Humankind Cannot Coexist with Nuclear Weapons

An Interview with Dato Dr Ronald S. McCoy

After more than twenty years of involvement in the advocacy of disarmament and abolition of nuclear weapons, Dato Dr Ronald S. McCoy, president of Physicians for Peace and Social Responsibility, shows no sign of slowing down. With unyielding optimism, the good doctor is as passionate as ever in his efforts to create a better world - one that is free of nuclear weapons. COSMIC interviews Dato McCoy for his views on the current situation.

After the Cold War, we have seen a standstill in the nuclear reductions treaty. At the same time, more countries are developing nuclear weapons. Where do we stand now in our efforts to abolish nuclear weapons?

During the Cold War, the world bristled with 50,000 nuclear warheads and was held hostage and threatened by the United States and the Soviet Union with “mutual assured destruction,” if nuclear deterrence failed. The Cold War is over and the threat of an all-out nuclear war is over, but 27,000 nuclear warheads remain, with 12,000 operational and 5,000 on high alert, ready to be launched on warning in 15 minutes.

The proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used, accidentally of by decision, defies credibility. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we risk catastrophic nuclear war or nuclear terrorism. Nuclear weapons are diabolical weapons capable of indiscriminately incinerating people and totally destroying cities in a matter of seconds. Atmospheric pollution from nuclear explosions could result in a “nuclear winter” and an ecological disaster.

Negotiations on nuclear disarmament have come to a virtual standstill. The possession of nuclear weapons by any state is a constant stimulus to other states to acquire them. The original nuclear club of five (the US, Russia, France, Britain and China) has increased its membership by another four members (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea). Nuclear proliferation is one of the most serious threats we face today. The greater the number of nuclear weapon states, the greater the risk of nuclear war.

The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a quid pro quo agreement between the states which possess nuclear weapons and those that do not. The non-nuclear weapons have renounced nuclear weapons and are entitled to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. In return, the nuclear weapon states are legally bound to completely disarm and eliminate their nuclear arsenals, but they are refusing to comply with their commitments under Article VI of the NPT. Instead, some are developing new nuclear weapons and new nuclear doctrines which include the threat or use of nuclear weapons against states suspected of developing chemical or biological weapons or even against threats from conventional weapons or terrorism.

Today, the risks of nuclear war come from three major security challenges: existing nuclear weapons, the spread of nuclear weapons, and civilian nuclear facilities which may hide a clandestine nuclear weapons programme.

In the United Nations, the majority of states have voted for immediate negotiations for the elimination of nuclear weapons through a Nuclear Weapons Convention, but the United States, Russia and France are opposed to such a move.

The major powers justify the continued existence of nuclear weapons on the basis of “nuclear deterrence” -– in order to keep the world “secure.” How can the rest of the world convince them that this is utter madness?

The mindset about “nuclear deterrence” can only be changed by persistent dialogue with the decision-makers in the nuclear weapon states, particularly in the United States.

Until the US provides the leadership in nuclear disarmament, there is very little hope.

Civil society, international organisations and like-minded governments must mount a worldwide grassroots campaign for the abolition of nuclear weapons, which will make an impact on the electorate of the nuclear weapon states, particularly the United States.

The International Court of Justice ruled in 1996 that nuclear weapon states have a legal obligation to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. Nation states are now interdependent and must reject military security and redefine security in terms of human security and non-violent resolution of conflict.

Some people insist that abolishing nuclear weapons is an unrealistic aim. Once people have the technology, they will never give it up. And even if the nuclear weapons are abolished, there will be some who will want to develop the capability. How do you respond to this argument?

We need to understand that we’re being unrealistic to think that human and planetary survival is possible as long as such destructive weapons exist in a world of nation states which still resolve conflict by going to war. Nuclear weapons are far more destructive than so-called weapons of mass destruction and should not be put in the same category as chemical and biological weapons. Each nuclear warhead today is at least a hundred times more destructive than the atomic bomb which totally destroyed Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

In addition, atmospheric pollution in a nuclear war would blot out the sun and cause a “nuclear winter” and an ecological disaster. Humankind cannot coexist with nuclear weapons. They must be abolished.

The illegal and immoral threat to annihilate whole cities and populations, even countries and civilisation, with nuclear weapons belongs in the past. Of course, nuclear weapons technology cannot be erased, but we have succeeded in banning landmines and chemical and biological weapons, although their technology remains. Why not nuclear weapons? We have abolished human sacrifice, slavery and apartheid. Why not nuclear warfare? It can be done. All we need is the political will which civil society must generate. All human problems have human solutions.

Lawyers, physicians and others have drafted a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention which was officially adopted by the United Nations in 1997 to support the ongoing debate on nuclear abolition. A Nuclear Weapons Convention will be an international treaty signed by governments. It will be similar to other international treaties banning entire categories of weapons, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention and the Mine Ban Treaty. In 2006, the UN General Assembly took a vote and 125 out of 181 governments voted in favour of immediate negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention. Vast majorities in public opinion polls want a nuclear weapons-free future and for their country to become a nuclear weapons-free zone.

