When The World Bans Nuclear Weapons, Will It Matter?
Today is the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. However, in spite of over fifty years of negotiations there are still around 14,000 nuclear weapons in the world.
Update: Article has been updated as of 2 November 2020. The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has reached 50 ratifications. This will mean that it will become international law as of 22 January 2021.
That is why two years ago, on 20 September 2017, the United Nations adopted the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively outlaw these weapons and work towards their total elimination. Citing a lack of progress on meaningful disarmament negotiations and the catastrophic consequences that any use of nuclear weapons would have, the current 79 signatories to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) pledge not only to never produce or acquire nuclear weapons, but also to never allow them within their borders. The treaty is a clear signal to nuclear-armed states to make good on their promises to pursue disarmament, as they have shown a repeated unwillingness to seriously do so. In fact, nuclear weapons are still a significant part of military planning. It’s hard to mistake the infamous U.S. phrase “all options are on the table” (against Iran, against North-Korea, against Venezuela , against Iran again, and that’s sticking to recent examples) as anything but a thinly veiled threat of a nuclear attack, which can’t even be said for President Trump infamously threatening “fire and fury” against North Korea. Without the support of nuclear-armed states, can such a treaty ever succeed?
A short history
A quick recap. In 1968, at the height of the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union drafted the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in order to limit the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. Under the treaty, nuclear-armed states pledge not to transfer nuclear weapons to other states or to induce them to acquire them (Article I). In exchange, the treaty grants all states a equal access to “peaceful nuclear technology”. Crucially, signatories promised 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.” This means that the nuclear-armed states agreed to earnestly negotiate on nuclear disarmament.
The NPT has since been ratified by almost every country in the world, with the notable exceptions of nuclear weapon states India, Israel, Pakistan, and North-Korea (which withdrew in 2003 after relations with the U.S. soured, using the clause in the treaty that allows withdrawal if “extraordinary events […] have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country”).
Although the number of nuclear weapons in the world has decreased significantly since the NPT was first signed, from a peak of around 70,000 in 1986 to about 14,000 today (estimates as of May 2019 by the Federation of American Scientists), most of which are in the hands of the U.S. and Russia, there’s still plenty of them around to ensure the destruction of our civilisation many times over. Furthermore, the United States has a few hundred nuclear weapons stored in Europe, in countries like Belgium, Germany, Holland, Italy, and Turkey. This has been widely known for decades, but only this past summer did NATO acknowledge their existence, by accident. The stationing of these weapons appears to be a direct violation of Article I. According to NATO, however, “stationing of US nuclear weapons on the territories of our Allies is fully consistent with the NPT.” They claim that “these weapons remain under the custody and control of the United States at all times” and that “NATO's nuclear arrangements predate the NPT” and “were fully addressed when the treaty was negotiated.”
According to its text, the 2017 TPNW was born out of a deep concern about “the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons”, “the risks posed by the continued existence of nuclear weapons”, and the fact that “the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons cannot be adequately addressed, transcend national borders, pose grave implications for human survival, the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy, food security and the health of current and future generations, and have a disproportionate impact on women and girls, including as a result of ionizing radiation”.
The treaty and its goals
So how is the TPNW supposed to accomplish its stated goal of achieving “a world free of nuclear weapons, including the irreversible, verifiable and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons”? After all, all states that currently have nuclear weapons within their territories have refused to participate in the treaty, at least so far. Critics of the treaty therefore not only claim that it is useless, but that it also undermines the NPT. This is not true, says PAX, a non-profit Dutch organisation promoting global peace and justice. According to Nuclear Disarmament Programme Manager Susi Snyder, the treaty “complements and reinforces the NPT, filling a legal gap by outlawing nuclear weapons in the same way the international community has banned the other weapons of mass destruction: biological and chemical weapons.” These weapons have been banned under international treaties in 1972 and 1993 respectively. Similar bans have been put in place for land mines (1997) and cluster munitions (2008). Despite the pressures that nuclear weapons states are putting on countries not to join the treaty, she remains confident that the TPNW will enter into force, as it already has a ratification rate that is faster than any other weapons of mass destruction instrument in existence. It currently has about more than half of the required ratifications to enter into international law. An overview of the current positions of the world’s nations can be found here, and the map containing all current signatories and ratifiers which is displayed at the top of this article can be accessed here.
