Call for the unilateral nuclear disarmament by France

Call for the unilateral nuclear disarmament by France
As early as 1961, it has been clearly asserted by the
UN that any use of nuclear weapons would be a
crime:
« Any state using nuclear and thermo-nuclear
weapons is to be considered as violating the Charter
of the United Nations, as acting contrary to the laws
of humanity and as committing a crime against
mankind and civilization. » (resolution of 24
November 1961). Too few states have drawn the
logical conclusion of this resolution: if the use of
nuclear weapons is a « crime against humanity », the
threat of resorting to their use is already a criminal
act. But it is precisely this threat which is the basis of
so-called « nuclear deterrence » strategies.
Admittedly, the moral argument will probably not
sway political and military leaders. In this field as in so
many others, purported realism will always claim to
carry more weight than purported moralism. It is
therefore necessary to convince decision-makers that
nuclear weapons are strategically in-operative as well
as im-moral: it is simply a matter of realism to
recognize that nuclear weapons protect us from none
of the potential threats to our security. They are in
particular quite incapable of deterring terrorism in any
form. On the other hand, the mere possession of
nuclear weapons constitutes a threat not only for
other peoples but for ourselves.
In reality, the true motivation behind nuclear
deterrence is not the defence of populations, but the
wish to give the State a semblance of power, of a
power consisting exclusively of the ability to destroy
and to annihilate.
By maintaining and modernizing its nuclear weapons
systems, France can only encourage global
proliferation: if it claims that nuclear weapons
guarantee the security of the French nation, how can
the French state ask nations not equipped with
nuclear weapons to renounce any claim to possess
them?
It follows that nuclear disarmament would meet the
demands both of the « ethics of conviction » and
those of the « ethics of responsibility ». And both sets
of demands are equally compelling.
Nuclear deterrence, furthermore, requires citizens to
abandon their destiny to the sole decision of the
President of the Republic. Nuclear weapons
accordingly imply, by an organic necessity, « the
solitary exercise of power». The whole process of
developing nuclear deterrence systems has always
been and remains hermetically closed to any citizenbased control.
Lastly, the state’s nuclear weapons equipment
swallows up huge sums of money. The estimated cost
of the French nuclear arsenal from 1945 to 2010 is
228.67 billion euros. Even as we are told that the
country is in the throes of a serious crisis, the law on
military spending (2009-2014) foresees an annual
budget of 3.3 billion euros for nuclear deterrence: 2.3
billion to modernize the weapons themselves, and 1
billion euros to maintain and to deploy them. These
investments, directly financed by taxation, are not
socially useful. They are amongst the least jobcreating investments. So it is not demagogy to assert
that these sums would be better used in other sectors
of the economy, in particular in public services aimed
at people’s needs, which are currently under threat.
In conclusion, nuclear deterrence is immoral,
unrealistic, dangerous and costly
Many people are convinced of this and share a hope
for a world without nuclear weapons. But this hope
runs a serious risk of disappointment: it might seem
necessary to wait for all nuclear powers to agree to
general abolition. This is to forget our responsibility as
citizens of a nuclear-armed country: we are not
directly responsible for world disarmament, but we
are fully responsible for the nuclear disarmament of
our own country. It is incumbent on us to build peace
and security within a France without nuclear
weapons.
That is why, without waiting for the general abolition
of nuclear weapons under an international convention
which remains hypothetical, we consider that for us,
as French citizens, it is our responsibility to call right
now for: unilateral nuclear disarmament by France.
Unilateral disarmament by our country is possible if
French people wish it. But up to now, they have never
had the possibility of debating the issue to say
whether they want nuclear disarmament or not; it is
urgent to provoke that debate now. The French people
must be able freely to express their will to renounce
nuclear weapons.
In order for French citizens genuinely to exercise this
power of decision, it is necessary to consider holding a
referendum based on popular initiative, since that is,
in a democracy, the only way of giving the sovereign
people the possibility to express themselves on a vital
question.
16th January 2012
First signatories :
- Olivier ABEL, philosopher
- Jean MERCKAERT, chief editor of the Projet
- Guy AURENCHE, honorary lawyer
journal
- Maria BIEDRAWA, president of the International - Edgar MORIN, philosopher and sociologist
Fellowship of Reconciliation (IFOR)
- Jacques MULLER, former senator
- Paul BLANQUART, sociologist, writer
- Jean-Marie MULLER, philosopher, writer,
- Simone de BOLLARDIÈRE
spokesperson of the Mouvement pour une Alternative
- Bernard BOUDOURESQUE,priest of the Mission Non-violente (MAN)
de France, former scientist at the Commissariat de
- Antoine NOUIS, director of publication of the
l’Énergie Atomique (CEA)
Réforme journal
- José de BROUCKER, journalist
- Jean-Paul NUNEZ, pastor, vice-president of IFOR
- Thierry CASTELBOU, director of publications at - Richard PÈTRIS, director of the École de la Paix,
the Gardarem lo Larzac newspaper
Grenoble
- Bernard DANGEARD, responsible leader of the
- Bernard QUELQUEJEU, Dominicain, philosopher
French-speaking community of l’Arche de Lanza del - Pierre RABHI, French farmer, writer and
Vasto
philosopher of Algerian origin
- Bernard DRÈANO, president of the Helsinki
- Alain REFALO, teacher, founder of the Centre de
Citizens’ Assembly (HCA, France)
ressources sur la non-violence de Midi-Pyrénées
- Hélène DUPONT, secretary of the association
- Matthieu RICARD, Buddhist monk, writer
Partenia 2000
- Alain RICHARD, Franciscan monk at Toulouse
- Isabelle FILLIOZAT, psychologist, psychotherapist, - Jacques RICHARD, Medical doctor
writer
- Lama Denys RINPOCHÈ, Father superior of the
- Dominique FONTAINE, vicar general of the
Buddhist community Dachang Rimay
Mission de France
- Jean-Pierre SCHMITZ, President of the Réseaux du
- Bernard GINISTY, philosopher
Parvis federation
- Étienne GODINOT, president, l’Institut de
- Antoine SONDAG, priest
Recherche sur la résolution Non-violente des Conflits - Bernard STÈPHAN, Managing Director of
(IRNC)
Témoignage Chrétien
- Françoise HÈRITIER, anthropologist, honorary
- Alain TOURAINE, Director of Studies at the École
professor at the Collège de France
des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales
- Stéphane HESSEL, ambassadeur de France
Marlène TUININGA, journalist, member of the
- Albert JACQUARD, geneticist
Ligue internationale des Femmes pour la Paix
- Patrick JIMENA, initiator of the Festival Camino et la Liberté (WILPF)
Agir pour la non-violence
Didier VANHOUTTE, former president of the
- Gustave MASSIAH, economist
Réseaux du Parvis federation
- Olivier MAUREL, writer
François VAILLANT, Chief Editor of the Alternatives
- Christian MELLON, jesuit, member of the Centre Non-Violentes journal
de recherche et d’action sociales (CERAS)
Paul VIRILIO, philosopher, writer
- Philippe MEIRIEU, professor at Lyon II university Patrick VIVERET, philosopher, writer
Mouvement pour une Alternative Non-violence (MAN) :
[email protected] - www.nonviolence.fr
The text of a citizens’ petition in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament by France can be found on the site of the
campaign led by the MAN : www.francesansarmesnucleaires.fr or fsan.fr