Londres, Inglaterra. No nation should own nuclear arms – not
Iran, not North Korea, and not their critics who take the moral high ground.
We
cannot intimidate others into behaving well when we ourselves are misbehaving.
Yet that is precisely what nations armed with nuclear weapons hope to do by
censuring North Korea for its nuclear tests and sounding alarm bells over
Iran's pursuit of enriched uranium. According to their logic, a select few
nations can ensure the security of all by having the capacity to destroy all.
Until we overcome this double standard – until we
accept that nuclear weapons are abhorrent and a grave danger no matter who
possesses them, that threatening a city with radioactive incineration is
intolerable no matter the nationality or religion of its inhabitants – we are
unlikely to make meaningful progress in halting the spread of these monstrous
devices, let alone banishing them from national arsenals.
Why, for instance, would a proliferating state pay
heed to the exhortations of the US and Russia, which retain thousands of their
nuclear warheads on high alert? How can Britain, France and China expect a
hearing on non-proliferation while they squander billions modernising their
nuclear forces? What standing has Israel to urge Iran not to acquire the bomb
when it harbours its own atomic arsenal?
Nuclear weapons do not discriminate; nor should our
leaders. The nuclear powers must apply the same standard to themselves as to
others: zero nuclear weapons. Whereas the international community has imposed
blanket bans on other weapons with horrendous effects – from biological and
chemical agents to landmines and cluster munitions – it has not yet done so for
the very worst weapons of all. Nuclear weapons are still seen as legitimate in
the hands of some. This must change.
Around 130 governments, various UN agencies, the Red
Cross and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons are gathering in Oslo this week to examine the catastrophic
consequences of nuclear weapons and the inability of relief agencies to provide
an effective response in the event of a nuclear attack. For too long, debates
about nuclear arms have been divorced from such realities, focusing instead on
geopolitics and narrow concepts of national security.
With enough public pressure, I believe that
governments can move beyond the hypocrisy that has stymied multilateral
disarmament discussions for decades, and be inspired and persuaded to embark on
negotiations for a treaty to outlaw and eradicate these ultimate weapons of
terror. Achieving such a ban would require somewhat of a revolution in our
thinking, but it is not out of the question. Entrenched systems can be turned
on their head almost overnight if there's the will.
Let us not forget that it was only a few years ago
when those who spoke about green energy and climate change were considered
peculiar. Now it is widely accepted that an environmental disaster is upon us.
There was once a time when people bought and sold other human beings as if they
were mere chattels, things. But people eventually came to their senses. So it
will be the case for nuclear arms, sooner or later.
Indeed, 184 nations have already made a legal
undertaking never to obtain nuclear weapons, and three in four support a
universal ban. In the early 1990s, with the collapse of apartheid nigh, South
Africa voluntarily dismantled its nuclear stockpile, becoming the first nation
to do so. This was an essential part of its transition from a pariah state to
an accepted member of the family of nations. Around the same time, Kazakhstan,
Belarus and Ukraine also relinquished their Soviet-era atomic arsenals.
But today nine nations still consider it their
prerogative to possess these ghastly bombs, each capable of obliterating many
thousands of innocent civilians, including children, in a flash. They appear to
think that nuclear weapons afford them prestige in the international arena. But
nothing could be further from the truth. Any nuclear-armed state, big or small,
whatever its stripes, ought to be condemned in the strongest terms for
possessing these indiscriminate, immoral weapons.
Desmond Mpilo Tutu. Is a
South African activist and retired Anglican bishop who rose to worldwide fame
during the 1980s as an opponent of apartheid. Tutu has been active in the
defense of human rights and uses his high profile to campaign for the
oppressed. He has campaigned to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, poverty, racism,
sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. Tutu received the Nobel Peace Prize in
1984; the Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism in 1986; the Pacem in
Terris Award in 1987; the Sydney Peace Prize in 1999; the Gandhi Peace Prize in
2005; and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009. Tutu has also compiled
several books of his speeches and sayings.
Desmond Tutu. The Guardian.co.uk. 04/03/13
