GCU Lahore

Assignment title: “states pursuit of collective security : Global Zero as a

myth or Reality?”

Subject: International and Regional Organizations

Submitted To: Madam Sadia Rafique

Submitted By: Muhammad Safdar

Roll No: 1648-BH-PS-14

Shahid Jamil

1410-BH-PS-14

th
Semester: 7
1. Prologue………………………………………………………………………….3
2. Need of global zero; States move to assure collective interests?......................4
3. The action plan; Way to ensure collectivism through global zero?...............5
a. Phase one (2010 to 2013)
b. Phase two (2014 to 2018)
c. Phase three (2019 to 2023)
d. Phase four (2024 to 2030)

4. Towards Disarmament; US Nuclear Policies…………………………………7

a. Preventing nuclear proliferation and terrorism
b. Reducing the role of nuclear weapons in US nuclear strategy
c. Maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at reduced nuclear force level
d. Sustaining a safe, secure and effective arsenal

5. Practicality of the concept……………………………………………………….10

a. New START agreement; Past and Present
b. New START; Bright or Dark Future?
c. The Historical treaties about Non-Proliferation
6. Epilogue……………………………………………………………………………15
Prologue;

Dame Freya stark, an Italian explorer cited;

“Manners are like zero in arithmetic. They may not be much in themselves, but they are capable
of adding a great deal of value to everything else.”

Global zero is set of efforts, to channelize individual manners so to save the globe. It is an
international movement for universal disarmament. Over the last five years, it has emerged as
one of the most remarkable social movements in history. It has grown to 300 leaders and more
than 450,000 citizens worldwide developed a step-by-step plan to eliminate nuclear weapons.
This moment having international student participation, with 100 campuses in ten countries.
They drafted a renowned documentary film, “Countdown to Zero”. World leading dignitaries like
President Barack Obama, President Dmitry Medvedev, Prime Minister David Cameron, Prime
Minister Man Mohan Singh, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-
moon have endorsed Global Zero, with Obama declaring, “Global Zero will always have a
1
partner in me and my administration.”

The concept of disarmament prevailed after Second World War, when US dropped nuclear
bombs on Japanese cities. World seen the havoc, think tanks and veterans became busy in
designing structures to control armament tendencies. A group of intellects after cold war
designed structures to make this planet as safe heaven. A program was in Paris in December
2008, where a nonpartisan, international community of influential political, military, business
and civic leaders developed a step-by-step plan for nuclear disarmament. Leading newspapers
have backed Global Zero’s plan, the Financial Times concluding: “Global Zero’s plan has shown
the direction to be travelled; world leaders must now start moving.”

This study mainly focuses on questions related to nuclear zero. How the concept emerged? Is it a
myth or reality? Is it globally applicable? What is the plan structure to attain zero? Are the few
questions to be answered? The rationale behind study is to examine that how a feasible political
ecosystem can be established in this world, where “mine and thy” dominates “us” and to show
that how collectivism is being pursued by letting individualism and individualistic gains.

1 John Elkington, zeronauts; Breaking the sustainability Barrier (New York: Rutledge, 2012) 218.
Need of global zero; Way to ensure collectivism through global zero?

The contemporary post-Cold War, there are more than 17,000 nuclear weapons held by nine
countries at amazing cost of $1 trillion per decade globally. Hundreds of these weapons are kept
on red alert, with enough destructive power to kill hundreds of millions of people in thirty
minutes or less. A worldwide threat is that the fragile system of arms control that holds these
weapons in check will continue to crumble, nuclear weapons will continue to spread, terrorists
will succeed in their decades long quest to buy or steal the bomb, and the day will ultimately
come when whether by mistake, miscalculation or madness these weapons will be used, until all
of them is eliminated. Thus an urge to disarm aroused globally so to save humanity. “Global
zero action plan” was adopted. In 1986, there were 70,000 nuclear weapons worldwide. Today,
there are more than 17,000 and the future plan is to bring that number to zero. The Global Zero
Action Plan (GZAP) calls for the U.S. and Russia who hold 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons
to negotiate deep cuts in their arsenals, followed by international treaty negotiations with the
world’s nuclear powers to phase out all nuclear weapons by 2030. Support for this goal is
widespread among experienced and respected leaders, throughout the world and across the
political spectrum, including the hundreds of political, military, diplomatic and national security
leaders worldwide who are part of the Global Zero movement. GZAP builds on the vision of
Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev, whose shared goal was “the total elimination one day of
2
nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth” and who began the process of nuclear arms
reductions 25 years ago.

