|
|
 |
Video Interview (in French with English transcripts)
Note: The opinions presented are not necessarily those of the Government of Canada.
(Video players are available here: QuickTime | Windows Media)
Transcript
A shift in nuclear doctrine
My name is Xavier Renou. I am responsible for the Greenpeace France nuclear disarmament campaign, a campaign that was kick-started last year at the global level. I am also a political science researcher, and I recently published a book on the privatization of violence.
The nuclear disarmament campaign aims to oppose an evolution that we find extremely worrying, which concerns a shift in logic from deterrence—in which, theoretically, nuclear weapons do not get used, since they are for defence—to aggression, in which nuclear weapons are used as preventive measures. It is this logic of preventive nuclear war that we denounce and that we are fighting. Populations and public opinion are not well informed about this shift. Iran might well become the first guinea pig for this new doctrine. We are very concerned about it and are fighting it. We are using various diverse methods. We are using traditional methods of lobbying, of sensitizing the population, of meeting with parliamentarians and other elected officials who support us, of democratically harassing elected officials who are less supportive of us (those who defend this logic of death), and we are also organizing direct, non-violent actions of civil disobedience to create a strong connection with pacifist tests.
As for the question of nuclear disarmament, the first drastic change is this shift in doctrine toward preventive nuclear war, which is completely contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and which translates in France, Great Britain and the United States into programs for the development of new atomic weapons that are basically miniature nuclear bombs, all of which is overtly criminal. That is, it contradicts not only the Non-Proliferation Treaty but also the International Court of Justice decision of 1996, which declared that nuclear weapons (even when used only as a threat) are criminal weapons. So the first challenge is the building up of new weapons and this shift in doctrine. This use of weapons must be prevented by informing the public. When people are informed of these developments, they are extremely shocked. In no instance has this shift been supported. This is the main challenge. It is obviously a major one since the shift in doctrine is driven by three of the important nuclear powers: France, Great Britain and the United States. And obviously, as long as these countries adopt this attitude to nuclear weapons, they are encouraging the rest of the world to acquire nuclear weapons (of deterrence, since the rest of the world is a potential target of these miniature nuclear bombs) and preventing new progress toward disarmament. It must be remembered that there was a nuclear disarmament in the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s, in which the stock of nuclear weapons in the world was reduced by half, and that it is therefore possible to disarm as soon as the major powers decide to do so. Today, the major powers are the main violators of international law. We are made to look toward Iraq or Iran, but, in fact, it is unfortunately to ourselves that we must look to see violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Canada’s role
Clearly, Canada has a very important role to play, in two respects. The first is that Canada is the natural ally of the United States, and also forms a bloc with Australia (and to a lesser extent with New Zealand), which appears homogeneous though it is not and which must appear decreasingly homogeneous as soon as American policy takes a wrong turn. Today, it is clear that the Bush administration is extremely bellicose, that it intervenes in the affairs of the world in a violent and often illegal way in the eyes of international law. Canada is obviously a strong voice that can speak out against its natural ally, its natural neighbour, the United States.
The second intervention that Canada can make is in its capacity as a NATO member. In this capacity, it renounced the possession of nuclear weapons some time ago. It can exert strong pressure within NATO such that other NATO members that still possess nuclear bombs—notably American bombs, which is the case in six European countries (Great Britain, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Turkey), which are all NATO members and which are all accumulating more American bombs—Canada can exert strong pressure for them to get rid of their nuclear bombs and establish a nuclear-weapons-free zone in Europe, as a precondition of course, as one step toward a more global disarmament of the planet. It should be remembered that Latin America is, by treaty, a nuclear-weapons-free zone; that Africa is, by treaty, a nuclear-weapons-free zone; and that this is also the case for a portion of Oceania. Europe could be the next step. This would of course be a major contribution to global disarmament, and Canada can be a strong ally in this process, which already has the support of many populations. Greenpeace conducted a survey of these six European countries, all NATO members, which are accumulating nuclear bombs. The survey showed that two-thirds of the citizens of these countries are opposed to the presence of nuclear bombs on their soil and demand their removal. Canada should be able to relay these poll results, this public opinion, to the NATO authorities. There is an important NATO meeting scheduled in Riga, Latvia, next November. This could be the opportunity, since the future of NATO is going to be on the agenda, to speak about a future without nuclear weapons.
The role of international institutions
I don’t believe that the disarmament mechanisms today, notably the Geneva Disarmament Conference, the UN authorities and so on, are affected in any way by the emergence of private sector players. I believe that these private sector players, whether they be private companies, large weapons groups or others, are still under the control of the nation-states. It doesn’t matter which nation-states. Of course, not all nation-states are equal in the face of emerging private sector players. But if we’re talking about the major nuclear powers—the United States, France, Great Britain and, to a lesser extent, China and Russia—the governments of course have strong control over these private sector players. Why do international authorities in charge of the nuclear disarmament issue no longer function today when they functioned very well in the early 1980s? Well, because these major nuclear powers no longer have the political will to keep them functioning. In a very concrete way, France is blocking the advancement of nuclear disarmament at the Geneva conference, and the United States is of course the biggest drag on any advancement in nuclear disarmament. For example, the U.S. is preventing disarmament in space. They free themselves from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, notably Article 6, which orders them to disarm. Of course, it sets a very poor example for the rest of the world. But in the rest of the world, there is an overwhelming majority of states, also members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which respect the treaty and refrain from developing the bomb, or which once had the bomb only to renounce it, and which today exert rather strong pressure on the United States, France and Great Britain to break the deadlock. Up until now, this pressure has not been sufficient to break the deadlock, but it has been strong enough to prevent these countries from simply quitting the Non-Proliferation Treaty. For the United States, it was very clear they were hoping to do just that.
These international organizations are the most advanced expression of the political will of the entire international community. In this sense, it is obviously from within them that the nuclear disarmament process must emerge or start over. In addition, clearly and simply, these international bodies do not give equal power to the member states. Certain states are more equal than others, with a kind of veto, with obviously more financing and more influence over other states. There is no doubt that these are the countries that are responsible for today’s deadlock. Now, we strongly believe in multilateralism—gathering together around a table will allow us to resolve the problems of the world. Therefore, we at Greenpeace are exerting permanent pressure on these international authorities, a pressure that translates first and foremost as gathering information. Many nations do not have the means for finding out about military or nuclear developments that are taking place among the major powers. Therefore, we do this work for these authorities. Clearly, these authorities will only be able to get things going if there is an overlap of effort among the countries that are non-nuclear or that oppose nuclear weapons, such as Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Ireland, Sweden, and a certain number of “virtuous states” such as South Africa, which are fighting today precisely for nuclear disarmament. In addition, we need an overlap of state efforts with the efforts of non-state international organizations such as Greenpeace, as well as other non-governmental organizations that may add their efforts to those of the nations. Along with the diplomatic efforts of these countries that are opposed to nuclear weapons, this can help maintain pressure to sensitize public opinion, and can accompany the diplomatic work of the pacifist nations.
|
A shift in nuclear doctrine 