Speech by President Gorbachev at the launch of the WMD Awareness Programme
LONDON 23 September 2004
President Gorbachev speaking at the launch of WMD Awareness Programme
“As you can see we are a team, myself and my associate Pavel Palazhchenko, who has been working with me for many years since the time that I was President. I appreciate the initiative of Professor Rotblat to have here my lecture on the theme of global security in the 21st century.
Professor Rotblat and I are friends; I am following him in terms of age. He will soon be celebrating his 96th birthday.
Professor Rotblat is an outstanding scientist, a greatly respected person in the world of science, but he is also a person who is the right man in the right place, I think, and he was one of those scientists who started with others the Pugwash Movement of Scientists for Peace. I think that we should honour those who took this initiative and this initiative was recognised when the Pugwash Movement and Professor Rotblat were honoured with the Nobel Peace Prize. We give thanks for the efforts of scientists, influential scientists, and leaders of the world, thanks to the fact that the political leaders too became aware of these dangers associated with the weapons of mass destruction.
At the end of the 20th century we were able to stop the nuclear arms race and to give a chance to the world. A chance to live in peace and security in the 21st century. A chance to ultimately get rid of nuclear weapons. I have said that mankind has a chance, has an opportunity, to make the 21st century one of peace and security. In order for this chance to appear a lot needed to happen in the world and to change in the world. First of all the drastic systemic changes in the Soviet Union, in Russia, that gave an impetus to democratic change in Central and Eastern Europe, the end of the division of the world into opposing alliances, the unification of Germany, a change in the relationship between the Soviet Union and Russia on the one hand and the United States on the other hand. As a result of this we started the process of reducing nuclear weapons. A whole category of nuclear missiles has been eliminated and, even though it’s a difficult process, the reduction of strategic weapons is also underway. I am emphasising strategic nuclear weapons because let me tell you just one Soviet missile can show you how terrible this weapon is. One SS18 missile has the power of 100 Chernobyl explosions and there are thousands of strategic missiles both in our country and in the United States so this is something that we need to know.
And finally let me mention the convention on the elimination of chemical weapons. So all of these changes, all of these events resulted in the end of the Cold War. And this placed on the agenda the need to create a New World order. Unfortunately the expectations that were raised at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of 1990s have not been fulfilled. Why did this happen? I think that after the end of the Cold War at least two serious mistakes were made. First of all the leaders of the world’s countries did not take seriously the need to build a truly new world order. Instead they started to play geo-political games and started to fight for spheres of influence. As a result of this in addition to the old conflicts that are still dangerous and that we inherited from the past we have seen new conflicts, conflicts even in Europe and military hostilities even in our continent. And the second mistake that was made was that we underestimated the dangers associated with non-state entities. We did not properly see how extremists and fundamentalists of different kinds were turning failed states into their hunting grounds. We saw this in particular in Afghanistan but also in other places.
The terrorist attacks of September 11th highlighted the un-preparedness of the world community for the new threats, for preventing the new threats. And this actually reflects the fact that while we already live in a global world we don’t know how to achieve some governance in this New World, how to deal with the challenges of the 21st century in totally new conditions, in conditions that have changed radically. We are still trying to solve problems by using old methods and this is why we find ourselves again and again in a trap.
The challenges faced by the world are colossal – they can not be ignored, they can not be bypassed. They should be addressed but in order to do so a New World order is necessary. A world order in which states and nations would interact, big states, small states, medium sized states and civil society institutions would interact. Today the world is facing three main challenges. The challenge of security including the dangers associated with the weapons of mass destruction and the threat of terrorism. The challenge of poverty and backwardness in which half the population of the world have to live. Billions of people still live on one or two dollars a day; they live in conditions that are not worthy of mankind. And it’s in this Third World that we see processes that threaten the world with more instability. And finally the challenge to our environment, the conflict between man and the rest of nature is on such a scale that today we can speak of a global environmental crisis, a global environmental threat.
The Eco systems have been undermined, the pollution of the atmosphere is at a dangerous level, so is the pollution of the oceans. We see the advance of deserts, forests are being destroyed and finally the number one environmental problem, the problem of the shortage of safe fresh water. Ten thousand people every day die because of diseases borne by unsafe water, the events in the world are developing at a very fast pace and we see these challenges every day, one or another challenge manifesting itself with particular urgency. During the past weeks we in Russia have faced particularly the challenge to our security, the challenge of terrorism. I do understand that you expect me to give my assessment of both the recent crisis in Russia and what followed this crisis. I think that the final assessment can be made only after the work of the Investigation Commission in which members of parliament and of the public will participate.
