In January of 2021, the awesome Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons was adopted by the UN General Assembly by a vote of 122 to 1. Sixty-nine nations refused to vote, including all of the nuclear armed nations and almost all of the “nuclear umbrella” nations that depend on the US and NATO for defense in case of attack.
The TPNW “prohibits the development, testing, production, stockpiling, stationing, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, as well as assistance and encouragement to the prohibited activities.” The prohibition applies only to nations that have ratified the treaty – 66 of them as of September, 2022.
Eighty-nine nations have signed the Treaty, though only sixty-six have ratified it. Signing the Treaty does not legally obligate a nation. The US and other nuclear armed nations could sign the TPNW without disarming. Some actual steps would be expected, though. For the US that could mean adopting a no first use policy. See the list of signatories here.
The nine nations that have nuclear weapons (USA, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea) have a total population of about 3.75 billion, nearly half of the world’s 8 billion. (On a side note, Palestine is a full member of the TPNW.) The 66 TPNW nations together have a population of about 2 billion. The 23 signatory nations who have not ratified have a total population of a little over 1 billion.
At a June 2022 UN sponsored Vienna meeting of representatives from the nations that have ratified the TPNW, a strong four page statement was agreed under the heading “Our Commitment to a World Free of Nuclear Weapons”. The TPNW states are aware of the difficulties they face, but they are determined to pursue their goal. Or perhaps I better say “our goal” because we all need to get behind them. Here is the final paragraph of the June statement:
“We have no illusions about the challenges and obstacles that lie before us in realizing the aims of this Treaty. But we move ahead with optimism and resolve. In the face of the catastrophic risks posed by nuclear weapons and in the interest of the very survival of humanity, we cannot do otherwise. We will take every path that is open to us, and work persistently to open those that are still closed. We will not rest until the last state has joined the Treaty, the last warhead has been dismantled and destroyed and nuclear weapons have been totally eliminated from the Earth.”
When it comes to nuclear weapons, fear plays a huge role. The horrendous damage that a nuclear war will do is imprinted on our subconscious. The blinding flash followed by a mushroom cloud and a rolling tumult that will knock your home or apartment building to pieces – that is the conscious view, so no wonder we turn away from it. One of the difficulties of putting together a nuclear disarmament movement is that the very thought of nuclear war activates the fight-or-flight response and turns off higher levels of consideration. Give up our nukes? No way! Just consider what Putin’s threats have done. Nuclear arms feed on themselves.
Why did the sixty-nine nuclear arms dependent nations refuse to vote rather than voting against the TPNW or officially abstaining? It appears they were sending a message, saying the TPNW is not worthy of consideration, but the actual message their strange refusal sends is that the nuclear arms nations are worried that the TPNW might catch on! Their pretend lack of concern is a positive for the TPNW going forward.
The Vienna Statement calls for implementation of Article VI of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). Here is Article VI of the NPT:
“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
The US, UK, France, Russia and China are full parties to the NPT, so they are derelict when it comes to Article VI. On the legal side it is complicated, but from a common sense point of view, the five nuclear weapons nations that are parties to the NPT are not pursuing negotiations for nuclear disarmament and also not for general and complete disarmament. The Vienna Statement calls for the NPT States to do a lot more:
“We are pleased to have advanced the implementation of the NPT’s Article VI by bringing into force a comprehensive legal prohibition of nuclear weapons, as a necessary and effective measure related to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament. We urge all NPT States Parties to reinvigorate their efforts to fully implement the obligation of Article VI and the actions and commitments agreed at NPT review conferences.”
The NPT was part of a movement for world peace that sprang from the original goals of the UN. Of course there must be general and complete disarmament hand in hand with nuclear disarmament. Why? Because in an us-vs-them world a nuclear armed nation with less conventional arms than its foes have, will not give up its nukes. Is it an us-vs-them world? Yes, the very existence of nuclear arms themselves tells us so. Nuclear arms feed on themselves.
The Vienna statement at one point mentions “the fallacy of nuclear deterrence doctrines”. Nuclear deterrence is based on the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine. If a nation has been destroyed by nuclear attack, but has “second strike” capability, why would it bother to strike back? MAD seeks to assure the world that a nation will strike back even if it has nothing to gain by doing so. “Launch on warning” takes it a step further. There have been several instances where the U.S. and the Soviet Union came close to starting a nuclear war by mistake. President Ronald Reagan famously thought he could recall the missiles after he pushed the button. The Cuban Missile Crisis also shows us that nuclear deterrence can fail. Thank you again, Vasily Arkhipov!
It is true that a nuclear war did not happen during the Cold War, also that a nuclear war has not occurred between India and Pakistan despite the serious dispute over Kashmir. Was that the result of nuclear deterrence as the nuclear armed states would have us believe? Maybe, though we see from Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine that nuclear weapons do not bring peace. Whether deterrence has had any positive effect or not, the fact remains that at the national level, nuclear armed states believe their horrific weapons make them safer, and that without them, even if the whole world gave up their nukes, conventional war would be much more likely, leading to nuclear rearmament and usage. If true, this is an argument why conventional disarmament must go hand-in-hand with nuclear disarmament.
Now that is at the national level, but things are very different at the city level. The cities do not have nukes and they are the target, so of course they are against nuclear arms. The global Mayors for Peace network has 8,200+ member cities and is a great reminder that cities already stand for nuclear and general disarmament. City support for the TPNW is also growing. In the US, Boston, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC and many more cities have appealed to the US government to sign the TPNW - for example, see the Philadelphia Resolution here.
There is an important relationship between nuclear disarmament and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A 2018 article (https://www.icanw.org/tpnw_and_sdgs) details how the use of nuclear weapons will threaten the fulfillment of the SDGs. Well, of course, but there is more to it than that. For one thing, failure of the SDGs will all too likely lead to nuclear war. Failure on climate change alone will have catastrophic effects. On May 26, 2022, the UN warned that “Total Societal Collapse” is becoming a real possibility. Under such conditions international war leading to nuclear war is a real possibility. Most importantly, nuclear weapons create a global climate of fear that underlies an us-vs-them mentality. The truth is that we live in either a win-win world or a lose-lose world, but the nations are too focused on what they think is best for themselves. Yes, they think, we better work on climate change, but if the other nations are not willing to take a hit to their economy, then neither are we. The result is that CO2 and methane and refrigerant gases are not being contained. The SDGs have to be packaged with the original goals of the UN, peace and disarmament.
Optimism and resolve are indeed indispensable. The TPNW and the NPT together are our best route forward for nuclear disarmament, but it is important to realize that a silo based approach that focuses solely on nuclear disarmament is not going to work. We need a broader strategy. I have three suggestions. First, make it not just nuclear disarmament. Adopt all the goals of the UN, including nuclear and general disarmament and the UN Strategic Development Goals. Second, build a global network of cities that are considering adopting all the goals of the UN for local implementation. Third, find or build an online forum designed to bring together supporters of the UN Goals at the city level, nationally, and globally. Voices of Humanity comes to mind!
#The_UN_Goals #nuclear_disarm #apart #peace
