You need JavaScript to view this

Globalizing security: A challenge for your generation, 25 May 2006, Washington, DC, Johns Hopkins University, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)[John Hopkins University, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)]

Abstract

We still have not outlawed the 'big guns': nuclear weapons. Under the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - the five countries that had nuclear weapons at the time - China, France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States - committed themselves to 'negotiate in good faith' effective measures for the elimination of nuclear weapons and, in the meantime, to share peaceful nuclear technology with any other countries party to the Treaty. In return, those other countries agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons. On the one hand, efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons through the NPT treaty regime can be viewed as a remarkable success. With the exception of India, Israel and Pakistan, every country in the world has joined the NPT. The vast majority of NPT members have stood by their commitments. And the number of nuclear warheads has been reduced by more than 50 percent from its Cold War peak. On the other hand, in recent years, we seem to have come to an impasse, and many see the NPT regime as faltering. We have lost our sense of direction. Today we have eight or nine countries that possess nuclear weapons -  More>>
Authors:
Publication Date:
May 25, 2006
Product Type:
Miscellaneous
Report Number:
INIS-XA-898
Subject:
98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL PROTECTION; NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY; NUCLEAR DETERRENCE; NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT; NUCLEAR WEAPONS; PROLIFERATION; SECURITY; STOCKPILES
OSTI ID:
20992969
Research Organizations:
International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (Austria)
Country of Origin:
IAEA
Language:
English
Other Identifying Numbers:
TRN: XA0601668016920
Availability:
Available from INIS in electronic form; Also available on-line: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2006/ebsp2006n008.html
Submitting Site:
INIS
Size:
6 pages
Announcement Date:
Mar 26, 2008

Citation Formats

ElBaradei, M. Globalizing security: A challenge for your generation, 25 May 2006, Washington, DC, Johns Hopkins University, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)[John Hopkins University, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)]. IAEA: N. p., 2006. Web.
ElBaradei, M. Globalizing security: A challenge for your generation, 25 May 2006, Washington, DC, Johns Hopkins University, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)[John Hopkins University, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)]. IAEA.
ElBaradei, M. 2006. "Globalizing security: A challenge for your generation, 25 May 2006, Washington, DC, Johns Hopkins University, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)[John Hopkins University, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)]." IAEA.
@misc{etde_20992969,
title = {Globalizing security: A challenge for your generation, 25 May 2006, Washington, DC, Johns Hopkins University, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)[John Hopkins University, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)]}
author = {ElBaradei, M}
abstractNote = {We still have not outlawed the 'big guns': nuclear weapons. Under the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - the five countries that had nuclear weapons at the time - China, France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States - committed themselves to 'negotiate in good faith' effective measures for the elimination of nuclear weapons and, in the meantime, to share peaceful nuclear technology with any other countries party to the Treaty. In return, those other countries agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons. On the one hand, efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons through the NPT treaty regime can be viewed as a remarkable success. With the exception of India, Israel and Pakistan, every country in the world has joined the NPT. The vast majority of NPT members have stood by their commitments. And the number of nuclear warheads has been reduced by more than 50 percent from its Cold War peak. On the other hand, in recent years, we seem to have come to an impasse, and many see the NPT regime as faltering. We have lost our sense of direction. Today we have eight or nine countries that possess nuclear weapons - and more than 20 other members of alliances that continue to rely on these weapons for their security. Some countries are actually announcing programmes for modernizing their stockpiles, and some have even spoken of the possibility of using such weapons - all the while insisting that they are off-limits to others. International peace and security cannot be achieved through business as usual with our existing norms and institutions. Clearly, these norms and institutions - whether the NPT or the UN Security Council - are far from perfect. They need to be strengthened in a variety of ways. But beyond the re-engineering of these norms and institutions, we need a complete change of mindset. Most importantly, our approach to security can no longer be centred on the idea of {sup U}s Versus Them{sup .} It must instead be anchored on the idea of the unity of the human family. As recently as a few decades ago, the control of nuclear technology and nuclear material was a sensible strategy for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We are still working vigorously - and must continue to work - to maintain and improve those controls. The proposal to bring under multinational control those facilities capable of producing weapon-usable nuclear material - a proposal endorsed in various forms by many world leaders - is just one such improvement. When it comes to nuclear weapons, we are reaching a fork in the road. Either we must begin moving away from a security system based on nuclear weapons, or we should resign ourselves to President Kennedy's 1960s prediction of a world with 20 to 30 nuclear-weapon States. Efforts to control the spread of such weapons will only be delaying the inevitable - a world in which each country or group has laid claim to its own nuclear weapon. Mutually Assured Destruction will once again be the absurd hallmark of civilization at its technological peak. To date, no one has seriously taken up the challenge of developing an alternative approach to security that eliminates the need for nuclear deterrence. But only when such an alternative system is created will nuclear-weapon States begin moving towards nuclear disarmament. And only when nuclear-weapon States move away from depending on these weapons for their security will the threat of nuclear proliferation by other countries be meaningfully reduced. And finally, only when both groups of countries shift their focus - from a security system based on the build-up of armaments to a security system that addresses the root causes of insecurity, ranging from poverty and repression to unresolved conflicts - will we be able to improve global security. The globalization of security will require creative diplomacy, innovative technology and above all leadership. At its root, this new system of collective security requires a basic belief that we are all part of one human family. This new system of collective security should incorporate a deterrence based primarily on the interdependence of nations, through the exchange of people, ideas and goods. Armed conflict must become too costly to be anything but the very last option. We must find ways to make nuclear weapons relics of the past. Secondly, this alternative system of collective security must include institutions capable of maintaining international peace and security. The United Nations Security Council now holds this responsibility. The Security Council must be representative of the global community it serves. It must be structured in a way that makes it agile in its responses to crises. It must be consistent in its actions. It must have the resources to carry out its mission. And it must make it a high priority to resolve conflicts that have continued to fester for decades. We should not forget, however, that at the end of the day, international institutions are constellations of states, and states are made up of people who should be the focus and the drivers of any system of security. Third, we should initiate a series of dialogues to promote mutual understanding and respect. To correct misconceptions. To understand and address causes of hostility.}
place = {IAEA}
year = {2006}
month = {May}
}