"The existence of nuclear
weapons presents a clear and present danger to life on Earth. Nuclear arms
cannot bolster the security of any nation because they represent a threat to
the security of the human race. These incredibly destructive weapons are an affront
to our common humanity, and the tens of billions of dollars that are dedicated
to their development and maintenance should be used instead to alleviate human
need and suffering."
-- Oscar
Arias Sanchez
The wheels of nuclear disarmament are
turning, albeit slowly, but surely. Fraser et al. argue that “there has never
been a better time to achieve total nuclear disarmament.” Indeed, the push
towards nuclear disarmament is pressing, necessary and increasingly feasible. Two
major events seem to herald promising times ahead for the future of nuclear
disarmament: the election of a US President who has demonstrated a clear
commitment to nuclear weapons abolition and also Iran’s apparent new
readiness to address international concerns about its atomic ambitions. It is hoped that political leaders around the
world capitalize on this opportunity to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
As it stands now, the number of nuclear
warheads globally is about 17, 000 (World Nuclear Stockpile Report, May 2013),
down roughly 75 percent over the last thirty years, mostly because significant
cuts by the US and Russia. However, more than a decade and a half has elapsed
since the Cold War has ended and it is unacceptable that the world’s nuclear
stockpile remains at such an alarmingly high level. Last month, Australia’s
ambassador to the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Christine
Hackl, warned that, “without complete disarmament, we will stand to lose the
fight against proliferation in the long run.”
At the centre of the fight to achieve a
sustainable and effective abolition of nuclear weapons, lies the necessity to
negotiate a “comprehensive, irreversible, binding and verifiable treaty”
(Fraser et al. April 2009), what has been termed a ‘Nuclear Weapons Convention’
(NWC) which would regulate all relevant aspects of nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation. Indeed, in the past, this kind of treaty has been at the
heart of eliminating whole classes of weapons, from chemical and biological
weapons to landmines. While it is true that a number of multilateral treaties
have been established with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation and
testing, the two most important being the ‘Treaty on the Non Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons’ (NPT) and the ‘Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty’ (CTBT),
it is argued that the NWC, whose aim is to prohibit development,
testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use, and threat of use of nuclear
weapons, will be a more effective legislative tool to lead towards a nuclear-free
world. The NWC has the blessings of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, as well
as the firm commitment of two thirds of all governments (indeed, nations that support a
nuclear weapons convention make up approximately 81% of the world’s population,
with the fence-sitters accounting for 5% and the opponents 14%)[1]. It is therefore believed
that the time is ripe to push for the early realization of the NWC so that we
can have an enforceable international legal mechanism to prevent the
development and use of nuclear weapons.
The second
proposed pathway towards a nuclear-free world would involve a serious
commitment by powerful states to work towards nuclear non-proliferation and for
them to cease testing nuclear weapons. It cannot be stressed enough that
despite international outrage which is often expressed towards the practice of
states such as the US, North Korea and Russia to test nuclear weapons, this has
not deterred states from testing their nuclear capabilities. As recently as
last month, the US Air Force tested a
nuclear-capable Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), an
action that prompted the international community to doubt President’s Obama vow
to work towards a nuclear-free world.
Earlier this year, North Korea conducted its third nuclear test at its
underground testing site. Arguably, the practice of testing nuclear weapons is
not only seen as an act of provocation, but also openly and belligerently
defies the CTBT, which is a multilateral treaty, by which
states agree to ban all nuclear explosions in all
environments, for military or civilian purposes. The fact that some states
continue to test nuclear weapons demonstrates that they are not committed to
contribute to a future world devoid of nuclear weapons. The obvious solution
therefore lies in states making a firm pledge to stop the practice of nuclear
weapons testing once and for all.
Another path
worth pursuing in the quest for nuclear disarmament would be the reform of NPT
governance. A number of countries,
including Canada and Ireland have put forward a proposal that would help remediate
some deficiencies of the current non-proliferation/disarmament regime. The step
forward would be scheduling annual meetings of NPT state parties with a
rotating executive “responsible and empowered to assess and take action
regarding non-compliance with non-proliferation and disarmament obligations”[2]
under the NPT framework. Another proposal involves the creation of an Agency or
Council, which would devise clear and effective strategies to help states move
towards the abolition of nuclear weapons or take punitive actions against
non-complying states.
It has also
been suggested that there should be an “authoritative international accounting
of warhead and fissile material stockpiles, nuclear weapons delivery system and
spending on nuclear forces.”[3]
This would help considerably in providing the basis for evaluating progress in
the disarmament process and identifying benchmarks for progress.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon stated in his five-point proposal for disarmament
that nuclear powers should be more proactive in providing the “amount of
information they publish about the size of their arsenals, stocks of fissile
material and specific disarmament achievements.” This indeed would increase
transparency and make states more accountable.
Moreover, it
is strongly advocated that states should pursue the principle of good faith,
which is recognized as an important aspect of international law, when
considering nuclear disarmament. In fact, the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties provides that “pacta sunt
servanda” which means that every treaty is binding upon the parties to it
and it must be performed by them in good faith.[4] Therefore,
all states that have ratified the NPT, should take positive steps towards
ensuring that they are complying with the treaty, and also engage in negotiations
that would create a strict and effective regime for nuclear disarmament.
The future
of nuclear disarmament is not bleak, and with the right amount of commitment
and good faith from nuclear powers, the fight towards a nuclear-free world can surely
be won. However, states should refrain from only paying lip service to nuclear
disarmament and take meaningful and results-orientated steps to be completely
rid of nuclear weapons. Only when the international community demonstrates
genuine willingness to cooperate among themselves and act accordingly, can we
really aspire to a world where we no longer have to live in fear of the threat
of nuclear weapons.
Krishnee
Appadoo, MA Candidate in International Studies and Diplomacy, SOAS
[1] Towards a Treaty banning Nuclear Weapons, ICAN (International
Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons,
[2] The Need for a Coherent Nuclear Non-Proliferation/Disarmament
Regime – 53rd Session of the UN Secretary-General’s Advisory Board
on Disarmament Matters, 26 Feb 2010, UN Headquarters, New York
[3] Ibid
[4] Article 26, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
