'LETTER FROM EUROPE
It's rarely discussed, but that doesn't mean arms control isn't important
By Katrin Bennhold
Published: July 14, 2008
It's rarely discussed, but that doesn't mean arms control isn't important
By Katrin Bennhold
Published: July 14, 2008
STOCKHOLM: There was a whiff of Cold War in the air and not just because former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt of Germany lit up his first cigarette exactly four minutes into the meeting.
Two dozen former world leaders donned interpreter's earphones and that weighty sense of purpose that goes with them to lecture each other on the state of the world in a secluded island retreat here. As they talked and harrumphed about today's political leadership, two dozen 20- and 30-somethings watched, listened, learned and occasionally felt that the generation gap was profound.
"Nuclear disarmament," declared an 80-something former head of a Western country to vigorous nodding around the table, "is one of the most important issues of our time."
The two-and-a-half-hour discussion frequently circled back to that central point.
Climate change? Worth a fleeting mention?
The oil shock? A great way to start talking about the 1970s?
Development? Poverty reduction? HIV/AIDS? The Wiki world?
Wiki what?
At the 26th summit meeting of the InterAction Council, a little-known club of former leaders who gather once a year to assess the state of the world, fashionable 21st-century issues definitely didn't dominate debate. Indeed, at times it felt a little as if these elder statesmen (they were overwhelmingly elderly and male) were most comfortable talking about issues fashionable when they were in power - years or even decades ago.
But the three-day conference, which for the first time invited a group of young observers, including this correspondent, made for a rare exchange of perspectives between generations. Some of the young lawyers, fledgling business leaders and emerging politicians attending were born after some of the old leaders had left office.
One lesson the young learned from the old was this: Just because an issue has fallen off the international agenda, it has not gone away.
Nuclear disarmament is the case in point. For many of the younger set, the word nuclear was associated either with a CO2-free source of energy or Iran's uranium enrichment program. The mention of disarmament faintly recalled a distant history lesson.
But the old argument for a world free of nuclear weapons endorsed unanimously by the former leaders from Europe, the Americas, Asia and Africa suddenly seemed very much of the 21st century.
It goes something like this: As long as the United States and Russia between them have more than 11,000 nuclear warheads deployed, they have little credibility to persuade unrecognized nuclear weapons states like Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea to scrap their arsenals, and perhaps even less to get Iran to trade in its enrichment program for any form of economic or other incentives.
Under Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the five declared nuclear powers on the United Nations Security Council are committed to phasing out their arsenals.
Without a new multilateral effort to honor this 40-year-old commitment, the risk of a new nuclear arms race and of rogue states and terrorist organizations getting their hands on nuclear material could bring the world back to the brink of nuclear war.
Just like in that prehistoric Cold War.'
Two dozen former world leaders donned interpreter's earphones and that weighty sense of purpose that goes with them to lecture each other on the state of the world in a secluded island retreat here. As they talked and harrumphed about today's political leadership, two dozen 20- and 30-somethings watched, listened, learned and occasionally felt that the generation gap was profound.
"Nuclear disarmament," declared an 80-something former head of a Western country to vigorous nodding around the table, "is one of the most important issues of our time."
The two-and-a-half-hour discussion frequently circled back to that central point.
Climate change? Worth a fleeting mention?
The oil shock? A great way to start talking about the 1970s?
Development? Poverty reduction? HIV/AIDS? The Wiki world?
Wiki what?
At the 26th summit meeting of the InterAction Council, a little-known club of former leaders who gather once a year to assess the state of the world, fashionable 21st-century issues definitely didn't dominate debate. Indeed, at times it felt a little as if these elder statesmen (they were overwhelmingly elderly and male) were most comfortable talking about issues fashionable when they were in power - years or even decades ago.
But the three-day conference, which for the first time invited a group of young observers, including this correspondent, made for a rare exchange of perspectives between generations. Some of the young lawyers, fledgling business leaders and emerging politicians attending were born after some of the old leaders had left office.
One lesson the young learned from the old was this: Just because an issue has fallen off the international agenda, it has not gone away.
Nuclear disarmament is the case in point. For many of the younger set, the word nuclear was associated either with a CO2-free source of energy or Iran's uranium enrichment program. The mention of disarmament faintly recalled a distant history lesson.
But the old argument for a world free of nuclear weapons endorsed unanimously by the former leaders from Europe, the Americas, Asia and Africa suddenly seemed very much of the 21st century.
It goes something like this: As long as the United States and Russia between them have more than 11,000 nuclear warheads deployed, they have little credibility to persuade unrecognized nuclear weapons states like Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea to scrap their arsenals, and perhaps even less to get Iran to trade in its enrichment program for any form of economic or other incentives.
Under Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the five declared nuclear powers on the United Nations Security Council are committed to phasing out their arsenals.
Without a new multilateral effort to honor this 40-year-old commitment, the risk of a new nuclear arms race and of rogue states and terrorist organizations getting their hands on nuclear material could bring the world back to the brink of nuclear war.
Just like in that prehistoric Cold War.'
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten