Power & Security, The Global Cable, Technology Banning the Bomb with Beatrice Fihn

Our latest episode of The Global Cable features our Distinguished Visiting Fellow Beatrice Fihn. Fihn leads the International Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). In 2017, she received the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of ICAN, recognizing its work towards the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. 
 
Fihn talks about whether it's more naive to work for a ban on nuclear weapons or live in a world with thousands of them; why governments don't always want the public to engage with national security issues; and how we've so far avoided a nuclear war not by good judgment, but by dumb luck.

Transcript 

Beatrice Fihn [00:00:08] We can't keep wishing and just hoping that we will be lucky forever -  at some point, our luck will run out. I mean, we've seen even during the Cold War, when we didn't have this, that we were very close to mistakes and accidents. And eventually, just mathematically, they will be used. If we keep nuclear weapons forever, they will be used.

John Gans [00:00:35] Welcome to The Global Cable, a podcast from Perry World House at the University of Pennsylvania, where we discuss the world's most pressing issues with the people who work on them. I'm John Gans, director of communications and research here. Today we speak with Beatrice Fihn. Fihn leads the International Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons, or ICAN. In 2017, Fihn accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of ICAN, which recognized the organization's work on behalf of the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. In today's episode, Fihn discusses what the differences are between nuclear weapons and landmines; whether it's more naïve to work for a ban on nuclear weapons or to live in a world with thousands of them; and how we've avoided a nuclear war not by good judgment, but dumb luck. Beatrice Fihn, welcome to The Global Cable.

John Gans [00:01:25] Welcome to The Global Cable, Beatrice. The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was signed just over two years ago, something your organization worked on and won the Nobel Prize for. So can you tell us a little bit about how you worked to negotiate the agreement and what your ambitions are for its future?

Beatrice Fihn [00:01:45] Yeah. Well, thank you for having me here. I mean, we have a very diverse campaign. We have over 500 organizations that are members of the coalition and everyone plays a different role in the campaign. But we have this one goal to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons. So we work very closely with a group of very supportive governments, kind of a core group of six, seven governments that around the time of Obama's Prague speech were saying, OK, let's make a big push for something on nuclear weapons. This is the time! It was the good days, you know, and everything seemed fine and possible. So the idea was very inspired by the campaigns and the processes to ban landmines and cluster munitions. And some of the people involved, both on the government's side and on our side, were the people who'd been in one of those processes. So, you know, we've we've done this twice before. Why not try it again with nuclear weapons? And the idea was that you can start with a group, a small group of supporter countries and build upwards from that. You don't have to wait for the nuclear armed states to move first.

Beatrice Fihn [00:02:54] You move first yourself, and then bring more people onboard. So really that was the strategy that was behind it. ICAN mobilized around the world. We tried to really make an effort to reach civil society organizations in other parts of the world that hadn't previously been so involved in the nuclear weapons issue - particularly Africa, Latin America, Asia. It's been a very Western issue, nuclear weapons. So trying to reach out from the Cold War peace movement, that was mainly Europe and North America, to much more of a global coalition. So we worked with governments to get them to support a treaty. There's this idea of banning nuclear weapons modelled after the landmines and cluster weapons, but also chemical and biological weapons campaigns. And to do the same thing for nuclear weapons. Lots of efforts to convince governments to rally people on a national level in capitals. And when we finally got the mandate to negotiate with the governments to vote in the UN and the General Assembly, to start negotiations, then of course, the focus was on getting the best text. Legal advice to governments, trying to argue that they need to include victims and survivors into these perspectives.

[00:04:16] You need to have a gender perspective on these things and you know, the different parts of the treaty. And now we're here, we have the treaty. It opened for signatures in September 2017. We so far have 80 countries that have signed and 34 that have ratified - so, adopting the national legislation for that. And when we get to 50 ratifications, it will enter into force. And we're hoping for that to happen by the end of this year.

John Gans [00:04:39] Excellent. So if I can ask a little technical question. It would seem that landmines are very different in some ways, in terms of both how people think about them, how the politics of this play, right, in terms of poor countries or developing countries that maybe have more experience with landmines than they do with nuclear weapons. What is the difference between trying to end and ban landmines, how have you learned from that experience and what are the differences in terms of trying to ban nuclear weapons?