The concept refers to strands of activities related to disarmament, initiated in 2006 by

Bruce Blair and Matt Brown. They consider that there is nothing like nuclear weapons to
add drama to conventional crises. It is believed as not just a moment but an obligation,
signed by 117 signatories. It focuses that world has been changed but nuclear weapon
stay remains same, so reduction in their sizes and changes in their structure is need of an
hour. The NPR (Nuclear posture review) represents the long-term U.S. goal to make this
mankind so preventing nuclear weapons technology from falling into the hands of
terrorists should be a major concern of the entire international community.

2
Fredric Matti’s, Banning weapons of mass destructions, (London: oxford 2009) 123.
What kind and nature of structures must be designed to reduce armament? A plan designed by
global zero association provides answer to such questions, which is as;

The Action Plan; How to get zero?

Albert Einstein quoted;

“The Significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at
when we created them,”

Solving the issues of disarmament needs strong level of thinking then structures of armament.
On June 29, 2009, an optimistic group about proportionate nuclear reduction designed a plan to
pursue their ultimate aims, i.e. “The Global Zero Action Plan” which has projected 14 years
(2010-2023) journey to reach a global zero accord and an additional seven years (2024-2030) to
complete the dismantlement of all remaining nuclear warheads. The plan outline following four
phases.

Phase 1: 2010-2013

U.S. and Russia to cut 1,000 total warheads each and increase the rate of dismantling their
nuclear warheads. They must prepare multilateral negotiations and encourage nuclear weapons
States not to develop more nuclear weapons, sign and ratify CTBT (Comprehensive Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty). They must encourage de-alerting and no first use; and establishment of nuclear
weapons-free zones.

Phase 2: 2014-2018,

U.S. and Russia to reduce to total 500 warheads each and other nuclear weapons states freeze
their stockpiles. The countries will enter into force of the multilateral accord with a strong
verification and enforcement system, civilian fuel cycle safeguards, full-scope International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, adoption of Additional Protocol, establishment and
management of international fuel bank and enrichment/reprocessing facilities.
Phase 3: 2019-2023,

This phase includes a proportionate reduction of all nuclear arsenal to zero and continuous
international monitoring and enforcement.

Phase 4: 2024-2030,

In this phase, there must be complete elimination of all remaining nuclear warheads and a
continuous international monitoring and enforcement. On April 5, 2009, President Obama in his
Prague speech termed, “the existence of thousands of nuclear weapons as a most dangerous
3
legacy of the Cold War” . Obama’s Prague speech was followed by many significant
developments in the field of arms control and disarmament. These developments have also
marked the possible emergence of a new nuclear world order.

Besides plans the question is that whether world have seen any disarmament in practice in
history? The following sections would briefly highlight these developments and their
implications for nuclear disarmament and the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Towards disarmament; US Nuclear Policies

In order to achieve President Obama’s approach to seek world peace without nuclear weapons,
4
the U.S. administration released the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) . The NPR focuses on
five key objectives of the U.S. nuclear weapons policies and posture which would be realized in
the next five to ten years.

1. Preventing nuclear proliferation and terrorism

The top priority of the U.S. nuclear objectives and policies is to lead the expanded
international effort to rebuild and strengthen the global nuclear non-proliferation regime
and to prevent the immediate and extreme threats of nuclear terrorism. According to the
NPR, Al Qaeda and their extremist allies are seeking nuclear weapons, and

3 Kreston Boon, International Nuclear Security (oxford: London 2011) 348.

4 Aiden Warrens, The Obama administration nuclear strategy (New York: Rutledge 2103) 236.
 “vulnerability” of nuclear stocks around the world and “availability” of sensitive nuclear
material in the nuclear black market are the major causes of concern. To that end, the
U.S. has allocated $2.7b for the fiscal year 2011. The U.S. has shown its commitment to
accelerate the role of Global Threat Reduction Initiative, International Nuclear Material
Protection and Cooperation Program, UNSC resolution 1540, and many related initiatives
to prevent nuclear terrorism. Furthermore, the U.S. has also renewed its commitment to
hold fully accountable any State, terrorist group or other non-State actors that support or
enable terrorist’s efforts to obtain or use weapons of mass destruction, whether by
facilitating, financing, or providing expertise or safe havens for such efforts. The NPR
specifically refers to North Korea and Iran which has allegedly violated international
non-proliferation obligations, defied directives of the United Nations Security Council
(UNSC), pursued missile delivery capabilities and resisted the international efforts to
resolve through diplomatic means the crises they have created. It states that if the U.S
allies or partners feel threatened by these States, they might acquire a nuclear deterrence
capability of their own which could undermine the NPT regime and international peace
and security. Therefore, the U.S. would build broader international support to prevent
these dangers of nuclear terrorism and emergence of new nuclear-armed States, and will
provide security assurances to allies and partners. Survey shows that U.S. has also shown
a strong commitment to strengthen the NPT, reversal of the nuclear ambitions of North
Korea and Iran, strengthening of the IAEA (international atomic energy agency)
safeguard, creating consequences for non-compliance, and promotion of peaceful use of
nuclear energy. The U.S. has concluded the New START treaty with Russia, committed
itself to pursue ratification of the CTBT, negotiate FMCT, and to work jointly with
Russia to eliminate 68 tons of weapons-grade plutonium.

