Foregrounding Justice in Nuclear Disarmament: A Practitioner Commentary
| Published date | 01 September 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12338 |
| Date | 01 September 2016 |
| Author | Ray Acheson |
Foregrounding Justice in Nuclear Disarmament:
A Practitioner Commentary
Ray Acheson
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom - Reaching Critical Will,
New York, USA
Abstract
Injustice and inequity are fundamental to the possession of nuclear weapons. But these concepts have not been at the fore-
front of mainstream discourse surrounding these weapons, which has instead focused on concepts of ‘deterrence’,‘strategic
stability’, and ‘national security’. The Humanitarian Initiative (see the introductory essay in this Special Section for background)
recaptures ground in terms of how nuclear weapons are discussed and perceived internationally. The reemergence of a focus
on the physical effects of a nuclear weapon detonation has initiated a process of stigmatising these weapons. But this chang-
ing discourse, in order to effectively lead to the elimination of nuclear weapons, also requires the recognition that nuclear
weapons represent an elite threat of terror and perpetuate inequity between countries, with broader implications for human-
ity. Arguments about injustice help unmask additional aspects of the unacceptability of nuclear weapons. Within this broader
critique, gender analysis is crucial, helping to illuminate and challenge structures of power that sustain nuclear weapons. This
is not a theoretical exercise. It has practical implications for pursuing the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. A
gender perspective challenges governments and people to act on moral, ethical, humanitarian, legal, political, and economic
grounds without waiting for those benefiting from the status quo.
The injustice of the mainstream discourse on
nuclear weapons
The previously dominant discourse about nuclear weapons
was built over decades by game theorists and think tank
strategists together with military officials and politicians.
Their narrative claimed purported benefits from nuclear
weapons in terms of ‘national security’and ‘strategic stabil-
ity’. Working together to justify first the build-up and now
maintenance of enormous nuclear arsenals, they often argue
that nuclear weapons are not immoral per se. Yes, they
acknowledge, nuclear weapons have terrible consequences
when used, but they are still necessary, justified, legitimate,
and acceptable. In fact, they argue, their terrible conse-
quences make them so effective –the threat of their conse-
quences will ‘deter’attacks and prevent war (Bishop, 2014).
Some argue that the ‘international nuclear order’enables ‘a
tolerable accommodation of pronounced differences in the
capabilities, practices, rights and obligations of states’
(Walker, 2011, p. 4).
This consequentialist, security-driven discourse has dis-
torted our view of nuclear weapons, weapons that represent
massive, unfathomable levels of violence. It has made pro-
gress on disarmament seem impossible –like a utopian
vision of a world that cannot exist because there will always
be those who want to retain or develop the capacity to
wield these massive, unfathomable levels of violence over
others. This discourse represents a social acceptance that
human beings can be processed or put in harm’s way
simply as objects, subject to an abstract calculus of casualty
figures. It stands in stark contrast to the concepts and laws
of human rights and dignity and poses a serious challenge
to global justice. It also insists upon the notion that states,
as coherent units, must always be at odds with one another,
seeking an ‘accommodation’of their differences rather than
collectively pursuing a world in which mutual independence
and cooperation could guide behaviour through an inte-
grated set of interests, needs, and obligations.
Nuclear deterrence discourse has made it more difficult
to envision or articulate different security structures that
do not rely extensively on weapons and military might to
‘protect’the ‘nation’or its people. The security framework
surrounding nuclear weapons means that most arguments
in favour of their elimination rely on demonstrating that
a world free of nuclear weapons brings security. This
argument, while valid in its own right, can become
problematic in a ‘defence’or war-planning context, where
arguments in favour of nuclear disarmament tend to rely
on commitments to bolster other technologies of violence.
Thus the pursuit of disarmament in these contexts may
become tied to the search for reassurance through techni-
cal, strategic, and political substitutes for nuclear weapons
(Mian, 2009). These policy decisions are still based on
conceptions of power that holds through mistrust, threat,
fear, and violence. Such policies do not allow for a
different type of inter-state engagement or relationship
between citizens and states; they dismiss alternatives as
utopian and unrealistic.
Global Policy (2016) 7:3 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12338 ©2016 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 7 . Issue 3 . September 2016 405
Special Section Article
To continue reading
Request your trial