Beatrice Fihn [00:05:06] Well, I think that touches upon one of the problems with nuclear weapons is that we've kind of separated it into its own magic bubble where they have all these characteristics that we attribute to them. They just keep peace or they have strategic value, and it's just a bomb. I mean, it's a very big bomb, a very destructive bomb, but it's just a weapon. And people make weapons and they can take them apart and we can use them or not use them. But we kind of made nuclear weapons into something mythical, almost. And people just believe it, like in a religion, you just have this faith in deterrence. So, of course, there are differences, but those differences are mainly, I think, not so much practical and concrete, but more the way we perceive these weapons and the kind of power we attribute to them. But that can be changed. And I think that's why in a way, this work that we're doing to stigmatize nuclear weapons and delegitimize them in people's minds, it's actually really effective. Because this kind of weapon exists in reality, of course. But it's also a lot of theories and ideas and feelings around it, that control how we act with this weapon. So a normative treaty that changes how people see the weapon is actually quite a powerful instrument when it comes to nuclear weapons. If people don't believe that they are valuable and magic and, you know, awesome and fantastic and create power, then what they really are is a giant radioactive bomb on your own territory. It's just a big risk.

John Gans [00:06:40] I just love that you call it magic. So I'm thinking about all those hardcore realists who are writing about nuclear weapons back in their 40s and 50s and wonder, there is a big question then about, the army was like, it's just a bomb, give us the bomb. We make the decisions about the bomb. And there was an effort to pull it away. And one of the things that was, was to create this magical belief that they were somehow different.

Beatrice Fihn [00:07:02] So what we're trying to do is kind of draw it back into reality. And the humanitarian focus that we've had, it's been very practical. This is not about theories that you study at university. This is about what actually happens when you use them and what the impacts are for people on the ground. Instead of focusing maybe on, again, the strategic stability they can debate endlessly, we focus on the response capacity. What do the firefighters say about this, how would they react to this? How would the hospitals? Doctors? This is what actually happens in the real world. So we're trying to also reclaim who is a realist and who isn't.

John Gans [00:07:46] Yes, it's similar to the landmine stuff, which was like about showing their impact on people every day.

Beatrice Fihn [00:07:51] Exactly.

John Gans [00:07:54] Recently, just in the past couple weeks, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which is well-known in the United States and around the world, announced that its Doomsday Clock, which tracks risk from nuclear and other catastrophes, is now the closest to midnight it's been since 1953. So another thing that we can point to is, we're living in exciting times! So how do you compare today's risks of nuclear catastrophe with those of the Cold War, and how do emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and other things increase the risk or decrease it?

Beatrice Fihn [00:08:30] Well, I think that, of course, I mean, we've been very close to nuclear war in the past. You know, not just to mention the Cuban Missile Crisis, of course, but also accidents, misunderstandings, miscalculations. We've had a lot of research done. Some like William Perry, for example, who has talked about it himself and his experience, the phone calls in the middle of the night. We have Stanislav Petrov, the man who saved the world, in the Soviet Union in the '80s, who stopped them from retaliating to a false alarm.

John Gans [00:09:00] Was that '83?

Beatrice Fihn [00:09:01] '83. Yeah. So we've obviously been close in the past, but I think that the world has quite drastically shifted since the end of the Cold War. We don't have these two blocks anymore. We have more nuclear armed states since the end of the Cold War, so we also have India and Pakistan and North Korea, of course, Much more regional dynamics - the international system is messier, maybe you can say, less predictable. The nature of warfare is also changing. So I think it's really just much more unpredictable today. And if you add then the emerging technologies that are coming in, how the military is changing, and technology has always changed the military. I think that's just the way it is when we have new technology. But what we're seeing as a real danger, and are starting to talk to tech companies and other technology experts about, is how that will change the nature of warfare. Again, with cyberattacks, you can take out a control system, you can attack nuclear weapons command systems, for example. But also how it would change the perception of what is an attack and how attacks are carried out, for example, with all the automation that will speed up decision making. Also, it just includes a lot more risks and some risks that we haven't even thought about yet.

John Gans [00:10:42] When I was working in the Defense Department, I was writing a speech about Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Jimmy Carter's national security advisor. And he tells a story about one time he was woken up at like 3:00 AM and was told, hey, the Soviets have launched an attack. You need to tell us whether we get the bombers in the air. And he said, get the bombers in the air. And he just sat there waiting for it all to end, because he figured Washington would be hit and it'd be over. He kind of knew what was going to happen. He sat there and three minutes later they called back, said, oh, we made a mistake. And he just  said, well, call the bombers back. And you realize that the speed of this doesn't help us make better determinations or better decisions..

