Visit ArabTopics.com

Nobel Peace Prize 2017: Law and morality versus violent geopolitics

By Richard Falk
Professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and University of California, Santa Barbara, board member of The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and TFF Associate since 1985

Finally, the committee in Oslo that picks a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize each year selected in 2017 an awardee that is a true embodiment of the intended legacy of Alfred Nobel when he established the prize more than a century ago.

It is also a long overdue acknowledgement of the extraordinary dedication of anti-nuclear activists around the planet who for decades have done all in their power to rid the world of this infernal weaponry before it inflicts catastrophe upon all living beings even more unspeakable that what befell the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on two infamous days in August 1945.

Such a prize result was actually anticipated days before the announcement by Fredrik Heffermehl, a crusading Norwegian critic of past departures from Nobel’s vision by the prize committee.

In making the prediction that the 2017 prize would be given in recognition of anti-nuclear activism Heffermehl prophetically relied on the outlook of the current chair of the Nobel selection committee, a distinguished Norwegian lawyer, Berit Reiss-Andersen, who has publicly affirmed her belief in the correlation between adherence to international law and world peace.

The recipient of the prize is ICAN, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a coalition of more than 450 civil society groups around the world that is justly credited with spreading an awareness of the dire humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons and of making the heroic effort to generate grassroots pressure sufficient to allow for the adoption of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by 122 UN members on 7 July 2017 (known as the ‘BAN Treaty’).

The treaty was officially signed by 53 governments of UN member states this September and will come into force when 50 instruments of ratifications have been deposited at UN Headquarters, which suggests its legal status will soon be realized as a signature is almost always followed by ratification.

The core provision of the BAN Treaty sets forth an unconditional legal prohibition of the weaponry that is notable for its comprehensiveness—the prohibition extends to “the developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, possessing, stockpiling and deploying nuclear weapons, transferring or receiving them from others, using or threatening to use them, or allowing any stationing or deployment of nuclear weapons on national territories of signatories, and assisting, encouraging, or inducing any of these prohibited acts.” Each signatory state is obligated to develop “legal, administrative and other measures, including the imposition of penal sanctions, to prevent and suppress” activities prohibited by the treaty. It should be understood that the prohibition contributes to the further delegitimation of nuclear weapons, but it does nothing directly by way of disarmament.

The BAN Treaty nowhere claims to mandate disarmament except by an extension of the reasoning that if something is prohibited, then it should certainly not be possessed, and the conscientious move would be to seek a prudent way to get rid of the weaponry step by step. In this regard, it is notable that none of the nuclear weapons states are expected to become parties to the BAN Treaty, and therefore are under no immediate legal obligation to respect the prohibition or implement its purpose by seeking a disarmament arrangement.

A next step for the ICAN coalition might be to have the BAN prohibition declared by the UN General Assembly and other institutions around the world (from cities to the UN System) to be binding on all political actors (whether parties to the treaty or not), an expression of what international lawyers call ‘peremptory norms,’ those that are binding and authoritative without treaty membership and cannot be changed by the action of sovereign states.

Standing in opposition to the BAN Treaty are all of the present nuclear weapons states, led by the United States. Indeed, all five permanent members (P-5) of the UN Security Council and their allies refused to join in this legal prohibition of nuclear weapons, and to a disturbing degree, seem addicted sustainers of the war system in its most horrific dimensions.

Their rationale for such a posture can be reduced to the proposition that deterrence is more congenial than disarmament. Yet the nuclearism is a deeply discrediting contention that the P-5 provide the foundations of responsible global leadership, and therefore have accorded favourable status.

What the BAN Treaty makes clear is the cleavage between those who want to get rid of the weaponry, and regard international law as a crucial step in this process, and those who prefer to take their chances by retaining and even further developing this omnicidal weaponry and then hoping for the best.

Leaders like Donald Trump and Kim Jung-un make us aware of how irresponsible it is to hope to avoid the use of nuclear weapons over time when such unstable and impulsive individuals are only an arm’s reach away from decreeing a nuclear Armageddon.

What the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 should have taught the world, but didn’t, is that even highly rational governments of the world’s most powerful states can come within a hair’s breath of launching a nuclear war merely to avoid an appearance of geopolitical weakness (the U.S. initial refusal to remove nuclear missiles deployed in Turkey even though they were already scheduled for removal because obsolete as it feared that such a step would be taken as a sign of weakness in its rivalry with the Soviet Union).

