Institutions, therefore, count as a means to an end. They are force multipliers for the activities of individuals. They can marshal unique resources, such as talent, funds, and information. They can aid in the education of the public. They can exert a powerful influence not just upon the form and content of domestic legislation but also upon both the process and the likelihood of enforcement. They can serve as arenas for building coalitions among divergent interests and for holding them together over time.

What applies to national institutions applies equally to international institutions, which serve the interests of their member states and, ultimately, the human race. Over the last few years, the world has been witnessing the gradual strengthening of a global institutional infrastructure of disarmament. This can be seen in the actions of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who re-established the UN Department for Disarmament Affairs, while reinvigorating its three Regional Centres in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. It is evident in the priority accorded to disarmament in almost all of the gatherings held last year to commemorate the new millennium, including global forums involving nongovernmental organizations, the presiding officers of the world's legislatures, and religious leaders, and culminating in the largest-ever gathering of heads of state and government, the UN Millennium Summit.

There could scarcely be a clearer statement of the international priority of disarmament than that found in the Millennium Declaration issued ofter that summit. In this historic document, the world's leaders resolved "to strive for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, and to keep all options open for achieving this aim, including the possibility of convening an international conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers."

Such statements are crucial in building a global consensus on basic concepts and on clear goals for disarmament. The aim of global nuclear disarmament is, in fact, no longer contested by any nation-state. The debate now centers on difficult questions concerning the means to achieve disarmament. Some people view missile defense as a path away from nuclear deterrence, while others see missile defense as the catalyst for a new arms race involving both nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. The global nuclear disarmament effort also does not benefit from the absence of multilateral, binding norms governing the production, stockpiling, sale, or use of missiles, and the absence of such norms in the field of missile defense.

The process of building national and international infrastructures for disarmament is by no means complete. Networks of nongovernmental organizations are just beginning to grow, and many are facing steep learning curves. Disarmament, while an oft-- stated goal in diplomatic arenas, has yet to be seriously reflected in domestic legislation, national regulations and policies, and political party platforms. Among all the players identified earlier in this article-the bureaucracy, national labs, companies, legislators, academics, and the news media and entertainment industries-each must carry a heavier load for disarmament to prevail as a method of advancing human security.

Given the extraordinary dividends-security, economic, and environmental-that disarmament offers humanity, it follows logically that public education may well be the key to its ultimate success. This is the third and surely one of the most important factors that will determine the fate of disarmament. The 20 members of the UN Secretary-General's Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters surely think so, for it was a theme stressed heavily in their deliberations last year. Building on this theme, the UN General Assembly approved Resolution 55/33E on November 20, 2000, requesting that over the next two years the secretary-general prepare a study on education in the fields of disarmament and nonproliferation.

An educated citizenry is the best ally for meeting the challenge of sustainable disarmament-the people vote, pay taxes, and have numerous ways of making their views known to political leaders. They can fight to enhance oversight and accountability and motivate their leaders to lead and to support leadership initiatives.

Chatting Future Policy

In 1998, the Brookings Institution reported that the historical cost of the US nuclear-weapons program-in-- cluding development, manufacturing, maintenance, retirement, and cleanup expenses-was around US$5.5 trillion. Environmental remediation costs alone are staggering, and if remediation efforts fail or if there is a new environmental catastrophe, these costs may well prove to be grossly underestimated. Though we may not know the exact cost, we can easily appreciate that as high as these costs have been, they would pale in comparison to the costs that would be incurred should competitive national nuclear armaments culminate in a regional or a nuclear war.

Unfortunately, there have been no similarly detailed "audits" of the rest of the world's nuclear-weapons programs, few of which are noted for their transparency. No one can state the exact opportunity cost of all this investment. No one knows precisely how many other social and economic goals might have been achieved with this largesse, with additional benefits for international peace and security. Nor can one confirm the alleged benefits of such expenditures, given the notorious difficulty of attributing the prevention of nuclear war to nuclear deterrence.

Yet with good leadership, strong institutions, and quality education, disarmament will grow both in importance and in popularity over the years ahead. The fate of disarmament is where it has always been: in the hands of the people.

The author wishes to record his debt to Randy Rydell, who assisted in the preparation of this article.