Beatrice Fihn [00:11:21] You know, you have automation bias, of course, that you maybe trust the data more when things are automated. You also have an extremely stressful situation and then you add on, also, manipulation of data, manipulation of social media. For example, what is actually real? Is there an attack? We don't know.  And then you consider who the people in charge of these decisions are these days. It's a little bit unsettling. And we can't keep, you know, wishing and just hoping that we will be lucky forever. At some point, our luck will run out. I mean, we've seen even during the Cold War when we didn't have this, that we were very close to mistakes and accidents.

[00:12:07] And eventually our luck will run out, just mathematically, they will be used. So if we keep nuclear weapons forever, they will be used and we are not prepared for that, to handle the consequences.

John Gans [00:12:17] Well, one of the reasons that I think the Doomsday Clock changed is the return, as we call it in the United States, in policy circles, of great power competition. Where nuclear armed countries are agitating and pushing more for their own interests and cooperating a little bit less at that at the top of the international balance of power. What do you make of the return of great power competition? And does it necessarily have to be nuclear, or is that inherent in it?

Beatrice Fihn [00:12:48] I don't think it has to be nuclear. I mean, nothing has to be anything. And I think that sometimes, you know, when we're in the middle of a situation, it's very hard to get a historical perspective on these things. But the fact is that we have given up weapons before, different types of weapons that just don't seem relevant anymore.

[00:13:09] Chemical weapons, biological weapons. These were all weapons that people argued, even the military argued that they were really useful at some point, and then they weren't, because we changed our mind. We've also changed, the way the world looks is very different than 1945, when nuclear weapons were used in warfare. That way of wiping out a whole city is perhaps not the most relevant military strategy today, even if you were in war. And I think that, you know, of course, we're seeing this surge of nationalism and macho man leaders. You know, "look at my weapons, I'm very strong and powerful." But I do think, of course, that diplomacy, multilateralism, cooperation is still extremely valuable for most governments and is a way to achieve your objectives on the international arena. We are also extremely distracted by a few countries at the moment. I mean, people talk about nuclear weapons being impossible to get rid of. It's only nine countries that have them. The vast majority of countries in the world do not want nuclear weapons, do not believe that they add value to your own security. And it's not like these countries don't have security threats, and they definitely don't have the same amount of conventional power as the United States have. But yet, still, most countries in the world don't think that this is a useful weapon to have. And we kind of forget that sometimes, and only focus on these nine countries, and see them as the only relevant actors. And this is also what we're trying to do with the treaty, that we shift the perception of who is a legitimate actor, and who we need to listen to and look at. For example, in particularly countries in other parts of the world and countries that have experienced the impact of nuclear weapons - you see Pakistan, the Marshall Islands, Algeria, for example, these countries that know the impact of nuclear testing, and their perspective, and know that this is actually harming our countries, not protecting them.

John Gans [00:15:10] No, it's fascinating. I mean, Ukraine's an interesting example of a huge nuclear history that's kind of fascinating. You know, there's actually, I think, probably more countries that have thought about getting nuclear weapons and not gotten them and not pursued it, and chose against it because of security considerations, economic considerations, political, moral considerations along the way over the past 50, 60 years than have pursued them.

Beatrice Fihn [00:15:32] . And that's a good thing. I mean, it's very easy when you're trying to convince people to act to focus on all the bad things, thinking that if people just realize how bad things are, then they will act. But that's not always how people work. And I think it's important to remind people that, you know, most countries haven't developed these. But most countries have the capacity. You talk a lot about, "well, you can't put the genie back in the bottle, the technology's there." Yeah, everyone can develop lethal weapons if they want to. I mean, if North Korea, one of the most poorest countries in the world, manages to develop nuclear weapons, then it's not a technical barrier. It's legal, but it's also normative, and moral, and ethical in some cases.

John Gans [00:16:15] So this is, I guess, to continue the conversation, but a handful, I guess two handfuls of countries have nuclear weapons. And you guys were established around 2007. And, you know, there's still thirteen, fourteen thousand nuclear weapons in the world. Right? In some ways, that's an attainable goal, but it's still kind of a a big one. So how do you keep perspective and how do you stay positive and how do you think about that as a target of opportunity and, you know, sort of a big mountain to climb?

