While we in Cambridge have been enjoying a hard-earned rest, many of the world’s leaders have been very busy over the past few weeks. Barack Obama’s diary has been particularly full: since Varsity closed for Easter, the US President has overseen the publication of the new Nuclear Posture Review, renewed the expired START treaty with Russia and hosted the leaders of 47 countries for the Nuclear Security Summit.

This reinvigoration of negotiations towards nuclear disarmament has been motivated in part by the impending Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT) Review Conference to commence on May 3rd. As a signatory to the NPT and a state in possession of nuclear weapons, the UK has a responsibility to negotiate in good faith toward the goal of nuclear disarmament. In the past decades, the UK’s efforts have been wanting in this regard.

Failure to take the lead in disarmament negotiations is unacceptable, and not just because the UK’s status as a signatory to the NPT obliges it to enter into such discussions. Polls have shown that since the 1950s the majority of Britons have been in favour of multilateral disarmament. Bearing this in mind, the failure of successive governments to negotiate toward multilateral disarmament represents a shirking of representative responsibility.

The present situation represents an historic opportunity to have our voices heard. The changes we have seen in the last few weeks are the visible culmination of several months’ work. Internationally, for the past two years, an organisation called Global Zero has been drawing together world leaders committed to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. Over 200 leaders, as well as almost 350,000 citizens, have now signed the Global Zero declaration.

In the UK, last year saw the formation of the 16-strong Top Level Group of UK Parliamentarians for Multilateral Disarmament and Non Proliferation. This group consists of almost all the former senior ministers of foreign affairs and defence of the last 2 decades and former chiefs of defence who served during the same period. Just last week, 40 former leaders of European countries signed an open letter to the Guardian promoting the cause of multilateral disarmament.

These developments show that change in attitude is possible on nuclear issues, even at the very highest levels. At the moment, though, this change is not filtering through to the level of those who hold most power: the current ministers making decisions on defence spending and policy. With election fever heating up, it is abundantly clear that these are the people who ought to be most alert to public opinion.

Many would not see nuclear disarmament as a voting issue on May 6th. Yet nuclear issues overlap with many of the concerns that the voting public has. Obviously, maintenance of the nuclear arsenal requires significant economic commitment. It is an oft-repeated truth that renewing Trident will be expensive. In the face of the requisite post-election austerity, it is difficult to justify such an outlay. However, this kind of argument could be dangerous, since it may lend weight to the view of nuclear weapons as status symbols, available only to those that can afford them. This is an argument that we must move away from if we are to engage the whole international community. Focusing instead on the waning role of nuclear weapons in national and international security could be one way to do this.

Nuclear issues also relate closely to notions of openness within the democracy and equality beyond it. Calls for a referendum on the future of Trident have been largely ignored and the programme has been excluded from the Strategic Defence Review to be carried out by the next government. On the global stage, the UK’s efforts toward disarmament, and those of other nuclear powers, must seem disappointing at best to non-nuclear states who have consistently upheld their end of the NPT bargain. It is becoming increasingly difficult to justify our maintenance of a nuclear arsenal, even as we deny these weapons to other states.

Finally, failure to secure uranium and plutonium associated with nuclear power plants could lead to a nuclear event at the hands of terrorists. In addition to the immediate negative effects, this may set back efforts on the civil nuclear front. Whether or not we support nuclear energy, this would significantly limit our options in dealing with climate change.

Polls show that public opinion has been behind multilateral disarmament for decades. Those who are behind the cause should take advantage now of the historic opportunity afforded by high-level willingness to move forward on disarmament and non-proliferation. There is much left to be done, but coming together now could make a real difference.