2. Reducing the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy

The NPR also highlights that the Cold War rivalries are no more there, and the
fundamental role of the U.S. nuclear weapons would now be to deter nuclear attack on
America, its allies and partners. Secondly, the U.S. has an unparalleled conventional
capability, an improved missile defense system, and counter weapons of mass destruction
 (WMD) capabilities which are enough to deter any conventional as well as chemical and
biological attacks. As a result, the U.S. would continue to reduce the role of nuclear
weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks. It is also prepared to strengthen its long-
standing “negative security assurance” by declaring that America would not use nuclear
weapons against non-nuclear weapons States that are party to the NPT and in compliance
with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations. However, the U.S. reserves the right to
make any adjustments in the assurance for those countries that possess nuclear weapons
and are not in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations. Furthermore
the U.S. would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to
defend its vital interests, or of its allies and partners. Therefore, in a way, by reducing the
role of nuclear weapons, America would meet its commitment under Article VI of the
NPT to pursue nuclear disarmament, and would take demonstrable progress over the next
five to ten years.

3. Maintaining strategic deterrence and stability at reduced nuclear force level

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia have both reduced approximately 75
per cent of their respective deployed strategic nuclear weapons; however, both the
countries still possess thousands of nuclear weapons which are enough for the destruction
of entire human race. In the NPR, the U.S. has also committed to reduce its nuclear force
level. The first step in this regard was the signing of the New START treaty. To go
beyond the New START, the U.S. would find ways to further reduce its nuclear force
level, and would negotiate to maintain strategic stability with Russia and China. The NPR
has also concluded that the U.S. would maintain a smaller triad of Submarine-Launched
Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs), Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) and heavy
bombers, would maintain Sustaining Strategic Submarines (SSBMs). The NPR also made
it clear that the U.S. is committed to the long-term goal of a world free of nuclear
weapons, while strategic stability with Russia and China and security assurance of
American allies are essential for future reduction. The U.S. administration would
implement the “Stockpile Stewardship Program” and investment in nuclear infrastructure
development for further reduction of its nuclear force level.
 The U.S. would pursue dialogue with its allies and partners in East Asia and the Middle
East for further reduction. According to the NPR, other key initiatives include the
enhancement of non-nuclear capabilities, forward presence, joint exercises and training,
bilateral and multilateral dialogue, deployment of effective missile defense, strengthening
counter-WMD capabilities, non-nuclear prompt global strike capabilities, and real-time
intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.

4. Sustaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal

The U.S. would maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear stockpile. However, aging
nuclear weapons stockpile requires a management plan and related life extension
programs. The NPR thus listed many recommendations and stockpile management
decisions. The U.S. has decided not to conduct nuclear testing, and to sign CTBT
(Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty). It decides that through stockpile stewardship
5
program states would ensure the safety of nukes and through Life Extension Program
(LEP) states would retain smallest number of stocks.

Practicality of the concept;

Sterling Moss cited:
“Motion is tranquility” and Sophocles quoted; “Success is dependent on effort”. The
major powers are in continuous effort to make the planet safe heaven. Such efforts can be
seen in history in terms of agreements, treaties, regimes and organization. How US and
Russia made agreements and how they breached treaties, when personal interests were at
stake are shown here as;