Beatrice Fihn [00:16:48] Well, I mean, it's definite that nuclear disarmament or like zero nuclear weapons global zero, it's a long term goal. You know, we banned chemical weapons in the '90s. There's still chemical weapons around. And even when, for example, the United States and Russia joined the treaties and committed to getting rid of their chemical weapons arsenals, it's taken a long time. I'm not sure even if the U.S. Is finished with this stockpile destruction. I know Russia just announced that they were finished. But 20 years and still some way to go. So even if they decide today to get rid of all nuclear weapons, it will still be a very long process of dismantling them. But I think that we also shouldn't focus too much on the number zero.

[00:17:32] I think that we need to focus also on what's acceptable and not acceptable, and actually, the ban is a way to start the process towards going to zero.

[00:17:45] We need to kind of create this sense that it is unacceptable to have these weapons, it's unacceptable to use them. Threatening to mass murder civilians is not something that governments should be proud and bragging about doing. So really, we're trying to rally governments to support the treaty and build from there. I think it's also important to remember how many other actors, it's not just these nine governments that are the problem. It's, for example, the companies. There are 35 companies that participate in making nuclear weapons for these governments. They're a problem. They need to stop doing that. And then you have all the nuclear allied countries that might not have their own nuclear weapons, but their military participate in exercises, and targeting, and would be, in a war scenario, participating in using these weapons. And they are also a part of the problem and are insulated by nuclear armed states from pressure to get rid of them. So that's obviously also an intermediate step for us -picking off some of the NATO countries, for example, to get them to say, actually, we don't want to be a part of using weapons of mass destruction. And that is the more immediate goal for us, to get to the governments that are allies of nuclear armed states and collaborate, but just do not want to participate in these things.

John Gans [00:19:09] That's fascinating. Well it's interesting, you talked a little bit about how the norm on nuclear weapons has evolved, right. Going from being just a bomb to being something more than a bomb. Magical, as you called it.

John Gans [00:19:22] And it sounds as though you're trying to shift the norm again. So I think we talk a little bit, and we hear a lot about, whether you're in an academic class on international relations theory or, you know, reading the op-ed page about the latest sort of confrontation with Iran or North Korea. We hear a lot about the difference in the world as it is, and the world as it should be. Do you think it's more irrational to propose an end to nuclear weapons, or more irrational to live in a world, comfortably, that's armed by them?

Beatrice Fihn [00:19:52] I would say that it's naive to think that we can keep nuclear weapons, threaten to use them, build them up, modernize them and exercise with them, but never use them. I mean, at some point someone's going to use them. So we know what happens then and we know exactly what happened in 1945, when that was happening, and it's gonna get worse because the bombs are bigger. The cities look different. They're more densely populated. And the global impact of that will be catastrophic. So basically it's more a "when" this is going to happen. And isn't it naive and unrealistic to just wait for that, even though we know that we can do something about it?

John Gans [00:20:39] Well, almost three hundred years ago, one of Penn's first trustees, Ben Franklin, who knew a thing or two about power, both in terms of its use, and in terms of international politics as well as international negotiations, developed a questionnaire he used for conversations among his fellow Philadelphians interested in current and global affairs.

[00:21:00] We've updated it for today and for our podcast. And so here are a few short questions that can have short answers or long answers, depending on how many people you want to meet. So who would you most like to meet in the world today and why?

Beatrice Fihn [00:21:14] I mean, honestly, I would like to meet Obama because I think that I would like to talk to him a little bit about the Prague speech, and the vision that he had, and what happened. I think that today, it's very easy for people to think that if we just picked the right leader, things will magically work out and they will fix their problems. I think that his presidency -  when it comes to nuclear weapons - was a sign that that's not how things work. Even the most ambitious politician - I think that he genuinely wanted to do something about nuclear weapons and did do some things, but then also had to engage in a huge modernization program and was not able to break that reliance on nuclear weapons and that idea that these keep us safe.

 [00:22:03] So I would like to talk a little bit to him actually, about what happened, and what were the obstacles, and what is actually needed to break them.

John Gans [00:22:16] Well, President Obama, when you hear this...

