Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

June 2, 2012 |  1 comment |  Print | E-Mail Atlantic Faces  

Jonathan Granoff, Global Security Institute

Jonathan Granoff is currently the president of the Global Security Institute, an international organization dedicated to nuclear disarmament. As a lawyer and international advocate, he has been a vocal opponent of nuclear proliferation, serving on the advisory boards of the NGO Committee on Disarmament at the United Nations and the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy as well as being the UN Representative of the Lawyer's Alliance for World Security.

Mr. Granoff is also the author of over 50 publications on the moral, ethical and legal implications of nuclear weapons. As a peace activist, he has represented the International Peace Bureau at the annual Nobel Peace Laureate Summit since 2002.

1. What are your current priorities in your work as the president of the Global Security Institute?

Convince the governments of nuclear weapons states and nuclear weapons capable states to begin the preliminary process of negotiating a legally enforceable universal non discriminatory ban of nuclear weapons by either a treaty or framework of legal instruments. By such action many threat reducing non proliferation efforts will be enhanced and the political currency of these horrific devices reduced dramatically.

2. Will economic austerity in Europe and the United States have a detrimental effect on global security?

Of course. When people are afraid for their future well being their capacity for thinking in a manner that understands the perspective of those different than themselves diminishes. Fear diminishes compassion. Security enhances human sensitivities toward others and if there is quality needed to advance global security it is trust. The psychological dimensions of economic insecurity are enomously important.

3. What is the greatest challenge to transatlantic security today?

A distorted myopic interpretation of state interest and the pursuit of state security to the detriment of human security. The challenges of protecting the climate, the oceans and the rainsforests require new levels of cooperation and a new attitude toward economic growth that places harmony with the natural world as a critical imperative. This will require changes in our economic theories and must be done globally to succeed. Nationalistic perspectives on these global realities is a challenge we must overcome.

4. What advice would you give to students interested in pursuing a career international relations?

Travel, listen to people different than yourself, and listen with an open heart.

 

 
 
Comments
Bintia Princesse Boure

Wed, Oct 31st 2012, 04:38

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The notion made by Jonathan Granoff that state interest and security often time fall to the dismay of human security is one that I agree with. Unfortunately, state actors generally take the idea of numbers into consideration, putting situations that affect the majority at the forefront. Putting emphasis on "mass" often times these actors sadly forget that the no matter how small in number 3 people, or big in number 3,000,000 people, ALL humans deserve security. This article is indeed helpful in that it does not offer opinion and debate on which state actors should or should not have nuclear weapons, but rather puts forth the conversation on the idea of getting rid of the nuclear weapons altogether. Below are some questions I have about some points in the interview, again thank you for such insight.


Because treaties and agreements can be created and broken, what steps do you urge states to take to give them the necessary trust required so that they all agree to dispose of nuclear weapons? The idea that fear diminishes compassion is put forth in this interview, do you believe that all the state actors of the global sphere's trust can grow so large that it supersedes the fear that they have of other states attacking or invading them? If so, what measures can be taken to ensure that nuclear weapons are not only eliminated by state actors, but are also eliminated from the hands of individuals, I.e terrorists? In addition, if we as states and individuals can ultimately live in peace and fear free, can this correlate to a world free of war?


 

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org


Community

You are in the archive of all articles published on atlantic-community.org from 2007 to 2012. To read the latest articles from our open think tank and network with community members, please go to our new website