She states that the TPNW is “a powerful tool that codifies an already existing norm against nuclear weapons as well as the taboo against use. The treaty puts pressure on the countries possessing nuclear weapons by building the stigma around them. The treaty has also clarified the debate in stark terms—those willing to commit mass murder and slaughter civilians as part of their national policies, and those who will not.” Snyder sees a ban as a necessary starting point for disarmament to happen. Like in the case of Syria, where the chemical weapons ban helped the international community to quickly respond and have the weapons destroyed.
“A ban does not preclude or prevent bilateral or multilateral agreements to reduce numbers of warheads between nuclear armed states.” she responds when asked about the criticism that such a treaty undermines the NPT. “But a ban can put external pressure on such nuclear-armed states to make further efforts on disarmament. This is particularly important at a time when relations between the major nuclear weapon states are worsening, and their domestic political situation makes any international progress difficult.” With many of the weapons in Europe due to be replaced over the next decade, this appears to be a critical moment for making the case for disarmament. Especially since, according to PAX, the majority of NATO countries do not consider nuclear weapons useful for the alliance.
PAX has been deeply involved in the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) a global campaign coalition which received the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts in getting the TPNW passed. They also investigated the role the private sector plays in producing, maintaining, and transporting nuclear weapons in a recent report. According to their estimates, which they admit are incomplete due to the secrecy involved in nuclear weapons programs, governments are contracting at least 102 billion Euros to private companies in France, India, Italy, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and the United States. In the report, they underline the significance of non-nuclear armed states ratifying the treaty, as that would make transporting nuclear weapons parts or technology more difficult.
The deterrence theory
Lastly, the question of why nations are so interested in having nuclear weapons ought to be addressed. The Cold War, which was used to justify the build-up of nuclear arsenals, is long over. So why do many of the states refusing to adopt the treaty do so because of `security concerns’? A noteworthy example is that of Switzerland, which is now holding off on signing the TPNW after having supported it. Its government states that “in the current international context, [the treaty] entails risks in terms of both the continued advancement of disarmament diplomacy and Switzerland's security policy interests”. This appears to be a clear reference to both the NPT and the fact that nuclear weapons are seen by some nations as integral to their safety. According to ICAN’s 2018 Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor report, thirty-one states “have opted not to develop nuclear weapons themselves, but to rely instead on the possession and potential use of such weapons on their behalf by a nuclear-armed ally”. This is often referred to as a ‘nuclear umbrella’. It is hardly a coincidence that these thirty-one states, most of which are from Europe, together with the nine nuclear-armed states have not yet signed the TPNW.
In the case of countries like North-Korea, though, which was utterly devastated during the Korean War by the United States and its allies, one can hardly blame them for seeing nuclear deterrence as the only way of ensuring their safety. Especially considering the sheer number of threats they’ve received from the U.S. over the years, and the regular military exercises that are conducted near their borders.
The military policy of nuclear-weapons states is often referred to as the ‘deterrence theory’. The general idea is that as long as a country can retaliate to a(n) (nuclear) attack with an equally if not more devastating nuclear attack, no one in their right mind would ever initiate a war. Unfortunately, this theory doesn’t take into account the sheer number of near-incidents and mistakes that have occurred over the years, many of which could have ended in terminal disaster, or the possibility that someone unhinged might decide to put his finger on the button.
Whatever one may think about the merit of national security claims made by countries under a nuclear weapons umbrella, it’s unquestionably reckless to continue to rely on `mutually assured destruction’ as a basis for international diplomacy. The constant risk that nuclear weapons pose to the survival of our species is compounded by the still massive number of nuclear weapons, the risk for errors and machine malfunctions, miscommunications, terrorist attacks, and an increasing number of nuclear-armed states. As new nuclear weapons continue to be developed in all nine nuclear-armed countries and people inside the U.S. government want to make using nuclear weapons easier, the risk of nuclear war and all of its horrific consequences is only increasing. The infamous Doomsday Clock from the bulletin of atomic scientists, which symbolically indicates how close humanity is to wiping itself out, is now at two minutes to midnight, the closest it’s been since the first thermonuclear weapons were tested in 1953. How long can we go on like this? In the words of former head of the US strategic air command General Lee Butler we have so far survived the nuclear weapons era “by some combination of skill, luck, and divine intervention, and I suspect the latter in greatest proportion.”
Note: This post was first published on www.criticalconsent.com.