|
By Patricia Anton
My attempts at introducing the Muslim-Christian Initiative on the Nuclear Weapons Danger (MCI) to the community have been met with much encouragement, appreciation and support. I've been impressed to learn how much of what people have to say on this issue emanates from their own hearts, and their moral consciousness. Not surprisingly, I have also encountered a sense of fatalism about the issue: As one friend put it, "I think it would be great if we could eliminate nuclear weapons. They are bad. They are horrible. But the United States is never going to give up its arsenal." It is easy for many to think that when MCI calls for eliminating these weapons from the earth, we are engaging in idealistic rhetoric. But we find reason for hope and optimism in recognizing an alternative vision to global security.
In January 2007, an editorial by some of the United States' leading thinkers discussed this very topic in the Wall Street Journal. The article entitled "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons" was jointly written by George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn: two are former secretaries of state, one a former secretary of defense, and one a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Together they called for America to take the lead through practical steps to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Why? Because the rules of the game have changed: deterrence that was seen as effective in the Cold War era is not a reliable strategy when faced with new nuclear powers with questionable security procedures, and the increasing possibility of non-state actors accessing these weapons.
Over the last year, momentum has developed in response to this op-ed, including a conference hosted by the Hoover Institution that included former U.S. officials from the past six administrations. On January 15, 2008, a second article by the same authors, "Towards a Nuclear-Free World," appeared in the Wall Street Journal. In addition to outlining short-term steps that both the U.S. and Russia can take to reduce nuclear danger, the authors called for building political will and international consensus, the topic of an upcoming conference in Norway this February.
California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger added his voice to this effort in saying that, "Mistakes are made in every other human endeavor. Why should nuclear weapons be exempt?" Given the changing realities in the world, if we do not work systematically to get rid of nuclear weapons, it is not a question of if they will be used, but when. So, while my friend may be correct in doubting that our government will be altruistically moved to get rid of our nuclear weapons, there is hope in recognizing the enlightened self interest that we are strategically more secure if we take the lead in pursuing "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons."
|
