Pugwash Is Alive and Well, Thank You

Frank Barnaby’s article “The Pugwash Conference Turns 30” (THE SCIENTIST, June 29, 1987, p. 11)is, on the whole, a fair assessment of the early accomplishments of Pugwash; but it does not do justice to its activities and development during the past decade. For example, Barnaby states that Pugwash “has already begun to fade away, leaving its goal of complete nuclear disarmament still totally unfulfilled.” That goal remains the centerpiece of Pugwash’s hope for overall disarmament and the prevention of armed conflicts—one that is shared by many other organizations and all peace-loving people. But far from “fading away,” Pugwash has in fact accelerated its pace over the past seven or eight years. During this period our annual conferences have drawn between 90 and 225 participants each, and we have held four to six symposia or workshops each year, averaging 30 participants each. (Since Pugwash started in 1957 the total attendance at our meetings has been some 7,000.) The symposia have focused on specific questions such as the Strategic Defense Initiative, Nordic and Balkan nuclear weapon-free zones, and European security. The workshops consist of study groups on topics such as conventional forces or chemical weapons, or on rapidly evolving areas such as moratoriums on underground testing, deep cuts in nuclear arsenals, minimum deterrence, military strategy, accidental nuclear war, and crisis prevention and control. Our meetings are geared not so much to appraise the peril of nuclear war, but rather to serious examination of ways of working out the problems and of overcoming the dangers. These meetings have often provided technical information and assessments that have been useful for official arms negotiators, scientists and the general public. It is worth noting that our workshops on nuclear forces (15 meetings between 1980 and 1987) were regularly attended by Robert S. McNamara, Lord Zuckerman and many other distinguished arms control experts, and by Soviet Col. Gen. Nicolai Chervov and other high-ranking military figures from NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO). Such individuals would not waste their time on uninteresting or nonproductive meetings. In addition, a number of important publications have come out of these meetings, such as the annual Annals of Pugwash (containing selected working papers prepared for Pugwash meetings during the year), monographs on SDI and on nuclear weapon-free zones, the quarterly Pugwash Newsletter, and the Proceedings of the Annual Conferences. Reliable sources within NATO and the WTO have told us that Pugwash meetings and private exchanges arranged by Pugwash have had a direct impact on the policies of some governments, notably with respect to current official discussions of non-provocative defense for the conventional forces stationed in Europe (now accepted by WTO and being discussed by NATO), verification of non-production of chemical weapons in preparation for a treaty banning chemical weapons, unilateral actions (such as nuclear test moratoriums, and governmental declarations of no-first-use of weapons) and deep cuts in nuclear forces. We are thus in the anomalous position of shunning publicity—including our accomplishments—because of the privacy of our meetings, but are called upon to justify our continuing existence to those who, like Barnaby, believe Pugwash may have outlived its usefulness. Finally, Barnaby suggests that Pugwash has failed to recruit young natural scientists into its ranks, and has involved a relatively small number of scientists in its work. There is some truth in what he says, but nowadays it is not easy to draw young scientists who are in the early stages of their careers into making sustained commitments that involve work on technical problems outside their own jobs. There is not in Pugwash the quick and easy emotional satisfaction that can be obtained from occasional expressions of support for mass movements involving single causes, worthy and necessary though they may be. To overcome this imbalance, we are considering measures to include larger numbers of scientists in our conferences and to more actively engage the public. This would be done by opening the annual conferences to all interested scientists and the press, but continuing to keep private the small specialized workshops and symposia. In addition, it is gratifying to note that student Pugwash groups have been established in 10 countries to discuss problems of science and society on university campuses. Pugwash weathers periods in which it is thought to be unnecessary. Usually these are times in which governments are talking to each other and having long, drawn-out arms negotiations, as is now the case with the United States and the Soviet Union and their talks on ICBMs, chemical weapons and reductions in conventional forces. When official relations chill and crises arise, however, the calls upon Pugwash for help increase sharply. The long-range goal of a disarmed world requires a sustained commitment and continuity. To that end, scientists must act in concert to help avoid a nuclear catastrophe and prevent armed conflict. Unfortunately, we have all failed to achieve significant cuts in the nuclear arsenals so far. But perhaps we all can claim some share in the credit due for the non-use of nuclear weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki and for the prevention of nuclear war. If Pugwash ceased to exist, it would have to be reinvented. Kaplan, a microbiologist, has been Secretary-General of Pugwash since 1976. His address is 11A Avenue de La Paix, Geneva 1201, Switzerland.

Pugwash Is Alive and Well, Thank You

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of