US president Obama has been in office for nearly a year and since his inauguration he has repeatedly stated the necessity of a world without nuclear weapons. Together with his Russian counterpart Dimitri Medvedev, he affirmed this in a statement in London last April. Four days later in Prague, he gave what has already become a historic speech, in which he called for a nuclear-weapon-free world and acknowledged the moral responsibility of the United States to take the lead in nuclear disarmament.

Obama’s initiative at the UN Security Council in September, where again he committed himself to the elimination of nuclear weapons, was another highly significant step. On this occasion, he also honoured the four American security policy veterans (Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, George Shultz and William Perry) who, in a January 2007 opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, broke with the Cold War logic of deterrence. Looking back, this article was an essential turning point in the global debate on nuclear weapons.

This celebrated initiative by the American ’Group of Four’ was followed by similar initiatives in a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Norway and Poland. Two well-known names in the global movement are Helmut Schmidt and Douglas Hurd. From the moment he took office, president Obama has joined their plea and thereby implicitly expressed a generally positive view of the ‘Global Zero’ movement, which was initiated in 2008.

Not be too modest

It is of critical importance the Non-Proliferation treaty review conference, to be held in May 2010, be successful. This is why we believe the Netherlands should now express its support for the goal of a nuclear-free world, newly stated by president Obama. Our support is necessary because, thus far, neither Nato nor the EU have done so. In our view, the Netherlands should not be too modest. We are one of the ‘founding fathers’ of what now is the European Union. We were at the foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato). From day one we have been party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). And we have a special nuclear record, both with regard to the peaceful use of nuclear technology (Urenco) and our participation in the nuclear tasks of Nato.

It is impossible do away with the existing knowledge of nuclear technology. However, at the present time, it is both possible and crucial to use it responsibly. The Cold War is truly over; it ended twenty years ago. A nuclear arsenal to restrain superpowers is no longer needed. In combating terrorism, deterrence with weapons of mass destruction has no purpose. Let us be clear, not only did nuclear weapons give shape to the Cold War, the Cold War also shaped the control of nuclear weapons; and that reality has definitely come to an end. This is the main reason why the existence of nuclear weapons has become much more dangerous than before.

Reductions in and the eventual abolishment of nuclear weapons were codified in the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. However, the nuclear weapon states have interpreted its Article VI in such a way that they have fulfilled their obligations only by reducing the numbers of nuclear weapons. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly difficult to explain why some countries should and others should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. The primary responsibility to solve these issues lies with the two nuclear weapon states that have the largest arsenals: the United States and Russia. Presidents Obama and Medvedev have now taken the initiative and, as their efforts become more visible, China, the United Kingdom and France must necessarily follow.

Legal capital of the world

Has the Netherlands been too silent? The Netherlands has a special reason to clearly and publicly declare itself in support of a world free of nuclear weapons in compliance with Article VI of the NPT. This particular reason is our position as the host of the International Court of Justice. The ICJ unanimously declared on July, 8 1996, “there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control". If we truly believe The Hague is 'the legal capital of the world', we must stand by that statement.

Foreign minister responds In response to the Dutch version of this opinion article published in NRC Handelsblad Dutch minister of foreign affairs Maxime Verhagen said he has repeatedly advocated for a nuclear free world. However, he does not agree the Netherlands should take the lead in achieving this. He believes this is up to Russia and the United States, the two main nuclear powers. Western countries should not take unilateral action while these two nations are in negotiations, as this would be "counter productive," he said.

As a member of Nato the Netherlands should make itself heard in the upcoming revision of its Strategic Concept. We have gratefully benefited from the nuclear protection of the United States. Now we must show ourselves a strong ally by supporting Obama’s goal of achieving a world without nuclear weapons according to the faithful implementation of Article VI of the NPT.

Given the clear indications the United States takes nuclear disarmament very seriously and that the original objective of deterrence has lost its validity, we need to ensure that neither the United States nor the other Nato allies wait for each other. The Netherlands should play an active role, so that the revision of the Strategic Concept will lead to the withdrawal of American nuclear weapons from the territories of non-nuclear weapon states.

Understandably the events of September 11, 2001 raised the security concern of terrorism, which indeed needs to be taken very seriously. However, it is precisely because of this threat that there is all the more reason to reduce and ban nuclear weapons. Such weapons are useless in the battle against terrorism. In fact, their existence presents an increased risk precisely because there are terrorists.

The role of Europe

The Netherlands has a special responsibility as one of the creators of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) in 1957. Since then, with every new enlargement of the EU, each new member state hands over its fissile material to the EU. The time has come for this system to enter into practice worldwide through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Finally, there is the role of Europe. The Lisbon Treaty strengthens the role of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. This raises the question whether this high representative could afford not to take a position on nuclear disarmament. This seems inconceivable, given the reality of the United Kingdom and France as nuclear weapon states. But prominent British security policy veterans Douglas Hurd and George Robertson (a former secretary general of Nato) are part of the “Global Zero” movement that has been lobbying for a world without nuclear weapons. And French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Gaullist as he may be, has declared himself in favour of a new multi-polar world and named the former president of Doctors without Borders (MSF) as his minister of foreign affairs. These developments should make it possible for the strengthened high pepresentative to express positions on this matter on behalf of Europe.

The significance of the action of the first ‘Group of Four’ (Kissinger, Nunn, Shultz and Perry) lies in the fact that during the time they held responsibilities inside the government, they used the threat of nuclear weapons as a means to maintain peace. Though it is unusual, we as Dutch 'policy veterans’ consider this to be the right moment to speak out and join our former colleagues in their call for a world without nuclear weapons.