A Nuclear Weapons Convention defines precise terms to establish thresholds and limits and creates rules so that everybody understands what is prohibited and what is allowed. It outlines patterns of behaviour and cooperation that will enhance the communication and transparency in implementing the treaty, and those that will arouse suspicion and sanctions. It establishes a schedule for steps to remove the threat of nuclear weapons by their dismantlement as well as verification measures to make sure that no one is cheating.

Is it true to say that there is a growing sense of powerlessness and apathy among people worldwide to stop nuclear weapons proliferation and to abolish nuclear weapons? If this is the situation, how do we maintain optimism and hope in our efforts? What is your advice to young people?

Public apathy grows from disempowerment of people particularly in dictatorships but also in so-called democratic countries, where the power structure is skewed to empower and benefit a small group of elites. While the practice of democracy and the rule of law may generally exist within states, internationally there is very little democracy or respect for international law among nation states, where narrow national interests trump global interests and where the major powers tend to exploit their superior power.

Optimism flows from the historical fact that public agitation and pressure have brought about significant changes in the world in the past and can do so in the future. The key is not to give up but to persist in efforts to bring about change. Civil society can effectively become a superpower for the good of humankind. History is littered with examples of well-entrenched and monumental challenges which have been overcome. There is nothing pre-ordained about our future.

My advice to young people is to educate themselves on the important issues of social justice and fundamental human rights which are being eroded by the increasing power of the corporate world where money-theism is gaining strength. The internet is a great source of information, provided it is used carefully. Form networks among yourselves and cooperate with other like-minded groups in civil society.

The goal of abolishing nuclear weapons is not naïve. It is naïve to think that nuclear weapons can make the world more secure or that they can continue to exist without being used again. We must all raise our voices and demand of our leaders and governments to be proactive in abolishing nuclear weapons.

As a small nation, what can Malaysians do about the nuclear issue? Are we doing enough to educate our young people and doing enough to voice our stand on this issue?

Although a small nation, Malaysia has taken a strong stand in the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and other international forums by condemning nuclear weapons and advocating disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons. The government could be doing more to encourage young Malaysians to play a more active role by educating them about the growing new nuclear dangers and encouraging debate and participation in regional and global meetings.

The other important nuclear issue is the question of nuclear energy and nuclear power plants which are directly linked to nuclear weapons. Since the impact of global warming and climate change, the nuclear industry has been promoting nuclear energy worldwide, including in Malaysia, as a clean and cheap source of energy that does not emit carbon dioxide, instead of energy generated by fossil fuels.

The reality is that nuclear energy is neither clean nor cheap. Nuclear power plants produce long-acting radioactive nuclear waste for which there is still no safe method of disposal. Plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years. Nuclear power plants are extremely expensive to build, maintain and decommission, and are therefore heavily subsidised. Moreover, a Chernobyl-like nuclear accident in Malaysia would be catastrophic and render much of Malaysia uninhabitable.

A few government officials have recently made public statements that Malaysia must keep open her nuclear options. This would be a serious mistake. The public should insist on an open public debate about whether Malaysia should consider building nuclear power plants or investing in renewable sources of energy as well as energy conservation and energy efficiency.

How has being a doctor influenced your perspective on nuclear weapons? Tell us more of your involvement in the anti-nuclear movement through IPPNW and PPSR.

Doctors are committed to life and healing. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved that health professionals cannot play a meaningful role in the aftermath of a nuclear war. Doctors therefore founded International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) in 1980 to prevent nuclear war by advocating disarmament and the abolition of nuclear weapons. For its efforts in educating leaders and the public and creating awareness about the dangers of nuclear war, IPPNW was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985.

IPPNW is a federation of 60 national physicians groups, dedicated to nuclear disarmament. I formed the Malaysian affiliate of IPPNW in 1987 as a society within the Malaysian Medical Association. MMA PPNW has since been an active affiliate of IPPNW. I stepped down as president of IPPNW after eight years last September. We have now formed another group of Malaysian doctors, independent of the MMA, called Physicians for Peace and Social Responsibility (PPSR) which is now the Malaysian affiliate of IPPNW.

PPSR is now actively working to implement IPPNW’s new International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). [See box and] The campaign aims to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention to ban the development, possession and use of nuclear weapons. The abolition of nuclear weapons is preventive medicine on a global scale. It is a complex, difficult endeavour that will take several years to accomplish. We are working with lawyers, engineers, mayors, parliamentarians and like-minded governments to reach our goal of zero nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

ICAN is a new campaign initiated by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). The organisation received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 for uniting doctors across the Cold War divide to raise awareness of the threats posed by nuclear weapons. Its prescription for survival was, and remains, the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. ICAN focuses on the roots of the nuclear weapons problem - the continued possession of nuclear weapons by a small minority of countries, who risk their use by design, accident, miscalculation or by terrorists, and whose weapons are an incentive to others to also become nuclear armed. ICAN aims to achieve a Nuclear Weapons Convention to ban the development, possession and use of nuclear weapons. Website: http://www.icanw.org/public

[ Courtesy September 2007 Cosmic]