5 Gary L Jones, Nuclear weapons (New York: Diane Publishers 2000) 17.
 New START agreements; Past and Present
New START is series of agreements between two poles of world to reduce nukes. It
failed and retained time and again. The 1991 START agreement was a major
disarmament instrument between US and Russia which helped aimed at gaining ultimate
stability by slashing each nation’s strategic warhead deployment from about 10,000 to
less than 6,000 each and limited each country to no more than 1,600 strategic delivery
systems. However, after the START agreement, the leadership of the two States failed to
reach any significant arms control and disarmament agreement. On January 3, 1993, U.S.
President Bush and Russian President Yeltsin signed START II in Moscow and set a limit
of 3,000-3,500 strategic nuclear warheads for each nation and banned the deployment of
multiple warhead land-based missiles. Subsequent events like the 1998 British air strikes
against Iraq, 1999 NATO bombing campaigns against Yugoslavia in 1999, and the U.S.
withdrawal from the ABM treaty in 2002 compelled Russia to end its efforts to bring
START II entry into force. In the meantime, Russia and the U.S. failed to negotiate the
START III framework agreement and also failed to materialize the Strategic Offensive
Reductions Treaty (SORT) which was signed on May 24, 2002, in Moscow. The SORT
called for each country to deploy no more than 1,700-2,200 strategic warheads by the end
of 2010
On April 8, 2010, in order to redress missed opportunities, the two Cold War rivals
pushed the “reset button” U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev met in Prague and signed the New START agreement. The U.S. Vice
President, Joe Biden, while addressing an international security conference in Munich
said, “It is time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and
should be working together with Russia” The signing of the New START agreement was
the result of many rounds of active consultations. Initially, on July 6, 2009, during the
6
Moscow Summit, Presidents Obama and Medvedev signed a “Joint Understanding” to
work out to slash nuclear weapons. According to this new START agreement, the U.S.
and Russia cannot have more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads each. This limit is
74 per cent lower than the limit of the 1991 START, and 30 per cent lower than the
deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty. The treaty includes a

6 John F Kerry, Treaty with Russia on measure for further reduction of strategic arms (New York: Diane, 2009) 4.
 streamlined and updated system of verification provisions to ensure each side that the
other is complying with the treaty’s limits. However, analyzing the current strategic force
level of Russia and the U.S. it is quite clear that both the countries still possess enough
nuclear arsenals to destroy the world many times over in a matter of minutes. According
to their 2009 START declarations, the U.S. has 550 land-based ICBMs, 432 sea-based
missiles on 14 submarines, and 216 bombers, which together can deliver 5,576 warheads.
Russia possesses 469 nuclear-armed land-based ICBMs, 268 sea-based missiles on eight
submarines, and 79 nuclear-capable bombers, which together can deliver 3,909
warheads.27 The U.S. is believed to deploy at least 2,200 strategic nuclear warheads,
with a comparable number of warheads in reserve. The exact number of deployed
Russian strategic warheads is not available, but it is believed to be between 2,000 to
3,000. In addition, Russia has at least 2,000 additional non-strategic nuclear bombs
available for use, and another 8,000 in reserve or awaiting dismantlement.

New STARTs; Bright or dark future?

It is a fact that the Cold War confrontationist thinking still exists among Russian and
American public and official circles. There is a deep mistrust in Russia of U.S. intentions,
particularly on the enlargement of NATO. On the other hand, the U.S. is skeptical of the
Russian use of force against Georgia and Russia-Iran relations. During the Moscow
Summit, although Russian President Medvedev said, “This is the first, but very important
step in improving full-scale cooperation between our two countries which would go to
the benefit of both states,” he injected a note of caution by adding that the discussions so
7
far, “cannot remove the burden of all the problems” . According to Michael Tuner, from
House of Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee “unilaterally taking nuclear
responses off the table will decrease our options without getting anything in return and
diminishing our ability to defend our nation from attack. If the desired objective of the
U.S. to maintain a strategic balance with Russia is achieved, that would be a positive step
in the direction of a world free of nuclear weapons. The U.S. president, in the NPR, has
also directed a review of a post-New START treaty to consider future reduction in nuclear
weapons. Furthermore, a credible deterrence, strategic stability with Russia and

7 Federal register division, public papers of the president of US (New York: Rutledge 2009) 1047.
 China, and security assurance to the U.S. allies and partners would enable America to
reduce the role of nuclear weapons in its national policies. Verification, transparency and
trust would play a vital role in this regard. If the two sides want to win the trust of each
other for a lasting confidence to achieve success in their bilateral relations, they should
do away with the Cold War thinking and start afresh. Both the States should focus on
areas where there is a desire for cooperation among each other. Furthermore, the
contemporary New START agreement would to be settled as precedent for other nuclear
powers to pursue a path of arms control and to achieve the broader goals of nuclear
disarmament.

