By Ramesh Jaura
BERLIN | 29 September 2024 (IDN) — Global nuclear disarmament has been the highest arms control priority of the United Nations since 1946 when the General Assembly resolved to establish the Atomic Energy Commission (dissilved in 1952), with a mandate to make specific proposals for the control of nuclear energy and the elimination of atomic weapons and all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction. The United Nations has been at the forefront of many major diplomatic efforts to advance nuclear disarmament since.
In 1959, the General Assembly endorsed the objective of general and complete disarmament. In 1978, the first Special Session of the General Assembly Devoted to Disarmament further recognized that nuclear disarmament should be the priority objective in the field of disarmament. Every United Nations Secretary-General has actively promoted this goal.
Yet today around 12,100 nuclear weapons remain, with over 9,500 in active military stockpiles, are in the possession of nine countries in the world that possess nuclear weapons.
Russia has the most confirmed nuclear weapons, with over 5,500 nuclear warheads. The United States follows behind with 5,044 nuclear weapons, hosted in the US and five other nations: Turkey, Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. Total nuclear warheads owned by these two countries alone counts for nearly 90 per cent of nuclear weapons in the world.
While the number of deployed nuclear weapons has appreciably declined since the height of the Cold War, not one nuclear weapon has been physically destroyed pursuant to a treaty. In addition, no nuclear disarmament negotiations are currently underway. Furthermore, the doctrine of nuclear deterrence persists as an element in the security policies.
The international arms-control framework that contributed to international security since the Cold War, acted as a brake on the use of nuclear weapons and advanced nuclear disarmament, has come under increasing strain.
On 2 August 2019, the United States’ withdrawal spelled the end of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, through which the United States and the Russian Federation had previously committed to eliminating an entire class of nuclear missiles.
Furthermore, the Russian Federation announced on 21 February 2023 that it will suspend its participation in the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (“New START”). The extension of New START until February 2026 had provided an opportunity for the possessors of the two largest nuclear arsenals to agree to further arms control measures.
Frustration has been growing amongst Member States regarding what is perceived as the slow pace of nuclear disarmament. This frustration has been put into sharper focus with growing concerns about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of even a single nuclear weapon, let alone a regional or global nuclear war.
With this is mind, the Nobel Peace laureate ICAN rightly pointed out on 26 September that the total elimination of nuclear weapons was “more urgent than ever”—on that International Day. This year’s event indeed came amid ever-mounting tensions—with dangerously ambiguous changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, the expansion of the conflict in the Middle East, and several nuclear exercises and missile tests—that underscore the current risk we face and shows why it is more urgent than ever to get rid of these weapons once and for all.
Only days after states adopted the Pact for the Future recommitting them all to “make every effort to avert the danger of such a [nuclear] war,” we are already seeing nuclear-armed states and their allies actively undermine those promises, says ICAN.
On 25 September 2024, President Putin publicly announced a long-trailed change to the Russian nuclear doctrine that determines when Russia would use nuclear weapons, expanding it to consider nuclear responses to attacks by non-nuclear powers that have the support of nuclear-armed states (it does not define what constitutes support), and modifying the earlier distinction about only using nuclear weapons if the survival of the state was in jeopardy to responding to a critical threat to its sovereignty.
“But Russia’s nuclear doctrine is not the only point of concern. Israel—another nuclear-armed state— is also actively involved in a conflict that is spreading across the Middle East and risks further escalation.”
Meanwhile, China has carried out its first publicly acknowledged ICBM test in decades, seeming to follow a pattern established by Russia , the US (as well as India, Pakistan and North Korea) in testing nuclear capable missiles in recent months. Also, the French Air Force is running its third nuclear strike exercise this year: POKER, meaning its personnel are practising the use of weapons of mass destruction.
These actions demonstrate why UN Secretary General António Guterres told the participants at the UN General Assembly’s High-Level Week: “Not since the worst days of the cold war has the spectre of nuclear weapons cast such a dark shadow. Nuclear sabre-rattling has reached a fever pitch. We have even heard threats to use a nuclear weapon.” This is while established norms over the spread of nuclear weapons are being eroded, he added.
These States “must stop gambling with humanity’s future,” the Secretary-General urged. They must honour their commitments, meet their disarmament obligations, and demonstrate the utmost transparency.
He called on the Russian Federation and the United States to return to the process of nuclear arms reductions, with other nuclear-weapon States following in due course.
“Disarmament and non-proliferation are two sides of the same coin. Progress in one spurs progress in the other.” He emphasized that the recently held Summit of the Future and the resulting Pact for the Future produced a new global commitment to revitalize the global disarmament regime. For the good of future generations, he said: “The time for the total elimination of nuclear weapons is now.”
Similarly, the President of the General Assembly, Philémon Yang (Cameroon), warned about the escalation of nuclear tension: “This is a time when nuclear blackmail has emerged, and some are recklessly threatening to unleash a nuclear catastrophe.”
States are advancing their technology and reports say some may soon seek to increase their nuclear stockpiles. A growing nexus is being observed between nuclear weapons and outer and cyberspace, with technology such as artificial intelligence, multiplying the dangers.
The disarmament and non-proliferation regimes are being eroded, he said, and the disarmament forums are increasingly becoming venues for recriminations and consensus-breaking. “This simply cannot continue. We must step back from the nuclear precipice, and we must act now.” He called for States to resume dialogue, fully commit to preventing any testing and use of a nuclear weapon and accede to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, [which entered into force in 2021].
Speakers joining the discussion highlighted: Current conflicts heighten risk of nuclear action; Past examples show the dangers; States must uphold treaties. There are ways to make progress-
UN mdia coverage of the General Assembly on 26 September points out that in the day-long discussion, nearly 90 speakers took the floor, with several highlighting areas around the world where tensions are raising fears of nuclear action.
