MANY TO MANY 64 TIME FOR A PEASANT'S REVOLT

Frank Blackaby, former director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and member of the British American Security Information Council, wrote a paper, published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Nov-Dec 1997 issue) and subsequently circulated by IPPNW and Abolition 2000, with the title:

TIME FOR A PEASANTS' REVOLT

"One hundred and eighty states have ratified or acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as non-nuclear weapon states. That treaty, now nearly 30 years old, was, never intended to be an indefinite license for a two-tier world of nuclear haves and have-nots. It embodied a bargain. The majority of states would not acquire nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the nuclear states would negotiate nuclear disarmament.

The nuclear weapon states never kept their side of the bargain. For 20 years after signing the treaty, they competed intensively in developing new nuclear weapon systems - missiles with multiple warheads, terrain-following cruise missiles, enhanced radiation weapons. They moved their nuclear weapon tests underground, but did nothing to reduce their number.

In 1995 the non-nuclear weapon states came under intense pressure, mainly from the United States, to agree to an indefinite extension of the NPT. They yielded – and got very little in exchange: a more thorough review process and a test ban that leaves the nuclear weapon states free to "modernize" their weapons.

Nuclear disarmament is as distant as ever. Even if the second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is ratified by Russia, the United States and Russia will still retain some 20,000 nuclear warheads in the year 2007, if 'hedges' and spares are included. The nuclear weapons powers have successfully sold the story that even if further nuclear disarmament does take place, it would have to be stretched out over decades. That simply is not true. With only a small investment in new facilities, the whole world stock of nuclear weapons could be dismantled in seven years.

The United States, France, Britain, and Russia have very little interest in the views of the non-nuclear weapon states. They refused to agree to any discussion of nuclear disarmament in Geneva. The United States – supported only by Israel, a covert nuclear weapon state – has voted against convening a Special Session on Disarmament at the United Nations in the year 2000.

The United States believes that the non-nuclear weapon states are docile and disorganised. It is time for a peasants' revolt. The 180 non-nuclear states should meet and issue a warning along these lines:

THE NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE NPT. GIVEN THAT
IT IS LEGITIMATE FOR ANY STATE, OR STATES, TO WITHDRAW FROM THE TREATY. NON-NUCLEAR STATES WILL THEREFORE WITHDRAW WITHIN TWO YEARS, UNLESS THE NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES AGREE IN SOME FORUM TO START GENUINE NEGOTIATIONS DESIGNED TO ULTIMATELY RID THE WORLD OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

It is an outrageous proposal. But once the NPT was indefinitely extended, the non-nuclear states lost whatever leverage they had in forcing the nuclear weapon states to live up to their end of the deal.

The withdrawal warning would have to be issued by at least 30 non-nuclear states – ideally by more than a hundred. If only a few states issued the warning, they could be picked off by punitive action.

Would the move be effective? Very possibly. A primary objective of U.S. nuclear weapons policy is to prevent further proliferation. No U.S. president wants to see the nonproliferation regime unravel before his eyes. If faced by a revolt of the peasants, the United States could hardly do nothing.

Should non-nuclear states start developing nuclear weapons? No. A decision to withdraw from the treaty if necessary would be a powerful warning signal by itself.

Most non-nuclear weapon states judge their status to be in their own interest. Indeed, most are now in regional nuclear-weapon-free zones. The zone agreements should not be dismantled. My proposal is simply this: It is time to think about rejecting a U.S.-imposed treaty unless that treaty can be made to work as intended.

Is this proposal dangerous? Yes. No one wants to see the NPT crumble. But it would be even more dangerous to allow current nuclear weapon policies to persist for another 20 years without any attempt to muster effective countervailing pressure.

It is an axiom of the case for zero nuclear weapons that in the long run a two-tier world is unsustainable. We have already had a long run of that – thirty years since the NPT was signed. Now is the time to try somewhat more powerful action to bring that long run to an end. This proposal could produce a fair and open warning to the nuclear weapon powers that they can no longer ignore their central obligation under the terms of the NPT."

Could the recent nuclear tests embarked upon by India be signalling a "peasant's revolt"?

Source: The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists – a bimonthly publication,
published by the Educational Foundation for Nuclear Science,
6042 S. Kimbark Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A.

Anthony Brooke and Gita Brooke, co-founders
Te Rangi, 4 Allison Street, Wanganui 5001, New Zealand
phone/fax: +64-6-345-5714 ~ e-mail: Many to Many
under the aegis of
Operation Peace Through Unity
is a communicating link between
'we, the peoples' of all nations, races, creeds and ideologies offering in the spirit of the preamble of the United Nations Charter an instrument for the furthering of better relationships based on deepening mutual understanding and the aspiration to promote unity and cooperation beyond all differences.