Is it time for supra-state nuclear control?
Robert Patman says globalisation has made it possible to revisit an old idea for a supra-state authority that controls all nuclear production
Almost from the moment the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the menacing shadow of the nuclear age has inspired visions of a world free of nuclear weapons.
In June 1946, the US delegate to the UN Atomic Energy Commission, Bernard Baruch, tabled a bold plan for the international control of atomic energy.
The key to the Baruch Plan was the establishment of an international institution that would have control over all nuclear production in the world and the right of access to state territories for the purposes of verification and inspection. It was a far-sighted and generous initiative, considering that America still had, at that time, an unbroken nuclear monopoly. But the Soviet Union rejected it on the grounds that its own sovereignty would be compromised.
The plan collapsed and the nearly half a century of cold war that followed was dominated, above all, by the threat and fear of nuclear destruction.
The end of the cold war, however, has changed the nuclear equation. On the one hand, the prospect of a global nuclear war had receded. On the other, the assumption that we live in a compartmentalised world where sovereign states hold exclusive power has been shown to be erroneous, and concerns about nuclear proliferation have risen.
Established nuclear powers have seen their ranks swelled by India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. It is also feared that Iran will soon join them. As the nuclear club expands, the security of weapons and technology has diminished. In particular, there is a growing possibility in a world characterised by various civil conflicts that nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of terrorist groups.
