Nuclear weapons are so taken for granted in world affairs that it is important to be reminded how dangerous and potentially destabilising they are as guarantors of international order. The weekend statement by the five nuclear-armed permanent members of the Security Council that they support the "unequivocal" elimination of these weapons is a welcome recognition of that fact, despite the absence of a timetable. It came in response to intensive lobbying by a group of states, including Ireland, which have kept the issue in the foreground of international politics.
Ireland has been centrally involved in the issue since 1958, when Frank Aiken launched an initiative for a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; it was agreed in 1961 and has subsequently been signed by 181 states. Those who thought it would be easier to make progress towards the objective after the end of the Cold War were mistaken. The United States, Russia, China, France and Britain have remained permanent members of the Security Council largely by virtue of their nuclear arms; they have since been joined as nuclear states by India and Pakistan as well as Israel.
In 1998 Ireland, Brazil, Mexico, Egypt, New Zealand, South Africa, Slovenia and Sweden launched another initiative to make progress towards nuclear disarmament. It was based on a declaration, "A Nuclear-Weapons-Free-World: the need for a new agenda" and was aimed at lobbying through the UN General Assembly, culminating in the review conference this year to examine the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was indefinitely extended in 1995. This stronger statement of support for nuclear disarmament represents the fruits of that diplomatic endeavour.
It has been worth the effort. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty remains the cornerstone of arms reduction accords. Its active renewal reminds world opinion that non-proliferation without nuclear disarmament is incapable of delivering stability. That position has been amply confirmed by recent developments in Europe, Asia and the United States. The conference provided an opportunity for participating states to voice their concerns about current destabilising policies, as well as to lobby for stronger commitments to nuclear disarmament.
Foremost among such policies are plans by the United States to install an expensive National Missile Defence (NMD) to detect and destroy incoming missiles aimed at its territory by rogue states. If it worked that would make the US invincible and all other states vulnerable; even if it was not proven to work it would upset existing balances and tempt other states into a dangerous arms race. Already the Russians are threatening not to proceed with their commitment to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles if NMD goes ahead; they are getting surprising support from European states such as Britain, France and Germany in their efforts to head it off.
All these issues are inter-connected. Diplomatic lobbying and negotiation is an important means of reaching out to international opinion by cutting through the complexities and seeing nuclear weapons for what they are: outmoded systems making for a more dangerous and not a safer world.