OneWorld.net (U.S.)

Average: Select ratingPoorOkayGoodGreatAwesome

Your rating: None

Reviving the Anti-Nuclear Movement

After WWII, the threat of nuclear devastation compelled vast numbers of people to join a fledgling arms control movement. Citizens worldwide challenged the assertion made by governments that peace was only possible through nuclear strength. While the anti-nuclear movement has subsided compared to these early days, the threat is no less real.

The anti-nuclear crusade (1950s through 1980s) was among the biggest mass movements in modern history. It was stronger in some countries than in others, in part because regional priorities were different. Because of the enormous threat posed to humanity by an escalating nuclear arms race, however, it had the power to mobilize a diversity of institutions, including professional associations, religious bodies, and political groups. Some commentators asserted that the vast proliferation of nuclear weapons in Russia and the United States during the 1970s and 1980s was only stopped because the display of American military strength caused the Russians to retreat. Other historians note that it was not the influence of Western hawks, but a powerful disarmament campaign, that impelled a change of course. In short, the arms race was very unpopular with the general public in both countries.

With the threat of nuclear weapons seeming to subside after the Cold War, however, so did popular pressure. At the beginning of the 21st century, this public pressure was further assuaged by what appeared to be very vigorous efforts to dismantle stockpiles, especially in Russia. The signing of the Moscow Treaty early in G.W. Bush’s first term was hailed as one of these successes. This treaty called on both Russia and the United States to reduce strategic nuclear warheads to a

The enormous threat posed to humanity by an escalating nuclear arms race had the power to mobilize a diversity of institutions.

number not exceeding 1700-2200 by December 31, 2012. On its face, the treaty called for “operationally deployed strategic warheads” to be reduced by some two-thirds. That is, up to 66% of all long-range weapons ready for launch (i.e. not in storage) must be removed from service. But arms control advocates advised reading the fine print; the treaty did not require the actual destruction of warheads, set no schedule for reductions, included only one specific category of weapons, and did not include mechanisms for monitoring compliance, they noted. NGO Strategies

Some NGOs have accepted that complete disarmament is not likely in the near term so, instead, have advocated a series of interim steps to ensure the credibility of international agreements on nuclear weapons. A prestigious group of arms control organizations, under the umbrella of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Arms Control Association, for example, have advocated several policy prescriptions. These include support for the Additional Protocol to the NPT, which would give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the right to conduct more intrusive, short-term inspections of nuclear facilities.

Recommendations also include actions to increase the difficulties of withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT; see article on “The Nuclear Weapons Debate.” The group also calls for more effective international controls on a country’s ability to enrich uranium and process plutonium, both of which can lead to nuclear weapons development.

© GreenpeaceMany groups and coalitions, including the above, are also calling for an end to nuclear testing via adherence to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)—a treaty, adopted in 1996, which the U.S. Senate did not ratify. Other NGOs, like the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, have called for timeframes to achieve complete nuclear disarmament. NGOs also differ on nuclear technology's non-weapons uses, including generating energy for homes and industry. Some NGOs are agnostic on the matter, while others, like Greenpeace, lobby against nuclear power altogether. Despite these different approaches, garnering citizen support remains a priority for all NGOs involved with this issue. Lobbying the U.S. Congress and raising citizen awareness are important activities of a cross-section of NGOs. Environment, peace and justice, development, and human rights groups all have some stake in the nuclear debate—a defining concern for humanity as a whole. As such, this issue has the power to draw together broad coalitions of organizations and individuals.

Among these coalitions is International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), which is a non-partisan, global federation of national medical organizations in 58 countries. The IPPNW’s Campaign for a Nuclear-Weapons-Free Century is meant to create a renewed sense of urgency on global disarmament and work for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

Another NGO coalition called “Abolition Now” has asked individuals and citizen groups to support the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an “Emergency Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons.” Over 100 mayors or their representatives came to New York City in May to share popular demands for the abolition of nuclear weapons. Thousands of protestors joined them in an anti-nuclear march in the same city on 1 May. While the May 2005 NPT Review Conference in New York has provided a unique opportunity to draw public and media attention to this vital issue, another important anniversary will take place on August 6 and 9, 2005. These dates mark the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States, and events are already being planning to remember the victims and call for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

U.S. Positions Critiqued

As UN member states debate how to move forward, citizens groups are concerned about the potential unraveling of hard-won international agreements on nuclear non-proliferation. © Philip WegenerIn the U.S., the intransigence of the G.W. Bush Administration on nuclear weapons policies is especially troubling to most NGOs working on this issue. Despite some opposition in the U.S. Congress, the Administration continues to request funding for new types of nuclear weapons. Among these is something called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (or “bunker buster”), which is intended to strike deeply buried targets. Other nations and arms control advocates point out that for the U.S. to tell other countries not to develop nuclear weapons, but to seek to develop more of their own destroys the legitimacy of the disarmament regime.

NGOs further claim that the U.S. government is not held accountable for its actions, despite its expecting such accountability from other countries, and that it is reneging on disarmament commitments made at the last NPT review conference in 2000, although those agreements were forged by a previous administration. The Clinton and G.W. Bush Administrations have clearly had different approaches to multilateral agreements. Regardless of the politics, a “do-as-I-say, but not-as-I-do” policy remains understandably hard for other countries to take seriously.

Larger Security Challenges

At a time when it seems that popular pressure has not yet crystallized around new nuclear dangers, it remains important for NGOs to strategize together and coordinate efforts. Some commentators have also suggested that these groups may need to look at the more difficult political security challenges to be overcome before elimination of nuclear arsenals becomes possible.

As Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) noted in remarks to a non-proliferation conference in June 2004, “Against [a] backdrop of insecurity and instability, it should come as no surprise to witness a continued interest, particularly in regions of tension, in the acquisition of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.” In this environment, ElBaradei calls for a “much needed discussion on non-proliferation and security.” He also notes that shifting global resources from armaments ($900 billion/year) to development assistance ($60 billion/year) would better address social ills and, thus, pre-empt many security threats.

Encouraging investments in education and meeting social needs over investments in weapons and military solutions tends to be a common refrain of NGOs. Different sectors of civil society have a certain meeting of minds on this approach. For these reasons, fostering an expanded public dialogue on the larger picture of what “global security” means is perhaps where NGOs can make the most vital contribution.

Make a Difference: There's a lot you can do to help make the world safe from nuclear weapons. Check out our Get Involved section.

Speak Up: Have your say about the issues discussed here, and find out what others are saying.

Read more: For more background on the nuclear weapons debate, see “Nuclear Weapons Primer.” The “From the Frontlines” section offers views from those working on the issue everyday as well as a plea from an American student to her government.

Average: Select ratingPoorOkayGoodGreatAwesome

Your rating: None