The Coronavirus: Looming Disaster or Golden Opportunity?

Over the past year there has been no shortage of looming disasters that pose a serious threat to humanity including uncontrollable wild fires and forest fires precipitated by climate change, and the dangers of an accidental plunge into nuclear war as a result of miscalculation and brinksmanship.  The recent outbreak of a novel coronavirus, known as COVID-19, is now likely to become the pandemic that we have been fearing for some time. Although much is still unknown about the virus, what experts do know is that it is extremely contagious, like the infamous 1918 Spanish flu that infected approximately one third of the world's population and killed between 20 and 50 million people, and that the new virus' likely mortality rate is 1% to 3% of those infected. While the threat to human life is already engendering fear and anxiety, knock-on impacts to the global economy are likely to be just as severe. To contain the virus borders are being closed, flights canceled, whole towns locked down, factories and schools closed, and sporting, entertainment, trade-show, and other large events canceled. In a world as interconnected as ours is, such restrictions disrupt manufacturing and retail supply chains, with the dual effect of threatening access to supplies and potentially causing a global recession.

It is no wonder that our typical response is either to feel fearful, helpless, apathetic, and sink into despair or to feel angry, frustrated, and quick to blame someone else -- the people of some other country, health officials, or even our neighbors and friends who unwittingly carry the infection and expose the rest of us to it. While such reactions are understandable given the level of risk associated with the spread of the coranavirus, and the many uncertainties that accompany its spread, in reality both reactions are destructive and do not serve us. Moreoever, when we feel helpless or angry and blame others, our perceptions of the options available to us tend to be blinkered. When we need to be most creative and energetic in crafting constructive responses and solutions, we become apathetic, depressed, and anxious. We also become more prone to a fight-or-flight response and to conflict with others. All of these emotions ultimately lead either to inaction, delayed or half-baked action with too little done, too late, or to endless blame-games that, in the end, also do not help us meet the challenges at hand.

What if instead of viewing these same events, including the spreading coronavirus, as looming disasters, we were to view them as a supreme opportunity for humanity to finally learn to communicate in a spirit of goodwill and transparency, and to cooperate and collaborate on finding workable solutions that benefit us all? What if instead of viewing other nations and their actions as enemies and threats, we viewed them as indispensable and valuable allies with whom to join forces in the fight against a global threat? Commentators like David Ignatius of the Washington Post and experts like the editors of Nature Medicine are starting to suggest that the coronavirus presents us with a unique opportunity to do just this. For this to happen we need to change our perspective on social reality from seeing disparate nations each concerned exclusively and foremost with its own well-being to seeing a single global organism, a single global community that is interconnected in much the same way that the limbs and organs of the human body are connected. Just as it would be nonsensical and futile for the liver to claim that it was not concerned about the health of the kidneys because it was focused first and foremost upon its own well-being, and just as the heart could never be truly healthy in a body where the lungs were riddled with disease, so, too, is it nonsensical and futile for individual countries and social groups to claim and act solely or even primarily without regard for the consequences and benefits to other countries and groups. What if we understood that the only way to guarantee the well-being and health of any one of our nations requires ensuring the well-being of all nations? Such a shift in perspective would reveal new ways of organizing our global community, of decision-making and behavior that open up new and effective pathways to addressing the seemingly intractable challenges of our time.  

Such a shift in perspective requires both awareness and acceptance of the reality of our unprecedented interconnectedness as a global community of nations and of the imperative to act together collaboratively in order to solve collective challenges. It also requires us to acknowledge that we have the power to make different, more empowering choices. I will elaborate further on these thoughts in subsequent weekly blogposts that are part of a new series about indispensable mindsets and habits that will bring us the global peace we so dearly want.  Please stay tuned.

It's High Time to Make Adherence to the NPT Mandatory

On January 31, 2011, the New York Times published an article saying that thanks to the steady increase in its nuclear arsenal, Pakistan was on its way to becoming the world's fifth largest nuclear power, thereby overtaking Britain. The ramifications for international peace and security of such a build-up of both nuclear material and weapons are enormous and are exacerbated by the fact that Pakistan has never signed on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ("NPT"). As a consequence, its nuclear facilities are not subject to monitoring and inspection by the international inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency ("IAEA"). Moreover, the long-standing animosity and rivalry between Pakistan and India (which, by the way, has also not signed the NPT), are exacerbated each time one of these two countries makes significant strides in enhancing its nuclear capabilities. It is inevitable that the spiral of mutual suspicion should continue to rise with each escalation. Nothing good can come of this build-up of nuclear capacity on both sides. Then there is the added danger that the nuclear technology that to which scientists in both nations have access, will get into the hands of states whose behavior and motives evoke suspicion within the international community. This has already happened with disastrous consequences thanks to Dr. A.Q. Khan, know as the father of Pakistan's atomic program. He is alleged to have sold nuclear weapons designs to North Korea, Libya and Iran and possibly to Syria. Finally, the dangers of nuclear material and nuclear technology getting into the hands of terrorists increases as the amounts of such material increase, weapons design technology becomes more widespread and as the stability of a country possessing nuclear material becomes shaky.

For a while now, the international community has claimed that one of the most serious dangers facing the peace and security of our planet is nuclear proliferation. The danger lies not simply in the fact that if nations continue to amass nuclear weapons, then the chances are greater that they will resort to them in times of extreme crisis. Rather, the greater danger is that as nuclear materials proliferate, it is more likely that unscrupulous individuals or groups, namely terrorists, will get their hands on enough of that material and with the aid of technological know-how, which is easy to transfer in this global age of communications, they will be able to use it to wreak havoc and sow terror.

