After the 2007 New York Times article of the famous gang of four retired American Secretaries of State and Secretaries of Defence, nuclear weapons elimination has again caught the attention of the whole world. The election of President Obama and his fervent desire to establish a world free of nuclear weapons has added another dimension to the debate. The declarations at Prague and the June summit with Russian President Medvedev have rekindled the hope that world powers have shed the nuclear inertia of the Cold War. It also suggests that they have embraced the fact that nuclear weapons are redundant in the new security scenario and are in fact the cause, not the solution for 21st century security dilemmas, nuclear terrorism being the most dangerous of them. Though these are individual and state responses to the problem, particularly from the North Atlantic, other states such as Japan, Australia, Britain and France have joined the chorus. The governments of Japan and Australia commissioned the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament which has recently unveiled its report, again emphasizing the need for such steps. Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, echoed the same resolution last year.

However, these state sponsored responses have stimulated the global civil society to come together and express its own concerns over the existence of nuclear weapons. Though state responses are always a necessary condition for fruitful outcomes in international politics, however they are not sufficient. The historic judgment of the world court on the illegality of nuclear weapons is a case in point. Without the crucial role played by non-state actors such as the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), The International Peace Bureau (IPB) and the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), it is difficult to comprehend whether such an attempt to seek an advisory opinion by the UN General Assembly would have ever been made.

In this new wave of global efforts towards nuclear disarmament, the civil society movement called the ‘Global Zero’ stands out. Launched in April 2008, with the support of more than 200 world leaders, former top military commanders, diplomats and academicians, the movement has developed a niche in the civil society efforts on the issue of nuclear weapon elimination. In its second global summit, held in Paris from 2 to 4 February, it was able to clearly put the agenda in front of the global community. Buoyed by the presence of 30 young student leaders from 12 countries, a first of its kind initiative, it is diligently trying to convey the message across different regions of the world and is evolving as a global initiative in itself. It was in fact the first of such global congregations this year, which was to be followed by the recently concluded Munich Security Summit and subsequently, the Nuclear Security Conference called upon by President Obama in April and the most crucial of all of them, the NPT Review Conference, due in May this year.

However, even when the world is slowly gearing up to the idea of accepting a non-nuclear world as something normal, rather than an aberration (as was the case during the Cold War), the Indian strategic community seems to be reluctant to accept the evolving political situation. The supporters of nuclear weapons in the country have two special reservations towards such efforts. First of all, they are highly skeptic of the sudden change of heart of the erstwhile nuclear hawks such as Henry Kissinger, George Schultz and many other leaders from across the world including India, who are now spearheading the movement for de-nuclearisation. However, this kind of objection appears to be specious at best. If the goal is nuclear disarmament, then the reflection of these individuals on their own experiences of the peril associated with nuclear politics, having served in such crucial positions, should be welcomed as a necessary input for present day action rather than be subjected to summary rejection on the ground of skepticism of their intentions.  

 

Second is the idea why, at this point in time, is the West so vehement about nuclear weapon elimination? India’s experiences with international disarmament diplomacy have added to this general skepticism towards such efforts. However, a preliminary reading of EH Carr and Hans Morgenthau makes it clear that for initiatives as bold and important as these, power is a crucial element. If the goal is nuclear disarmament, then inadvertently the West especially the United States has to take the lead. There is no other way out of it. However, if such skepticism is just an opportunistic tool to maintain the interests of certain sections in India, there is no doubt that it will rouse public passions. Therefore, it is important that civil society groups in India, who have constantly opposed the nuclearization of the sub-continent, should join hands with such international endeavors as Global Zero and others in order to pressurize the government to undertake a critical evaluation of the need and viability of nuclear weapons for our security.