Nuclear Arms Are No Longer "Necessary Evils" Interview with Dr. Daisaku Ikeda, President of Soka Ga
（２）
At the same time, it is impossible to imagine terrorist groups being deterred by nuclear weapons. For these reasons, relying on nuclear deterrence to achieve security objectives in today's world is a dubious proposition at best. We need to approach this issue from the perspective of what might be called a new realism.
Think of the states that were either developing, or already possessed, nuclear weapons but gave them up because they decided that possessing such weapons was not in their national security interests. South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Libya all chose this path. Supported by the enhancement of regional security arrangements, they saw that they could achieve their security goals without depending on nuclear weapons.
As the 1996 Canberra Commission wrote, "The only complete defence is the elimination of nuclear weapons and the assurance that they will never be produced again." We need to make sure that all the fissile materials that can be used to build nuclear weapons are strictly managed under reliable conditions. Such actions will advance not only national security, but human security. Nuclear abolition is actually the most realistic choice we can make.
IPS: Do you think the five declared nuclear powers -- the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia -- have a moral or legitimate right to call for the abolition of nuclear weapons when they refuse to dismantle their own weapons?
DI: I have long asserted that the primary responsibility for nuclear disarmament and abolition lies with the five states recognised as nuclear weapons states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This is why I have continued to call for reviving the currently stalled disarmament negotiations between the U.S. and Russia. And this is why I have urged that this be linked to a coordinated effort by all five countries to develop an international framework with a binding timetable for achieving nuclear disarmament.
The NPT review conference to be held in 2010 represents an important opportunity. There needs to be a return to the original spirit of the NPT -- to avert the danger of nuclear war and to safeguard the security of peoples. The conference needs to find ways of promoting both non-proliferation and disarmament, to help countries free themselves from their reliance on nuclear weapons.
In recent years, key figures in nuclear weapons states, including former U.S. Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, have called for the elimination of nuclear weapons. I think it is clear that the countries that possess the greatest stocks of nuclear weapons need to take the lead in realising a bold policy shift. This is the key to breaking the current impasse.
I would like to bring attention to the efforts of the Canada Pugwash Group to create a nuclear-weapons-free-zone in the Arctic. Realising such a zone would require a new level of proactive commitment from the U.S. and Russia and as such it could provide important new impetus toward the goal of nuclear abolition.
IPS: In September 1981, Israel carried out a unilateral attack on a suspected nuclear facility in Iraq, and in September last year, Israel launched a similar attack on a suspected plant in Syria. Did Israel have the legal or moral authority to conduct such unilateral attacks despite violations of national sovereignty and despite the fact that it is also a nuclear- armed country?
DI: The people of every country have the right to live in peace and security. And every country should pursue that goal through peaceful means. The use of the hard power of military force never produces real stability. This is not something that is limited to the Middle East, but is true everywhere. Force only inscribes new cycles of hatred and resentment, creating a negative legacy that will continue to haunt all parties.
The sparks of conflict cannot be extinguished with more fire. You need water. Rather than fan the flames of hate, we need to unleash a flood of dialogue. That is the best way to put out the flames. The fundamental solution lies in realising regional stability and, finally, creating a nuclear weapons-free Middle East. These are goals that can only be realised through dialogue. (END/2008)
At the same time, it is impossible to imagine terrorist groups being deterred by nuclear weapons. For these reasons, relying on nuclear deterrence to achieve security objectives in today's world is a dubious proposition at best. We need to approach this issue from the perspective of what might be called a new realism.
Think of the states that were either developing, or already possessed, nuclear weapons but gave them up because they decided that possessing such weapons was not in their national security interests. South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Libya all chose this path. Supported by the enhancement of regional security arrangements, they saw that they could achieve their security goals without depending on nuclear weapons.
As the 1996 Canberra Commission wrote, "The only complete defence is the elimination of nuclear weapons and the assurance that they will never be produced again." We need to make sure that all the fissile materials that can be used to build nuclear weapons are strictly managed under reliable conditions. Such actions will advance not only national security, but human security. Nuclear abolition is actually the most realistic choice we can make.
IPS: Do you think the five declared nuclear powers -- the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia -- have a moral or legitimate right to call for the abolition of nuclear weapons when they refuse to dismantle their own weapons?
DI: I have long asserted that the primary responsibility for nuclear disarmament and abolition lies with the five states recognised as nuclear weapons states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This is why I have continued to call for reviving the currently stalled disarmament negotiations between the U.S. and Russia. And this is why I have urged that this be linked to a coordinated effort by all five countries to develop an international framework with a binding timetable for achieving nuclear disarmament.
The NPT review conference to be held in 2010 represents an important opportunity. There needs to be a return to the original spirit of the NPT -- to avert the danger of nuclear war and to safeguard the security of peoples. The conference needs to find ways of promoting both non-proliferation and disarmament, to help countries free themselves from their reliance on nuclear weapons.
In recent years, key figures in nuclear weapons states, including former U.S. Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, have called for the elimination of nuclear weapons. I think it is clear that the countries that possess the greatest stocks of nuclear weapons need to take the lead in realising a bold policy shift. This is the key to breaking the current impasse.
I would like to bring attention to the efforts of the Canada Pugwash Group to create a nuclear-weapons-free-zone in the Arctic. Realising such a zone would require a new level of proactive commitment from the U.S. and Russia and as such it could provide important new impetus toward the goal of nuclear abolition.
IPS: In September 1981, Israel carried out a unilateral attack on a suspected nuclear facility in Iraq, and in September last year, Israel launched a similar attack on a suspected plant in Syria. Did Israel have the legal or moral authority to conduct such unilateral attacks despite violations of national sovereignty and despite the fact that it is also a nuclear- armed country?
DI: The people of every country have the right to live in peace and security. And every country should pursue that goal through peaceful means. The use of the hard power of military force never produces real stability. This is not something that is limited to the Middle East, but is true everywhere. Force only inscribes new cycles of hatred and resentment, creating a negative legacy that will continue to haunt all parties.
The sparks of conflict cannot be extinguished with more fire. You need water. Rather than fan the flames of hate, we need to unleash a flood of dialogue. That is the best way to put out the flames. The fundamental solution lies in realising regional stability and, finally, creating a nuclear weapons-free Middle East. These are goals that can only be realised through dialogue. (END/2008)