Further, we know that it was only the unusual and unexpected willingness of an unheralded Soviet submarine officer to disobey a rogue order to fire off a nuclear missile that then saved the world from a terrifying chain of events.

The nuclear weapons states, governed by political realists, basically have no trust in law or morality when it comes to national security, but base their faith in the hyper-rationality of destructive military power, which in the nuclear age is expressed in the arcane idiom of deterrence, an idea more transparently known in the Cold War Era as Mutually Assured Destruction (or MAD)!!

It is impossible to grasp the essential links between geopolitical ambition and security without understanding the complementary relationship of deterrence and the nonproliferation regime (its geopolitical implementation to avoid the disarmament obligation of Article VI).

In essence, the grandest Faustian Bargain of all times is contained within the confines of the Nonproliferation Regime, which is a geopolitical instrument of control by permanently dividing the world between those that have the bomb and decide who else should be allowed to develop the capability and those who are without the bomb but also without any way to secure a world in which no political actor possesses a nuclear weapons option.

In a central respect, the issue between the militarized leadership of the nuclear weapons states and the peoples of the world is a question of trust – that is, a matter of geopolitics as practiced versus international law if reliably implemented.

Everything in the human domain is contingent, including even species survival.

This makes it rational to be prudent, especially in relation to risks that have no upper limit and could produce massive suffering and devastation far beyond tragedies of the past.

Of course, there are also risks with a world legally committed to prohibit the possession, threat, and use of nuclear weapons, although if nuclear disarmament were to carry forward the overriding intent of the BAN Treaty, a disarming process would seek with the greatest possible diligence to minimize these risks.

A world without nuclear weapons would almost certainly be a safer, saner, more humane world than the one we now inhabit.

Beyond that it would move national and international policy away from the gross immorality of a security system premised on mass destruction of civilian life along with assorted secondary effects of ‘nuclear famine’ caused by dense smoke blockage of the sun, potentially imperilling the well-being of all inhabitants of the planet. The dissemination of toxic radiation as far as winds will carry is an inevitable side effect with disastrous consequences even for future generations. Such an ecocidal gamble is not only a throw of the dice with respect to the human future but also in relation to the habitability of the planet by every living species. As such, it profiles an aggravated form of Crimes Against Nature, which while not codified, epitomizes the peak of anthropogenic hubris.

It is with these considerations in mind that one reads with consternation the cynical, flippant, and condescending response of The Economist: “This year’s Nobel peace prize rewards a nice but pointless idea.” Such a choice of words, ‘nice,’ ‘pointless’ tells it all.

What is being expressed is the elite mainstream consensus that it is the height of futility to challenge conventional realist wisdom, that is, the Faustian Bargain mentioned earlier. The challenge is declared futile without even considering the dubious record of geopolitics over the centuries of war upon war, which in the process has deprived humanity of untold resources wasted on generations of deadly weaponry that have inflicted massive suffering and could have been put to many far better and necessary uses.

Of course, the BAN Treaty as an expression of faith in the path of international law and morality radically diverges conceptually and behaviorally from the political path of nuclearism, hard power, and political realism.

It will require nothing less than a passionate and determined mobilization of peoples throughout the world to get rid of nuclear weapons, and its accompanying deep ideology of nuclearism.

This is a far preferable alternative than passively waiting for the occurrence of a traumatizing sequence of events that so jolt political consciousness as to topple the power structures that now shape security policy throughout the world.

What the BAN Treaty achieves, and the Nobel Prize recognizes, is that the cleavage is now clear between international law and geopolitics with respect to nuclear weapons.

The BAN Treaty provides like-minded governments and animated citizen pilgrims throughout the world with a roadmap for closing the gap from the side of law and morality.

It will be an epic struggle, but now at least there are some reasons to be hopeful, which should itself strengthen the political will of the global community of anti-nuclear militants.

It is helpful to appreciate that this BAN Treaty was achieved despite the strenuous opposition of the geopolitical forces that run the world order system.

