.
Immanuel Wallersteins recommendation is wise, but don't you think it can be applied in the case of European Nuclear Disarmament (END) as well? The NW of France and Britain, after all, represent "only" some hundreds of the estimated total of 26 000 NWs existing in the world today, and of which the major part are those of Russia and the USA. So in that sense, END would probably only be "a small reform on the short term". Anyway, we could and we should start there. Or should I say here, because you and me happen to live here, in Europe.
Tks Mika.
I can agree with every word.
Two more remarks:
- be cautious with this formal/informal decision-making - there are too many examples with massive civil sty mobilizations (Euro-missiles in the 80s and war againt Iraq in 2003) where states decided all the same they would go ahead with their plans - we have power but not all the power
- in realizing the failures of some levels of decision-making and preferring other levels or other mechanisms, I think we must learn to think in terms of and/and instead of or/or. Seeing that one level/mechanism does not function as it should, can be an incentive to improve it, not only to substitute it. That is my main point concerning the Lisbon Treaty. It is a bad treaty, but Nice is even worse. Rejecting Lisbon and trying to build a 'new Europe' - if we ever succeed - takes us at least 10 to 20 years forward. In the meantime we abandon the democratic instruments that Lisbon gives us.
By the way: the European Council has given Ireland the necessary guarantees for this 'demilitarization' (December 20078 + June 2009).
Have a nice sunday.
Francine