Oxford Martin School

On Thursday 22 October, Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP, former Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Defence, gave a seminar at the 21st Century School. Sir Malcolm, a leading spokesman for the Global Zero campaign to eliminate nuclear weapons, outlined some key issues concerning nuclear disarmament, arguing that any action taken towards this would need to be multilateral, not unilateral. The seminar was this second in the School's Michaelmas Term seminar series on "Getting to Zero".

At the peak of the Cold War there were approximately 65,000 nuclear warheads in the world. This has since fallen to 23,000, 95% of which are to be found in the US and Russia. Yet in the last decade, progress towards disarmament has stalled. Sir Malcolm's lecture focused on the arguments in favour of a multilateral disarmament process and on some of the challenges that might be involved.

He argued that, while nuclear disarmament during the Cold War would have been impossible, the situation today was significantly different. During the Cold War, one of the main arguments in favour of nuclear weapons was that they reduced the chances (particularly in Europe) of a third world war. Today, there is little risk of war in the truly global sense, and so one of the strongest justifications for holding nuclear weapons is gone. In addition, nuclear capabilities are proliferating at an increasing rate and there is a very real concern that terrorist groups could come into possession of fissile materials.

Yet despite these changes, there is still an extraordinary range of challenges facing the disarmament movement. Sir Malcolm pointed out that it was vital for the disarmament process to be a multilateral one, in order to preserve the balance of power. He highlighted the crucial difference between the process of the USA and Russia agreeing to a gradual and simultaneous reduction of their weapons stock from, say, 5,000 to 1,000, and more drastic reductions that would fundamentally alter that balance.

For now, multilateral moves towards disarmament would involve only the US and Russia. But eventually, they would have to involve China, the UK and France, and even India and Pakistan. At this point the more fundamental problems of relative powers, local animosities and verification of the disarmament process come into play. Expanding on this point, Sir Malcolm pointed out that countries often acquired nuclear weapons for a very specific reason (as in the case of India and Pakistan) and that individual countries would be loath to give them up without a guarantee that other countries were not cheating. Stringent verification and transparency schemes would therefore have to be in place before serious disarmament could start to happen.

In conclusion, Sir Malcolm reiterated the following points:

• Whatever your individual views on nuclear weapons, it is undeniable that there are far too many nuclear weapons in the world today. Beginning with the USA and Russia, there needs to be a sustained, serious and deliberate effort to reduce this number.
• Unless there is progress in reducing nuclear weapons, there is a risk that the relevance of the non-proliferation treaty will erode. There is even a chance that it will not be renewed.
• The disarmament process must be multilateral. An individual country giving up its nuclear weapons would have little benefit to the country itself or to the global community.
• There is an urgent need for greater transparency and enhanced verification capabilities.
• The disarmament process will be protracted. We should not expect success in the next decade.

However, Sir Malcolm stressed that while the complete elimination of nuclear weapons may not be possible in our lifetimes, it is still a goal well worth working towards. Even if the Global Zero campaign fails, reducing the number of nuclear warheads in the world would be hugely significant - bolstering the non-proliferation treaty and reducing the amount of fissile material at risk of falling into the hands of terrorists.

Following the seminar, Sir Malcolm engaged in an insightful and animated discussion with members of the audience. We invite further discussion and debate on this contentious issue below.