Beatrice Fihn [00:22:18] Call me!

John Gans [00:22:19] Send us an e-mail, Beatrice is waiting. So have you recently read anything, books, articles, seen a movie or documentary, or listened to anything related to world affairs that our podcast listeners might be interested in?

Beatrice Fihn [00:22:34] Well, I was actually watching this movie Vice about Dick Cheney. And it's quite depressing -  you have all these people who are plotting things. And, you know, it is just also for me who didn't follow American politics at that time so much...This scene where Anthony Scalia is a legal expert and then suddenly he's on the Supreme Court. I think that, you know, gosh, they really thought about all these things. But there was one scene there, and it's when all of their plans were interrupted because Carter won.

[00:23:09] And it's also this thing where they keep fighting against public opinion, and they try to manipulate public opinion. And it also shows where these people are vulnerable. It's the public. And there's a constant trying to keep issues away from the public, or manipulating how to how it's seen, and trying to change things. And for me, that was actually quite encouraging, because you can see where the people in power - who are trying to prevent progress from happening -where their Achilles heel is. And it's an engaged public that, shows up and votes, that engages, that protests. All of those things. So for me, that was aside from being a bit depressing, the movie, it was also kind of encouraging because you can see what what they can't fight against. They can't fight against the public.

John Gans [00:23:59] Do you know of any individual in the United States or elsewhere who's done something recently that deserves praise or attention? Somebody you think should be celebrated?

Beatrice Fihn [00:24:09] Absolutely. I mean, civil society activists right now - all across the world and in particular in the United States - I think are really rallying. And I think that these last few years, people have really stepped up their civic engagement. And I think people have, there's been a lot of talk about, you have to show up and vote, registering voters, which is, of course, good. But people are also discovering that democracy is so much more than just voting. It's also engaging on a local level, engaging with business communities, trying to figure out everywhere where decisions are being made, and trying to influence it, and have these kind of conversations. So we've seen a lot of activism. We have a really great group of activists right now in ICAN that works on cities.

Beatrice Fihn [00:24:53] And today, actually, the New York City Council is holding a hearing for a motion that they have pushed to support the Treaty, that New York City will support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and urged the city's public pension fund to divest from nuclear weapons producing companies. And they have managed to - it's a group of four or five people who've been working on this - and they managed to get a super majority of the city council to co-sponsor it. So it's definitely going to pass. Don't know exactly when, they need to vote sometime, in a couple weeks. So, yeah, today I would like to really celebrate these kind of activists that very rarely get headlines or coverage, but are doing this tireless work in pushing small things forward.

John Gans [00:25:40] Well, I mean, Perry World House has done a lot of cities, including on cities in an era of great power competition which is interesting. But I remember, after 9/11, that New York always had to think about nuclear weapons because we just always assumed they would be a target. They would be first on the list, right, or second, when somebody was trying to strike the United States. And so it was interesting after 9/11, how many people went back to those examples about how New York is a target and they had to think about foreign policy in a very different way.

Beatrice Fihn [00:26:10] Absolutely. And I think that that when, for example, Donald Trump makes threats to use nuclear weapons on Twitter, I think people in New York have to think about - does that increase the threat level to our city, for example? Are there countries on the other side of the world now plotting like, "OK, so should we target here? Should we target there?" I mean, is the awareness level that rising in other countries? It has a really dark impact.

John Gans [00:26:37] All right. So last question, is there anything - and I know you're spending a great week here at Perry World House meeting with students -  is there anything in particular right now that Penn and Penn students can do to be of service to the world?

Beatrice Fihn [00:26:50] Yes, I think we need to remember that the military, the politicians, they all work for us. They're supposed to protect us. And we have to be very vocal about what our priorities are, what we want them to do, or we want them to prioritize. I feel a lot that foreign policy and security issues are being moved away from public attention. And it's sort of..."It's state security, don't bother. It's only for the experts. It's not for the public." And I think that's wrong. I think that it's really about protecting us, and our future, in a way. So I think people have to draw connections between foreign policy, and security policy, and domestic politics, and try to make sure that we continuously ask questions to our leaders, and challenge them.

John Gans [00:27:51] That sounds good. Well, thank you for challenging us, Beatrice, and thank you for joining us on The Global Cable.

Beatrice Fihn [00:27:56] Thank you very much.