In the meantime I can only say that this was a real tragedy and we still, the people of Russia are still, experiencing it as a great tragedy. It was a shock. It was something that was done with tremendous cruelty and it involved, as you know young children. Today international terrorism has struck Russia but we know that it could strike again any other country. The response to the global threat of terrorism should be uniting the efforts of the international community with the United Nations co-ordinating their efforts, because in all that is happening today, in all that we are facing today, in the threat of terrorism that we are facing today, we see that Iraq has a lot to do with it. What happened in Iraq has a lot to do with it.
A lot needs to be done today. First of all of course it’s important for police and the special services to act. So far as the recent tragedy in Russia is concerned the law enforcement bodies and special services did not do their job as well as the regional authorities. Secondly we need to act in order to close all channels of financing of terrorists. Knowledgeable people certainly know that all financial flows are under control but for some reason the terrorists are able to get money through those financial flows.
There are quite a few questions here that need to be answered. We also need vigilance and involvement of citizens in fighting terrorism. We also need to put under particular control places where masses of people congregate, and transportation – these are all very practical tasks. At the same time we need to understand that terrorism cannot be defeated if the causes, the underlying causes that create breeding grounds for terrorism, persist. If the terrorists are able to continue to recruit followers they are able to do that particularly because of the massive poverty and backwardness, because of humiliation of entire nations, because of injustices that are rampant in the world and because of flagrant violations of international law, because of the existence and even spread of the areas of social and environmental disaster where normal life becomes impossible and where people will do anything for survival.
And also because of the persistence for decades of national, interethnic and international conflicts. Let us not forget that today terrorists, as Professor Rotblat has also said, have not particularly powerful or sophisticated weapons but even so we have seen how dangerous they actually have been. So of particular danger would be if they were to gain access to the weapons of mass destruction. I would agree with the point made in the National Security Strategy adopted by the US government when they said that if that were to happen, if terrorists were to gain access to weapons of mass destruction that would have truly disastrous, catastrophic consequences.
But what is the conclusion that we must draw from this, from all of these facts? It is clear to me what the answer is. First of all we need to protect and guard and safeguard the existing weapons of mass destruction to make sure that they do not fall into the hands of terrorists and this test, unfortunately even this test, has not been fully resolved. But what is even more important is that the only real solution to this problem is radical reduction and ultimately abolition of all weapons of mass destruction. Professor Rotblat is right when he keeps saying that we lowered our guard. Until recently people were more concerned, every country, every family was concerned, people were worried about the possibility of a nuclear conflict. The danger was real in our minds and people thought that – well we should stop this deadly trade of the nuclear arms race and they didn’t know how to do it, but ultimately were worried to stop the nuclear arms race. Then we, I think, lowered our guard but there are still thousands of such weapons in the world and those weapons are being perfected. And it is in this context and in this framework that this campaign is being launched. The campaign for awareness, but also, the campaign to push for the reduction and ultimately abolition of nuclear weapons.
I would like to say that for us there is the most important document in international law and that is the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. At the present time there is just one treaty, this treaty alone that exists in the world and that basically regulates nuclear weapons. But even that treaty today is fragile. In eight months there will be a conference to review the non-proliferation treaty, the conference of participants in that treaty, and this treaty will either be strengthened, and I hope that it will be strengthened, or the other possibility is also there – it could be fully destroyed.
The current debate in the process of preparation for that conference has shown great differences of opinions, great differences of view between the nuclear powers on the one hand and a majority of other states on the other hand. Nuclear powers are concerned about the prospect of the spread of nuclear weapons and of terrorists gaining access to those weapons whereas other participants emphasise that the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons commits all nuclear powers to move towards nuclear disarmament. And many countries call the policies of the current nuclear club, of the current five nuclear powers, a creeping retreat from the very idea of nuclear disarmament.
Professor Rotblat has mentioned Article VI of the non-proliferation treaty. That article has a lot to do. The goal of the movement and of this initiative and that article is universal and complete nuclear disarmament under strict international control. And it is this article that is currently the focus of the political debate. Today our common task is to make sure that the treaty that the non-proliferation treaty is reaffirmed, that it is strengthened. I know that the Pugwash Movement of scientists attaches enormous importance to this task. I share their goals and I am here today, speaking in London, in order to join in this initiative, in order to join in this campaign to support the non-proliferation treaty.
And in this issue as in other issues it is my conviction that without the participation of civil society, without an active position taken by influential scientists and other leaders, without a clear position in support of this treaty in the information media and among the non-governmental organisations, we will not be able to succeed in reaffirming the non-proliferation treaty. I believe that we will not succeed if this treaty is in the hands just of the politicians. Look at the Kyoto protocol. There has been so much debate about this convention. First the United States and then Russia have delayed the ratification of this treaty and it is still, the Kyoto protocol, is still not in force and it calls for the reduction of just 5% of the emissions in the atmosphere. Knowledgeable scientists have said that the minimum reduction should be 25%.
