A Hardy Perennial

Former UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold once called disarmament a "hardy perennial" at the United Nations, a term that appropriately captures the theme of persistence in a hostile environment. This persistence is easy to document with respect to the three types of weapons of mass destruction-nuclear, chemical, and biological.

In the field of nuclear weapons alone, the disarmament goal has figured prominently in a half-century of debates in the UN General Assembly and in the resolutions it has approved. The goal has been enshrined in important treaties, including agreements creating nuclear-weapon-free zones in Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, the South Pacific, and Southeast Asia. Disarmament is a goal of the Seabed Treaty, the Partial Test Ban Treaty, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (not yet in force), and the NPT, which obligates its parties "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament."

The International Court of Justice strongly reaffirmed this goal in 1996 by issuing its historic, unanimous advisory opinion that "there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control."

In May 2000, this obligation was further reinforced at the NPT Review Conference, as a result of an "unequivocal undertaking by the nuclearweapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament." As reported in the Final Document of that conference, this statement was accompanied by an agreement on 13 "practical steps for the systematic and progressive efforts" to implement that commitment. And in an extraordinary rejoinder to those who would pursue security in nuclear deterrence or in missile defense, the conference reaffirmed that "the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons" (emphasis added).

Yet while disarmament has indeed been a perennial in the landscape of international peace and security, it has also had to survive in an extraordinarily difficult environment. Its critics argue that disarmament, especially nuclear disarmament, can never be perfectly verified and hence is a folly. Some say nuclear weapons in one state will deter their use by another. Some go even further, saying that nuclear weapons will also deter major conventional wars between nuclear-armed states, given their shared interest in avoiding actions that may escalate to nuclear war. Others argue that increased reliance on nuclear weapons will allow for cuts elsewhere in the defense budget.

In addition to these conceptual rationales for the acquisition or retention of nuclear weapons, there is also a political and economic engine at work: each of the states that possess nuclear weapons has a powerful institutional support system. The bureaucracies that manage such weapons, the forces that field them, the national labs that design them, the companies that supply their components, the legislators in districts where these components are made, the academics who receive government grants, and even elements of the news media and entertainment industries have helped, each in their own way, to perpetuate the existence of such weapons. And perhaps most tragically, some states continue to attach great national pride to the acquisition or possession of such weapons. Long after the Cold War has ended, one still finds official statements heralding nuclear weapons as "vital" or "essential"-statements from officials who are also hard at work to ensure that no other states adopt the same reasoning.

The Sustainability Factor

Disarmament is much like any other goal of public policy: it is not self-sustaining. It is created and advanced by human beings who are subject to competing priorities, limited resources, technological complexity, uncertainty, stress, risk, and ambitions. The weapons themselves are perpetuated by many of the same types of forces. For the "hardy perennial" of disarmament not only to persist but also to bear fruit, it must proceed from this most fundamental human premise.

Disarmament is a human activity not just because humans engage in it, but also because the costs of its failure are borne by humans, just as its successes are shared throughout the human world. If disarmament yields to unrestrained arms competition and war, the advocates of disarmament will not be the only ones to suffer. If disarmament succeeds, then the advocates of disarmament will not be the only ones to gain new security benefits and new opportunities for human betterment. Disarmament is a vitally important means of advancing human security and the long-term development of societies. It is a definitive example of a collective good.

To weather difficult political environments, advocates of disarmament must operate at several critical levels of policy-making, all of which require considerable leadership-undoubtedly a vital factor in sustaining disarmament both inside and outside of government. Leaders must recognize the need not just to win the war of ideas but also to appeal to hard, practical interests. They must understand the need to ensure that the process of disarmament has the ability to adapt and to renew itself through the ebb and flow of the various seasons of administrations, UN General Assemblies, legislatures-in short, the ever-changing dynamics of human political institutions. Leadership has its greatest potential when strong political will is combined with institutional tools to implement that will.

A strong institutional infrastructure is therefore another key factor in achieving sustainable disarmament. Advocates of disarmament have much to learn from the past successes attained by advocates of armament. Just as the military-industrial complex has developed the means to perpetuate itself over generations, to adapt its goals and methods to changing circumstances, and to expand its coalition base, so too must the "disarmament complex" match these specific organizational capacities. Moral self-righteousness may well help in motivating human effort; yet morality alone will not suffice to guarantee successful disarmament efforts. Ultimately, disarmament must rest upon a combination of ideas and self-interest pursued and defended by organized institutions. Institutions are a triple-use weapon: they can promote disarmament, aggravate arms races, or perpetuate ignorance and inaction. As human creations, institutions do what humans tell them to do.