Intervention by Peter Weiderud, Broderskap, at the Conference Reaching Nuclear Disarmament, Stockholm 6-8 November 2009, Panel: Mobilizing People for Change
Moderator
Dear Friends
As President of the Christian Social Democrats I have a dual background – a Swedish Labour Movement identity and a Christian Ecumenical one.
Before offering some ideas on mobilizing public opinion for nuclear disarmament today, I would like to share with you some experiences from how the Social Democratic Party in Sweden and the World Council of Churches, came to their respective position a strong opponents to nuclear arms, during the Cold War period.
To many of us concerned with nuclear disarmament, Olof Palme is one of the strongest political leaders and a beacon. However, during his early years as leader in the socialist youth movement, and as the advisor to his predecessor Tage Erlander he was advocating Swedish nuclear arms, or at least to keep the option open.
Olof Palme’s position reflected the ideas of the political and military elites in many countries at that time. As well as the self image of Sweden.
Swedish tradition of military non-alignment is 200 years old and was developed as we withdrew from the ambitions of a regional superpower. It has managed to keep us away from war longer than any other country in the world. This was the case also during the World War II, although the Swedish defence at that time was very limited, should we have been attacked. Hence with strong public support, the Swedish Government started a period of strong armament from the end of the war.
We also started a nuclear research program. As we have to defend ourselves, the stronger we are, the more secure we will be, was the logic. The military elite and the right wing parties strongly favoured the atomic bomb. The Social Democratic Party was divided, but wanted to keep the option open.
Towards the end of the 1950ies a growing popular concern started in the peace movement but soon also reached the Party. The Women’s Organisation and the Christian Social Democrats were the first to officially oppose a Swedish nuclear bomb.
An umbrella organisation – AMSA – was created as a campaign structure, which gave a possible interplay with the masses and the cultural elite.
Gradually it became clear also to the leadership of the party, that nuclear weapons would not make Sweden more secure but less secure. The policy shift – or when Olof Palme changed his opinion – came already in 1961, but was formally confirmed when Sweden gave up the nuclear option by adhering to the NPT in 1968.
The investment made in research was used to underpin Sweden’s disarmament policy. Having access to that knowledge turned out to be important both in order to challenge the five nuclear weapon states, and to take responsibility for verification mechanisms when asked for.
The early change of political mind from the Christian Social Democrats was inspired by the World Council of Churches, the WCC. The WCC was born at the same time as the nuclear arms race. At its first Assembly, in Amsterdam, the WCC stated that “ the part which war plays in our present international life is a sin against God and a degradation of man”…”
The second Assembly, in Evanston in 1954, responded to developments beyond the atomic bomb. “The development of nuclear weapons makes this an age of fear. True peace cannot rest on fear.”
They called for a new international order with elimination and prohibition of nuclear weapons and a mechanism of effective international inspections and control. Already in 1954, the Churches formulated the main elements in what 15 years later became the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT. And at the New Dehli Assembly in 1961 the Churches called both for no-first use and nuclear arms-free zones:
While the conviction to work for nuclear disarmament within the Social Democratic party grew out of enlightened self interest, the same conviction within the churches grew out of international relations, and the ability to see the perspectives of the victims.
I was General Secretary and President of the Christian Peace Movement in Sweden 1983-94. I noted how the interest among people changed with the end of the Cold Ward, and it became clear to me that the strong mobilization we saw – with its ups and downs – for about thirty years was built on a sense of fear and urgency.
When the sense of fear and urgency is gone, we need to look for different ways to mobilize. There is no alternative. As long as some countries insist that nuclear weapons are essential for their security, others will claim the same. The nature of these weapons is such that the very existence is an incentive for proliferation – to other states or non-state actors.
With proliferation, the nuclear bomb will be used again. Today less likely in a clash between superpowers, but rather as single attacks by non state-actors or as a desperate act by the weaker party in one of the too many asymmetric wars of today.
The only protection against the nuclear bomb is prohibition, abolition and a strong verification mechanism to uphold such a treaty. So how do we mobilize today’s generation for the final elimination of all nuclear weapons? There is not one simple answer. But let me give a few ideas to stimulate the discussion.
- Look at the small arms agenda as an entry point. I work today as General Secretary for the Parliamentary Forum on Small Arms and Light Weapons. Coming from a nuclear background I have noticed two differences with the people mobilized against small arms. One is political affiliation. While parliamentarians and politicians concerned with nuclear arms are primarily from the left, those concerned with small arms comes from left, centre and right. The other difference is age. The average age for people concerned with nukes is 60, while the people concerned with small arms have an average age of 30. Small arms kill 500.000 people per year. Here we have the sense of urgency that we felt 25 years ago felt with nuclear weapons. Once people learn about how to address small arms, the step to nuclear is not so big. It is basically about the same understanding of security. To seek security with the adversary rather than against him.
- Link up with people mobilized on climate issues. The link between nuclear arms and climate change is obvious, as have been pointed out by several during this conference. By working closely together, and offer one additional aspect to a strong group already well mobilized we can achieve a win-win situation.
- Use social media. The young generation is not against demonstrating, but they have less patience for long term organising. Social media is ideal for mobilizing A few weeks ago a group committing themselves not to vote for the racist party Sweden Democrats, fighting xenophobia and promoting multiculturalism started on Facebook. They got thousands relatively soon. Two weeks ago they were 150.000, last weekend 200.000, on Monday when I joined 214.000 and today 238.000.
- Remind the old structures – like churches, trade unions and other well established organisations with international connections and links - about their commitments to nuclear disarmament. Their basic policies are in place, they have a structure, they have funds, but some of them are a bit confused about their role in the globalized world. The old structures can provide space – funds, training and support – for the new generation of anti-nuclear weapons activists.
- Identify specific, realistic and reachable goals – provisional utopias – on the road to a nuclear weapon free world. The young generation is less patient, but easier to mobilize, more creative and braver. It is also more international, has better language skills and more result oriented compared to my generation. Given relevant political tasks to achieve, I believe the young generation can be more powerful than mine was.
- Clarify and identify the enemy or the specific country or group to target. Mobilizing public opinion is making differences, discrepancies or dysfunctions visible. Some of these – or ten countries - are obvious – the five official nuclear weapons states, the three countries with nuclear arms but outside the NPT and the two who are challenging the NPT obligations. But there also others to look at, and to ask them to take responsibility. Those who have committed themselves to a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East, but not fulfilled their commitment. The non-nuclear members of NATO who have two different commitments that do not come together – one to NATO and another to the NPT. Those countries that had the capacity to develop nuclear arms, but chose to reject it, could use their moral power in a more convincing way.
- Make the ultimate goal of total elimination of all nuclear weapons visible by putting a realistic date on a nuclear weapon free world.
I thank you for your attention