So again it’s very important for public opinion to act and to push the politicians. And I believe that, in addition to the work of governmental experts, the Pugwash Movement, a credible organisation, could develop specific proposals for the non-proliferation treaty review conference. The view of the public, the view of the world public opinion should be expressed and it should be known to the world and I believe it could have an impact on political leaders.
Overall let me say this, a lot that is happening today in the nuclear area is of great concern. Let me mention, let me list these concerns. First of all more and more countries would like to have nuclear weapons. Today there are more than 30 so called nuclear threshold countries in the world. Two of these countries, India and Pakistan, have actually tested nuclear weapons. The second dangerous tendency is the changing attitudes on the part of governments towards the use of nuclear weapons. Military doctrines are being revised in many countries. I remember my first meeting with President Ronald Reagan in the late autumn of 1985 in Geneva. At that first meeting we were able to conclude and to show our understanding of the problem of nuclear weapons. In the document that we signed in Geneva with President Regan we said a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.
Today the national security doctrine of the United States and something similar also in the military doctrine of the Russian Federation they both accept, accept the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons. What is more, they accept it even as first strike. Because of the position of the United States we have seen a freeze on a very important treaty, a treaty that’s extremely important to counter the nuclear arms race and I’m referring to the treaty on the comprehensive ban of nuclear testing. If we are for reducing and ultimately abolishing nuclear weapons then how can we not support this treaty? A member of the nuclear club, a country that signed the non-proliferation treaty has some other plans and that’s why that country did not verify the test ban treaty. And of course if they want to perfect nuclear weapons they want to test nuclear weapons, not simulation testing but actual testing is what they want and I believe that the conclusion is clear. It is quite clear what the real intentions are of a country that doesn’t want to stop nuclear testing, doesn’t want to sign that treaty, what its real intentions are.
The position of the members of the nuclear club is very suspicious in the eyes of many nations; they suspect their intentions. At the same time there are suspicions and concerns about some actions of the non-nuclear countries. Specifically over the past years, these concerns have been expressed with regard to Iran and North Korea. And things must be very clear, the Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency and the members of the nuclear club have various ways both of clarifying the situation and of preventing the situation from worsening, from having dangerous consequences. But let me say this – any attempt, any attempt to solve problems of this kind by using force would have very severe, disastrous consequences. Instead, diplomatic means, political means should be used to solve this problem.
There is also the fact that the main responsibility in reducing nuclear weapons is still borne, should be borne, by those nations that have the most of such weapons, the greatest arsenals of such weapons and of course I am referring to the United States and Russia. In this context let me mention the treaty that was signed recently by the United States and Russia, the treaty on strategic reductions. This treaty is flawed. It was not perfect and experts have noted the imperfections of that treaty; It has many serious flaws. Nevertheless, nevertheless it is a step, a move in the right direction and it’s very important to make sure that this treaty is implemented by the United States and Russia.
We should also note that the mechanisms of verification that were developed for the strategic arms reductions treaty Start I in my time, that those methods of verification are still enforced. I am very familiar with those verification methods, they are very important tools. It was a great advance in verification, and even today the United States and Russia have preserved that treaty, the Start I Treaty, as a treaty that is still in effect.
I would also like to say that the treaty on open skies is in effect as well, the convention on the elimination of chemical weapons is being implemented, even though very slowly, so the task is to make sure that this process continues. We should also bear in mind that all that we have been discussing today is not happening in a vacuum. It is happening in a real context, in the context of a rapidly changing world. Unfortunately in the world many things should be of great concern to us, first of all the uncontrolled, ungovernable process of globalisation, the current process of globalisation, diminishing the role of the United Nations, particularly of its Security Council. So many attempts were made to diminish the UN Security Council. But after the plans that were fulfilled despite the security council, without the mandate of the security council, after that we saw that countries returned to the UN Security Council and tried to work things out together in the Security Council.
So the Security Council remains a workable tool, the United Nations can help us to avoid new conflicts or confrontations. And they can avoid new violence. Another fact that is of great concern is that international law is being violated, a number of nations are trying to assure their security unilaterally. They’re thinking only about their own security and that’s a mistake. In a global world security can be only common.
Finally of great concern is the fact that governments ignore public opinions, they defy it, they defy public opinions. They defy their own people. We saw that last year. The Security Council was ignored but at the same time millions of people were ignored, millions of people who protested at the war in Iraq. This defiance of public opinion, this defiance is the destruction of democracy. Because democracy, above all, means that the people’s views are respected.