Treaties about Nonproliferation;

1) Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT);

The Partial Test Ban Treaty is also known as Limited Test Ban Treaty. The Limited Nuclear Test
Ban treaty was signed in Moscow on August 5, 1963, by US Secretary Dean Rusk, Soviet
Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko, and British Foreign Secretary Lord Home.

Over the next two months, President Kennedy convinced a fearful public and a divided Senate
to support the treaty. The Senate approved the treaty on September 23, 1963, by an 80-19
margin. Kennedy signed the ratified treaty on October 7, 1963.

The treaty highlights:

1) Prohibited nuclear weapons tests or other nuclear explosions under water, in the
atmosphere, or in outer space.
2) Allowed underground nuclear tests as long as no radioactive debris falls outside the
boundaries of the nation conducting the test
3) Pledged signatories to work towards complete disarmament, an end to the armaments
race, and an end to the contamination of the environment by radioactive substances.
 2) Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT);

The United Nations General Assembly, after three years of PTBT adopted the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This treaty was signed by 71 nations, including those possessing
nuclear weapons. The treaty prohibited all nuclear test explosions including those conducted
underground. Though it was signed by President Bill Clinton, the Senate rejected the treaty by a
vote of 51 to 48. The preamble of the treaty is as;

 PREAMBLE

The States Parties to this Treaty must undermine the following.

1) Welcoming the international agreements and other positive measures of recent years in
the field of nuclear disarmament, including reductions in arsenals of nuclear weapons,
as well as in the field of the prevention of nuclear proliferation in all its aspects.
2) Underlining the importance of the full and prompt implementation of such agreements
and measures.
3) Convinced that the present international situation provides an opportunity to take further
effective measures towards nuclear disarmament and against the proliferation of nuclear
weapons in all its aspects.
4) Stressing the need for continued systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear
weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons, and of general
and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
5) Recognizing that the cessation of all nuclear weapon test explosions and all other
nuclear explosions, by constraining the development and qualitative improvement of
nuclear weapons and ending the development of advanced new types of nuclear
weapons, constitutes an effective measure of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation
in all its aspects.

3) Non-Proliferation Treaty;
This treaty obligates the five renowned nuclear weapon states (the United States, Russian
Federation, United Kingdom, France, and China) not to transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear
explosive devices, or their technology to any non-nuclear weapon state. The Treaty was opened
for signature on 01 July 1968, and signed on that date by the United States, the United Kingdom,
the Soviet Union, and 59 other countries. The Treaty entered into force with the deposit of US
ratification on 05 March 1970. China acceded to the NPT on 09 March 1992, and France acceded
on 03 August 1992. The NPT is the most widely accepted arms control agreement; only Israel,
India, South Sudan and Pakistan have never been signatories of the Treaty, and North Korea
withdrew from the Treaty in 2003.

Nuclear weapon States Parties are also obligated, under Article VI, to "pursue negotiations
in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early
date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under
strict and effective international control."

Non-nuclear weapon States Parties undertake not to produce nuclear weapons or nuclear
explosive devices. They are required also to accept safeguards to detect diversions of nuclear
materials from peaceful activities, such as power generation, to the production of nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. This must be done in accordance with an individual
safeguards agreement, concluded between each non-nuclear-weapon State Party and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In accordance with the terms of the NPT, on May 11, 1995 more than 170 countries attended
the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference (NPTREC) in New York. Three decisions
and one resolution were passed, which are as;

1) The NPT was extended for an indefinite duration and without conditions.
2) Second, Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament
were worked out to guide the parties to the treaty in the next phase of its
implementation.
 3) Third, an enhanced review process was established for future review
conferences.

The resolution was the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass

destruction in the Middle East.

Epilogue;

According to Walt Disney, “If you can dream it, you can do it”. Global zero is a dream of few to
save all. The future belongs always to those believe in practicality of their dreams. Structures
control the world and can let it free. It needs structure to make war or establish tranquility.
Global zero movement also designs structure to get zero and achieve a non-stratified
planet, where all are at same horizontal level.

Favoring global zero, Bernard Baruch once quoted, “if the history of the past fifty years teaches us
anything, it is that peace does not follow disarmament- disarmament follows peace”

Disarmament also has checks. John F Kennedy cited, “disarmament without checks is but a
shadow”. It is also considered as a source to conquer and shift balance of power. Hitler said,
“To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizen.” It in short is an ultimate relief and eternal pain, if
mistrust or malcontent situations occur. We haven’t any option then being safer today, as Ban Ki
Moon, former Secretary General UN said, “nuclear disarmament is the only safe path to a safer
world”.