The 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference reaffirmed “the unequivocal undertaking of the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament.”
Five more years have passed and another Review Conference is in the offing. Still, nuclear stockpiles of “civilisation-destroying” size persist, and even limited progress on disarmament has stalled. Over 16,000 nuclear weapons remain, with 10,000 in military service and 1,800 on high alert. Nuclear-armed countries spend over $100 billion per year on nuclear weapons and related costs. Those expenditures are expected to increase as nuclear weapon states modernise their warheads and delivery systems. The reality is that all of the nuclear weapons states are modernising their nuclear arsenals, resisting the demands of the majority of the world’s nations for the implementation of the NPT and to honour their legal and moral obligation to begin negotiations to ban and completely eliminate their nuclear arsenals under its Article VI commitments.
In 2013, 1.75 trillion dollars was spent on militaries and armaments. These figures highlight the inextricable connections between preparations for nuclear war, the environmental impacts of nuclear war and the nuclear fuel cycle, and military spending at the expense of meeting essential human needs. There has been renewed era of confrontation spurred by NATO and European Union expansion and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s responses, including mutual nuclear threats. The law of unintended consequences means that we can never truly know what the consequences of our actions will be.
A network of international non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which will present a petition, with millions of signatures, calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. The group includes Abolition 2000, American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Earth Action, Mayors for Peace, Western States Legal Foundation, Japan Council against A&N Bombs, Peace Boat, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, World Council of Churches, and many more. They represent an outcry against the horrific consequences of technological advance in weaponry. Socialists, likewise, don't like what is going on in society. It is fraught with the most colossal dangers to humanity. The problem is, how do we bring its dangers, under control, so that we can then have a society where these threats no longer exist, where we have solved the problem of war, and where we control society in the human interest? The possibility of this kind of social control is pre-supposed by our understanding of problems, so we are saying that we share the indignation that this network expresses, but more than that we say that this must be supported by a clear analysis of how these problems arise in the modern world. We argue that the cause of war is capitalist society.
Under capitalism we have a world which is divided into rival and competing nations, which struggle with each other over the control of markets, trade routes and natural resources. It is this struggle which brings nations into armed conflict with each other because militarism is the violent extension of the economic policies of propertied interests. War and the nuclear threat cannot be isolated from the economic relationships of production or the general object of capitalist production, which is to advance the interests of those privileged class minorities who monopolise the whole process of production.
We have from this network’s well-meaning indignation some sort of policy, argued around some slogans, which aims to bring pressure to bear on governments to prevent them from producing nuclear weapons and to make them dismantle existing stocks. This superficial approach cannot possibly succeed, nor does it stand any chance whatsoever of guaranteeing a world free from war or the possible use of nuclear weapons. The superficial approach assumes some general democratic political structure by which populations are able to bring effective pressure to bear on governments conducting a policy of, or preparations for, war. But wars are not planned or conducted along democratic lines. Think back to the last war and the development of nuclear weapons. These things were done in complete secrecy. All governments, in the planning and conduct of war, must retain for themselves a free hand, which is secret, and by its nature without democratic reference to the population at large. Democracy and the conduct of war are anathema to each other. The first casualty of war is democracy. It must be obvious to anyone who is not politically naive, that no government undertaking or treaty has ever been kept for longer than it was expedient to do so.
It is importnat to remember that the technology of nuclear weapons is here to stay. You cannot now erase from the human mind and experience the ability to make nuclear weapons, and there can be no doubt that stocks will continue to proliferate under capitalism. What is required is such a degree of international solidarity that workers of all countries are firmly resolved not to support capitalist war. But the anti-nuclear weapon lobby is not working for this. It is the World Socialist Movement that is providing the arguments on which this can be solidly built. That is why protesters and campaigners, if they wish to be successful about their objective, should be working for socialism. All those NGOs and anti-nuclear weapon groups say that we have this appalling threat hanging over our heads and they do not have time to work for a different society. They are in the position of supporting capitalism but finding the consequences of their own actions repugnant. Sincere individuals are swept up by such movements; but these movements have no substance and are not acting with a clear understanding of the nature of the problems. Because they do not understand that workers have no country, but instead have a common interest with workers of all other countries in taking over the world for themselves, they tend to sweep up the indignation that is felt about war and the nuclear threat and render it sterile by channeling it off in totally futile directions. In this respect they unwittingly act out a political role of stabilising capitalism which goes on as a breeding ground for further wars and renewed international violence. Instead, they must build on the concern and indignation and broaden their horizons. They should not place their faith in governments; that is a sure recipe for disaster and disillusion. We come back to our first question, how do we control society in the human interest? We must not make pathetic appeals to governments to do something on our behalf. We must take the world into our own hands.
If protest and campaign movements continue to support capitalism they must be responsible for all the ways in which capitalism develops.
Based on this article
No comments:
Post a Comment