Namibia said the crisis in Gaza, and fallout regionally and beyond, “underscores the urgency to establish a Middle East Nuclear Free Zone”. Several speakers urged Israel, the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the region, to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), with Uganda’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, speaking for the Non-Aligned Movement, voicing concern over Israel’s threats of firing nuclear weapons on Gaza and against Iran.
Furthermore, Japan’s representative highlighted other “imminent issues” that need to be addressed: The Russian Federation’s threat of nuclear weapons use; the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear development, missile activities and relationship with the Russian Federation; and Iran’s nuclear programme. “As the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings, Japan considers it our mission to convey the realities of nuclear weapons use to the world,” he said.
The representative of the United States said her country reduced “the number of our nuclear weapons dramatically because we understood the stakes”. She added that now “these achievements are at risk as some turn away from the tools that have held back the possibility of nuclear war”, including withdrawing from agreements and engaging in nuclear rhetoric.
“The slender thread holding back nuclear catastrophe is fraying.” In that light, her country recognizes the right to maintain a safe nuclear deterrent, which it extends to allies so that they do not need nuclear weapons themselves. It will engage with the Russian Federation and China on ways to reduce nuclear risk but needs each to also demonstrate a will to engage, she said.
Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs said that, despite international Treaties, nuclear-weapon States “intend to rely on large modernized nuclear forces as a central component of their security postures for decades to come”.
He added that nuclear-weapon States particularly those within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) “increasingly apply NPT rules in a discriminatory manner” and “have adopted policies on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation that serve their own narrow interests ultimately undermining common security”.
The Russian Federation and the United States—which have the largest nuclear arsenals—should fulfil their responsibilities for disarmament, China’s delegate said. His country will keep working with the other “P5” nuclear-weapon States to reduce nuclear risks, will not use or threaten to use such arms against non-nuclear-weapon States and commits to work tirelessly to promote nuclear disarmament.
“The danger of nuclear war is today closer than it has been since the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Pakistan’s diplomat said. Over two decades ago, his country proposed several initiatives to prevent the emergence of nuclear weapons in South-East Asia, he said, adding: “Unfortunately, none of our proposals received a positive response.” His country was compelled to deter the aggression it was threatened with by its neighbour’s “nuclear weapons explosion” in1998.
“India is a responsible nuclear-weapon State,” said its Vice Minister, emphasizing that it is committed to maintaining credible minimum deterrence with the posture of no-first-use and non-use against non-nuclear-weapon State. He then urged the immediate commencement of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a fissile material cutoff treaty.
The representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies said urgent action is required to prevent the risk of deliberate or accidental use of nuclear weapons. “Amid rising global tensions, the modernization of nuclear arsenals and enhanced deterrence doctrines, nuclear risk reduction measures are more important than ever,” she said.
Speakers also presented warnings over the real impacts of nuclear weapons activities, urged commitment to treaties and asserted that elimination is possible.
The President of the Marshall Islands highlighted that, from 1946 to 1958, her country was subjected to 67 known atmospheric nuclear and thermonuclear weapons tests, poisoning its environment and devastating its people’s health. “The equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima shots, every day, for 12 years.” There has been no apology. “No other people should ever bear the burdens of nuclear weapons detonations.” Yet, this is under grave threat. Her country’s warnings “seem again unheard by those with their finger on the button”
Likewise, the representative of the Solomon Islands said: “We in the Pacific put a human face to the agony of nuclear weapons.”
“Sadly, external Powers continue to store and dump nuclear waste into our ocean,” he added. Two days ago, his country signed and ratified the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Kazakhstan’s delegate said his country is advocating for stronger international assistance to victims of nuclear testing.
The representative of Nepal stressed that total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only guarantee against the use or threat of use of such arms; nuclear deterrence is neither acceptable nor legitimate. Echoing that view, Austria’s delegate said the world has relied on the arguably shaky assumptions of nuclear deterrence for far too long. “Recent research has shown that the consequences of a nuclear-weapon detonation would be even more severe than previously feared,” he reported, calling for deepened dialogue between policymakers and the global scientific community on this.
It was a view supported by the representative of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, who said: “The humanitarian and environmental impact of nuclear weapons are not theoretical; they are real, devastating and unforgiving and they must be central to all discussions involving these inhumane weapons.” “A single nuclear explosion over any major city would kill tens if not hundreds of thousands of civilians, inflict complex and life-threatening injuries on many more, decimate infrastructure and disburse lethal doses of radioactive material into the atmosphere,” she said, warning: “A nuclear war would end life as we know it.”
“Total elimination is a challenge”
“Total elimination is a challenge”, the President of Fiji said regrettably. All States should commit to their obligations under the nuclear instruments and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The representative of Iraq emphasized that there needs to be new negotiations for a legally binding instrument guaranteeing the non-use or non-threat of use of such weapons by nuclear States.
Ecuador’s representative underlined that the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) needs to promptly come into force. A nuclear-weapons-free world is impossible “as long as it is possible to conduct nuclear tests”, he emphasized.
Some delegates noted past successes, including Libya’s, who recalled that, in 2003, his country decided to relinquish its nuclear weapons programme, adding: “These are weapons of destruction that have no constructive value.” The success of the UN Conference on Establishing a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Middle East Zone could be “a true success for the international community”, Egypt’s representative said.
“It is well known that the countries of our region do not have nuclear weapons,” said the representative of Honduras, speaking for the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). They assumed their “historic commitment” when the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, or the Treaty of Tlateloco, was opened for signature in 1967—“a commitment that we met rigorously,” he added. [IDN-InDepthNews]