Just as Nehru read the outcome of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 as a decisive sign that European colonialism was vulnerable to national resistance, despite military inferiority, so let us believe and act as if this occasion of the Nobel Peace Prize is another tipping point in the balance between morality/legality on one side and violent geopolitics on the other.

Source: 
Transnational Foundation

Dear friends of this aggregator

  • Yes, I intentionally removed Newsbud from the aggregator on Mar 22.
  • Newsbud did not block the aggregator, although their editor blocked me on twitter after a comment I made to her
  • As far as I know, the only site that blocks this aggregator is Global Research. I have no idea why!!
  • Please stop recommending Newsbud and Global Research to be added to the aggregator.

Support this site

News Sources

Source Items
Grayzone Project 11
Pass Blue 55
Dilyana Gaytandzhieva 14
John Pilger 409
The Real News 367
Scrutinised Minds 27
Need To Know News 1678
FEE 3232
Marine Le Pen 230
Francois Asselineau 25
Opassande 53
HAX on 5July 220
Henrik Alexandersson 540
Mohamed Omar 241
Professors Blog 10
Arg Blatte Talar 37
Angry Foreigner 17
Fritte Fritzson 11
Teologiska rummet 32
Filosofiska rummet 70
Vetenskapsradion Historia 116
Snedtänkt (Kalle Lind) 177
Les Crises 1869
Richard Falk 115
Ian Sinclair 79
SpinWatch 50
Counter Currents 6295
Kafila 355
Gail Malone 33
Transnational Foundation 221
Rick Falkvinge 93
The Duran 6541
Vanessa Beeley 93
Nina Kouprianova 9
MintPress 4806
Paul Craig Roberts 1151
News Junkie Post 44
Nomi Prins 24
Kurt Nimmo 191
Strategic Culture 3453
Sir Ken Robinson 16
Stephan Kinsella 66
Liberty Blitzkrieg 794
Sami Bedouin 61
Consortium News 2149
21 Century Wire 2906
Burning Blogger 280
Stephen Gowans 67
David D. Friedman 128
Anarchist Standard 16
The BRICS Post 1464
Tom Dispatch 409
Levant Report 17
The Saker 3426
The Barnes Review 471
John Friend 364
Psyche Truth 146
Jonathan Cook 135
New Eastern Outlook 3101
School Sucks Project 1736
Giza Death Star 1563
Andrew Gavin Marshall 15
Red Ice Radio 567
GMWatch 1799
Robert Faurisson 148
Espionage History Archive 34
Jay's Analysis 742
Le 4ème singe 87
Jacob Cohen 197
Agora Vox 10733
Cercle Des Volontaires 417
Panamza 1638
Fairewinds 103
Project Censored 720
Spy Culture 367
Conspiracy Archive 66
Crystal Clark 11
Timothy Kelly 488
PINAC 1482
The Conscious Resistance 546
Independent Science News 66
The Anti Media 5566
Positive News 820
Brandon Martinez 30
Steven Chovanec 61
Lionel 259
The Mind renewed 210
Natural Society 2461
Yanis Varoufakis 813
Tragedy & Hope 122
Dr. Tim Ball 63
Web of Debt 125
Porkins Policy Review 347
Conspiracy Watch 174
Eva Bartlett 563
Libyan War Truth 280
DeadLine Live 1905
Kevin Ryan 61
BSNEWS 1964
Aaron Franz 186
Traces of Reality 166
Revelations Radio News 121
Dr. Bruce Levine 111
Peter B Collins 1335
Faux Capitalism 205
Dissident Voice 9540
Climate Audit 220
Donna Laframboise 355
Judith Curry 1052
Geneva Business Insider 40
Media Monarchy 1991
Syria Report 70
Human Rights Investigation 90
Intifada (Voice of Palestine) 1685
Down With Tyranny 10105
Laura Wells Solutions 27
Video Rebel's Blog 411
Revisionist Review 485
Aletho News 17826
ضد العولمة 27
Penny for your thoughts 2655
Northerntruthseeker 2040
كساريات 37
Color Revolutions and Geopolitics 27
Stop Nato 4615
AntiWar.com Blog 2688
AntiWar.com Original Content 6105
Corbett Report 2085
Stop Imperialism 491
Land Destroyer 1105
Webster Tarpley Website 938

Compiled Feeds

Public Lists

Title Visibility
Funny Public