There has been no shortage of conferences and meetings and experts' opinions (including the extensive five-yearly NPT review conferences, the last of which was held in the spring of 2010). And yet, not much has come of these. If we are really so concerned about the risks of nuclear terrorism and are serious about reducing and eventually eliminating the dangers of nuclear proliferation, isn't it time to make the radical changes in thinking and behavior that are necessary? So, for example, it seems rather futile to enter into elaborate bilateral treaties such as the second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START 2) that was initially agreed to by the US and Russia in April 2010 and is to enter into force this month, to eliminate stockpiles of nuclear weapons on one hand, while at the same time ignoring the fact that the back door has long been open to allow the stockpiling of new nuclear weapons and material by other countries who have never signed the NPT.

For starters, wouldn't it make more sense to make adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligatory for all nations, without exception? Who are we kidding, when we turn a blind eye to a system in which nations can choose to sign an international agreement as crucial to the peace of the planet as the NPT? Is it not time to recognize that some systems are so fundamental to the continued peace and stability of our world as to require all nations to fully participate in them, without the right of withdrawal?

If we are truly a community of nations, then we need a set of international laws that apply equally to all the subjects of that community, namely to all nations bar none. Why should the principles upon which we build our international community differ from those governing our local or national communities? We would never conceive of having a system of local or national laws relating to our peace and security to which we, as the subjects of those nations, could choose to adhere or disregard at will. So, for example, it is hard to imagine living in a nation in which the law against murder would apply only to those individuals that chose to sign on to it. The consequent break down in law and order would be as unacceptable as it was inevitable. Why then should we allow such an untenable state of affairs to persist at the international level when it abundantly clear that the world is completely interconnected and no nation, however powerful can survive on its own?

Returning then to the news about Pakistan's recent build-up of nuclear weapons, it would seem sensible to require Pakistan, India and all other nations who have not yet done so, to sign on to the NPT without reservation and without the right to withdraw as an indispensable step towards creating an effective and efficacious international system to prevent nuclear proliferation. Although a critical step toward creating a viable system of collective security, I do not suggest that this step is, in itself sufficient. Other steps will also be required including a serious revamping of the NPT. Such revamping must involve considerable tightening of the monitoring and verification procedures and requirements in order to catch would-be flouters of the international rules early as well as international agreement on a set of punishments to be meted out to nations who break the rules. It is also time to finally create a viable enforcement mechanism that will act both as a deterrent to those who are tempted to break the rules as well as an effective enforcer of the rules. Last, but not least, is the necessity of creating an international fuel bank to which all nations must be required to turn for nuclear fuel to satisfy their domestic energy needs.

There is much to do, let us not waste precious time in taking the first step!

Rules To Prevent Proliferation of Nuclear Arms Must Apply to All Nations

Every now and then in the life of a nation and in our collective life as a community of nations, we must stop to ask ourselves the following question:  Do our laws, institutions and policies serve our best interests and promote the well-being and happiness of our people?  It is important to ask this question because our laws, institutions and policies are there to serve us.  We must not unwittingly sacrifice our collective well-being and happiness for the sake of our attachment to their preservation. 

 

An example that comes to mind relates to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, also known as the 'NPT.'   This Treaty was designed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms while encouraging the peaceful use of nuclear energy.  And yet, as leaders of thought and experts in the field attest, it is a fragile system that is falling apart at the seams: Nations are ignoring their commitments under the NPT or withdrawing completely from it.  New dangers, such as the international terrorist networks and easy dissemination of military technology are compounding the problem.   It is clear therefore that this Treaty and the system of which it is a part must be either fixed or replaced if we are to keep our world safe from the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons.  

No matter how we go about strengthening the nuclear proliferation system and the quest for a viable, effective and efficient system that can keep us safe from the scourge of nuclear weapons, we must apply two key principles:  The first is that all nations must be treated as one, in other words even-handedly and fairly, without favor or discrimination.  This means that all international rules relating to the safety and security of the world as a whole must apply to all nations across the board without exception and must be equally enforced.  The second principle is that the advantage of the part can only be truly guaranteed by assuring the advantage of the whole.  

Applying these two principles it becomes clear that the time has come to make all rules and treaties for the prevention of nuclear proliferation apply mandatorily to all nations.  We can no longer afford to have an arms control system in which participation by states is voluntary as there is too much at stake.  It seems ludicrous for instance that a treaty intended to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms would make the participation of nations known to have nuclear weapons, such as Pakistan, India and Israel, optional.  Having such a voluntary system simply invites states to consider their short-term self-interest at the expense of the long-term security of the international community as a whole: while it serves their interests, they join the NPT and benefit from it - for example by gaining access to civilian nuclear technology - while possibly developing the ability to make nuclear weapons in secret.  Then, when it no longer serves their interests to be subject to the NPT rules and restrictions, they withdraw from the Treaty by giving a mere 30 days' notice to the other NPT parties and to the Security Council   

The same is true with respect to the safeguards established by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which is tasked with monitoring compliance with the NPT.  It makes no sense that 30 members of the NPT should not be subject to any monitoring safeguards.  Again applying the principles articulated above, the program of safeguards established by the IAEA should mandatorily apply to all nations without exception.

In addition, it is time to abolish the right of nations to withdraw from treaties such as the NPT that are so fundamental to maintaining the safety and security of our world.  It is preposterous

that a member of the NPT should be allowed to withdraw with only 30 days' notice for reasons that are blatantly self-serving, including jeopardy to its supreme interest, and without suffering any consequences.  Such a rule serves only as an invitation to expedient behavior.  

It is time that the laws and institutions we craft to ensure the safety and security of our world are firmly grounded in principle rather than driven by expediency.