Down With the Nuclear Family

Claire Parsons, Print Staff Writer

December 28, 2021

International leadership is a contentious topic at best. In fact, the question of who’s in charge, what exactly they’re in charge of, and under what parameters can they act are little more than vague and abstract ideas. Everyone knows who the leaders are though, of that there is no question. The dominance of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China has lasted since the end of the Second World War. They have built a kingdom in their names with international organizations at their beck and call, laws written by their hands that they remain unbound to. They have power. However, in the past 10 years, it has become clearer to the world that the royal global family of World War II victors no longer deserve the power they quite literally killed for. Instead, the formerly picturesque atomic family of five no longer serves the interests they sought to amplify. As diplomatic standards have changed, it is time for them to be replaced.

It tends to be forgotten how much power the Nuclear Family, as I have come to call them, has. Most know about the Permanent Five members of the United Nations Security Council and even how they have been given the only legitimate nuclear arsenals on Earth. However, there’s so much more power that comes with that kind of distinction, not to mention the amount of power required to get to that status in the first place. An ignorant industrial bliss, before climate change was a true concern, has given these states an advantage, both morally and technologically, that simply cannot be replicated in the modern age. Without knowing the consequences their actions would have, they face no accountability for the carbon emissions made and the ozone destruction done, leaving their consciousness clean but their pasts dirty. These states founded hegemonic international organizations like the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and more with the advantages they received. But, they are failures.

The Nuclear Family has been given a once in a millennia opportunity to lead humanity as a whole towards a safer future. Instead, they have chosen to cower behind exclusive state interest. The rise of protectionism that we have seen post-2008 shows that the Nuclear Family never cared about an “international economy”. Instead, they have been far more willing to leave the European Union, impose tariffs, and maintain isolationist and ‘country-first’ policies. Though, it’s not just the pocketbook that they seek to protect, it is also their global interests. Protectionism has always deliberately harmed states outside of the Nuclear Family, the United States and China in particular are two of the world’s most dominant trading partners and to withhold their ability to trade and impose tariffs on each other and around the globe has done nothing but harm the average person. To the Nuclear Family, the only states that matter are the ones allowed permanently at the UNSC dinner table and any decision they make is to either help or hinder themselves, no matter who else they have invited for the time being to eat with them. 

These states, and their industrialized societies, refuse to take ownership for climate change and toss our ablaze planet around like a childish game of hot potato. The COP 26 conference was a failure no matter how you slice it. The inability of the Glasgow agreement to keep the globe on track for 1.5 degrees of rising temperature or less was expected by activists but still a glaring disappointment. The reason was that major players simply refused to sign on to necessary changes such as deforestation in Brazil, a phase out (not phase down) of coal and fossil fuels, and to phase out oil and gas. States like China and the UK were the reason that this could not be accomplished and without the support of some of those most international players at the table, how was the conference supposed to succeed? I am not saying that diplomacy is easy nor is it meant to be, but for proper diplomacy to happen there needs to be more leadership than the British delegate claiming that “We have kept 1.5 degrees alive. But, its pulse is weak and it will only survive if we keep our promises and translate commitments into rapid action,” 

These states are able to replace governments in virtually any country in the world. The type of states able to gather intelligence without being accused of espionage. States who can lead and wage war in every corner of the globe and yet they remain defeated by the words “phase out coal”. At what point do we realize that the leaders that we hold so high are arrogant and temperamental? Moderation ran out 10 years ago. As we approach the 100 year anniversary of the Second World War, we should ask ourselves whose interests have we really been serving?

But who do we look to instead of this Nuclear Family? I wish the answer were cut and dry, because the system that these states have built will last after their influence and power fades. Institutions like the IMF will still need American approval to reform, all states mentioned have a veto on the United Nations Security Council, all of these states have built alliances and institutions to preserve their power and diplomatic influence. Here’s the truth of it, we can only look to countries who are decent. The Scandinavian states come to mind, with high ranking happiness indexes, low corruption, and high levels of social trust. It seems like a good fit for new ruling leaders, but we have to recall that the standards that we base state success on are built by the Nuclear Family. Though the achievements of states like Sweden and Denmark should not be ignored, the common mentality that there’s this secret northern formula for a perfect society just is not true. Development, guidance, and good politics is not a one size fits all. Who we really need to rely on in the next ten years, as the Nuclear Family battles itself for power, is regular people. Perhaps a bit cliché, but the people who know what’s best for their state, live there. They breathe the air, they work the land, and they know their community. Leadership, when it is described in a managerial way, is not to force all employees into a box and to protect yourself. It is to elevate those around you, protect their interests, and provide the resources required for success. Leadership is not a battle or a scheme, it is an opportunity to give guidance. What we have been given is blockades. In truth, we never had leaders at all. If the past 10 years have shown us anything, we have saboteurs.