Another fact that is alarming is the inability of many nations to solve important social, economic problems and that results in the peoples’ disillusionment, disenchantment with democracy. They feel that democracy is not capable of solving their vital problems that’s why more and more politicians are elected of an authoritarian kind. I believe that the only way, the only correct way is to unite our efforts, the efforts of nations and people to create a New World order. We lost ten years, they were thinking that perhaps they could do without a new world order but in a global world we need a new order, new ground rules, new rules of behaviour for the global world.
Pope John Paul II in one of his statements remarked that we need a New World order that would be more stable, more just and more humane. I believe these should be our goals, I share his goals. Of course you need to move, you need to take specific steps, implement specific projects, but you need above all the political will to create this kind of order. We cannot leave the world in a state of increasing chaos. Here let me mention the particular role and the responsibility of Europe. Europe as a locomotive in reasserting and developing international law, in building new international relations, in solving the problems of security. I believe that Europe can do it, this is a mission that Europe is capable of because this is a continent with the longest history, with the greatest experience, the experience of cohabitation of different people, different cultures and that entitles Europe to be a locomotive of change for the better in creating a new world order.
In order to play this role successfully Europe should be united. There should be no new dividing lines in Europe and that means that Russia should be an integral part of Europe. There are many people in Europe who understand this. I have talked to many European political leaders. I have participated in many conferences in Europe and more and more people understand this, they understand that without Russia Europe will not be able to properly play the role that history is giving it.
We in Russia welcome the enlargement of the European Union, the development of the European union and the role of the European Union – I believe that this is a great project, even though it is moving forward with some difficulty, it is uniting the resources and the efforts of European nations. But I believe that a united Europe should be built from the West towards the East. Some people are asking the question whether Russia should become a member of the European Union and the answer is today, the prevailing view both in Russia and in the European Union, is that Russia should not become a member of the European Union. Russia is not seeking admission to the European Union because this could result in undermining the European Union. Russia’s membership in the European Union could probably become a problem for the major European nations because it would change the entire balance and therefore I think that, since neither the East nor the West is ready for Russia to become a member, we should find ways for rapprochement, for getting closer together in a different way.
In May of this year when 10 new countries acceded to the European Union in the East, in the East of Europe an important event happened. During those same days four countries signed an agreement, signed an agreement on a common European space with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan participating in that common European space. What is this, what is happening? Just a couple of invitations, and a common European space of those countries came into being. They developed common ground rules similar to those of the European community before it became a European Union. This kind of association will concentrate over 80% of the economic power, of the economic might, of the former Soviet Union. The population of this new association would be about 220million people. This will be a true partner to the European union and I believe that we should create an association, an alliance between the European Union and the common European space between two organisations. I wouldn’t use the word blocks but let’s call them regional associations. Western Europe needs us, needs Russia for resources and as a great market and also because the people of Russia are well educated and they can adjust to new technologies. And we need Europe. We are mutually complementary. So this would be a natural, an organic project, this kind of an association and therefore let us not wait for the European union to move further but let us build Europe from the West and from the East and develop a more advanced partnership and corporation. And let the kind of alliance be a kind of strategic alliance, strategic corporation.
Our moderator today is a member of the European Parliament and I hope that she will convey my views to other members. So if we build let me also add this before concluding. Let me say this I believe that a united Europe cannot be built on an anti-American basis. The United States with its tremendous potential is entitled to play a leadership role in the world. This is an object of reality but this leadership should be exercised not on the basis of domination, not on the basis of dictating to others, but on the basis of partnership with others. We the Europeans should help our American friends and partners to understand that the world has changed and that we should work together on the basis of new rules and on the basis of a democratic process, on the basis of a balance of interests.
It’s totally unacceptable for the United States to dictate to others. We felt that during the first decade after the end of the Cold War, this ended badly. The leaders of the European union, of the European countries such as President Putin, Prime Minister Schroeder, President Chirac, continued dialogue with the United States but even at the worst times of crisis about Iraq they continued dialogue with the United States and with Great Britain. It’s very important that this dialogue continues. We need, now that we are back in the Security Council, we need to continue this dialogue and to address new tasks. So if we build a united Europe, a greater Europe on the basis of the approach that I have outlined, then I believe that we should recall again the charter of Paris, the charter of Paris that was solemnly signed by the leaders of Europe at the Paris Summit in November 1990.
Among many other strategic goals in that charter, the objective of creating a common European architecture of security was emphasised. A united Europe, a truly united Europe will be the first building block in creating global security in the 21st century, a locomotive in addressing the problems and the global challenges of the new century. And I remain optimistic about this. You may remember that I started my work as the Soviet leader by calling for a common European house. It was a concept, now it is a project. We have done a great deal. We have ended the Cold War. We ended the confrontation so now let us build, fully build, this new house. And I believe that the Europeans have a great role to play and they will have the intellect and the strength to play a responsible role.”
ENDS
