ICAN — Can You?
Hiroshima. Nagasaki. The Cold War. Surely those days were over, we thought.
We gathered for a conference in 2013. The Norwegian Government had invited us in to discuss the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons, and delegates from about 200 countries had come to participate.
Nuclear weapons
Just taste the words. Roll them over in your mouth. They remind us of the black-white photos and terrible stories from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And of the “old days” of the Cold War when we were told, and believed, that if we had nukes, no one would attack us with their nukes, because then they would be attacked by our nukes… Surely those days were over, we thought. So what were we going to talk about at the conference?
Humanitarian organisations were clear: there was nothing they could do in terms of rescue work to reduce the impact of nuclear attacks or accidents. Nuclear weapons are designed to destroy cities and kill millions of people. The use of even a small fraction of the existing arsenals, currently more than 15,000 warheads, would disrupt the climate and threaten food production, leading to the starvation of billions of people. Last but not least, they would wipe out hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. It is not possible to protect civilians from such weapons, or to separate between civilian and military targets. Everyone at the conference agreed: nuclear weapons are indiscriminate weapons, whose effects cannot be limited or controlled. And although the facts were presented early and unanimously, it got hammered in, again and again.
ICAN
A now ten-year-old organisation got new energy from this conference and similar conferences held in Mexico and Vienna. They got new energy but also determination: they had to change strategy from the previously existing peace and disarmament organisations; they had to wake people up; change people’s perceptions of the threats and not least get a ban against nuclear weapons. So, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons — ICAN, got going. The facts seemed clear: until nuclear weapons are eradicated, there is a significant risk that one day they will be used, whether by intention or by accident. Academics and politicians alike now agree that the risk over the past years has grown both for nuclear accidents and for the weapons being used in military attacks. Anyone following the US — North Korea exchange over the past months fear exactly that. And what about terrorists getting access to such weapons? Or accidents happening under transport?
Chemical and biological weapons have been banned through legally binding international instruments. We have a Convention banning landmines and we have another one banning cluster bombs. So why not nuclear weapons?
Before the 2013 conference, youth had been standing outside the conference hall, holding posters saying: “Thank you for caring”. Some of us in leading humanitarian organisations were upset that civil society activists didn’t see that country delegates actually did NOT care. But ICAN had decided to concentrate on a new strategy and from their perspective, they were doing the right thing. ICAN was sick and tired of trying to convince nuclear states to disarm. They wanted to focus on building up the stamina, determination and guts of all the other countries, those that had increasingly given up on the nuclear powers. ICAN realised that it was only them, the non-nuclear states, that could provide the leverage to push the nuclear states. Hence the ICAN approach had to be one of convincing through facts, statements, campaigns, protests, charm and mobilisation the non-nuclear states to push the nuclear powers to disarm.
In July 2017 more than 100 countries signed on to the need for a ban in the United Nations General Assembly. Little of this would have been possible or seen the light of day without the engagement of ICAN. A ten-year-old organisation built up as an umbrella for close to 500 member organisations. A campaign more than a structure. And a campaign that from the beginning focused on one simple goal: a ban whilst avoiding the pitfalls that so many similar organisations fall into: discussing other types of weapons or other positions (pro/against NATO, USA vs Russia, etc.)
Once again, as in many previous disarmament initiatives and processes, civil society was an important driving force behind. But much of the similarities stop there: ICAN is youthful. It is creative. Open for many action forms. Focussed on keeping one goal and unity around that one goal. Women feature heavily in the leadership. It is fact-based. It has a goal of changing norms and creating a normative pressure. And it does not exclude having fun whilst doing serious work. It is now a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. And last but not least it believes in something simple: if ICAN can mobilise for nuclear disarmament, so can you.
