Treaty to ban nuclear weapons is all what the world wants, now

Treaty to ban nuclear weapons is all what the world wants, now Yunizar Adiputera  ;   A researcher at the Institute of International Studies, Department of International Relations, Gadjah Mada University, and also partner of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)

JAKARTA POST,  07 Mei 2014

                                                

                                                                                         

                                                      

From April 28 to May 9 state parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) met at the United Nations in New York for the 3rd Preparatory Committee for the NPT Review Conference 2015. Yet little progress has been made with regards to the obligations of nuclear weapons states parties to the treaty — the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China — to disarm their arsenals. Under Article VI of the treaty, nuclear-armed states should “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures in relations to […] nuclear disarmament”. Despite the rhetoric there are still 17,000 nuclear weapons in the world. The reduction of nuclear arsenals by the “Permanent Five” (P5) on the UN Security Council are just about retiring the bloated numbers of warheads from the Cold War, which ended more than two decades ago, not about having good faith to free the world of nuclear weapons. Worse, billions of dollars have been planned to fund the modernization of nuclear arsenals. To quote the UN secretary-general: “The world is over-armed and peace is under-funded.” The Action Plan adopted at the NPT Review Conference 2010 called for the establishment of Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zones. While such zones have been established in most parts of the world, including in Southeast Asia, there have been no indications of the same treaty being established in the Middle East. Another multilateral venue for disarmament affairs is the Conference on Disarmament (CD). Past successes of the CD were the Chemical Weapons Convention, Biological and Toxin Convention and Nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Since the signing of the CTBT, however, there has been no CD progress. Other disarmament initiatives, such as the Anti-Personnel Landmine Convention and the Arms Trade Treaty, had been brought outside the CD process, and proven quite successful, signaling the impotence of the body. Until recently, discussions on nuclear weapons were dominated by the discourse of security or “strategic stability”, which positions nuclear weapons as an enabler of peace. However, the NPT Review Conference 2010 expressed “deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons”. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has also declared that no meaningful response could be made to save lives in the case of nuclear detonation. The humanitarian initiative toward eliminating nuclear weapons took more formal shape through the International Conference on the Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons held in Oslo in March 2013, and continued in Nayarit, Mexico, in February 2014. Experts shared findings on the impact of nuclear weapons such as on the economy, health and the environment. A similar conference is to be held in December in Vienna. The conclusion from all findings about the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons can only point to one thing: that nuclear weapons are illegitimate and must be banned immediately. A group of like-minded states, such as Norway and Mexico, and a large coalition of global civil society within the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), called for a new legally binding treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons. This ban treaty would first serve as an international norm explicitly declaring the illegality of nuclear weapons, which up until now is not present. Even the P5 states and the nuclear umbrella states — states that do not possess nuclear weapons but rely on the deterrence of nuclear weapons from P5, such as NATO, Australia, Japan and Korea — explicitly included nuclear weapons as part of their defense strategy. Second, a ban treaty would pass the leading role to the non-nuclear weapons states. The negotiation, and even adoption, of a ban treaty need not wait for the participation of nuclear-weapon states. A ban treaty is a pragmatic and quicker way to go forward amid deadlock in the machinery of NPT and CD. But what is the point of having a treaty that is not signed by the nuclear-armed states? Isn’t our problem the unwillingness of the nuclear-armed states to disarm? This is a legitimate concern, because the primary objective of this treaty is not so much about the nuclear-armed states as it is about non-nuclear weapons states. But making nuclear weapons illegal is simply the right thing to do, with or without the participation of the nuclear-armed states. After all, states have already committed themselves to prohibiting nuclear weapons through nuclear weapons free zones and legislation criminalizing nuclear weapons. A ban treaty would affirm the established commitment of non-nuclear weapons states. But a ban treaty should be supported because it does impact the current impasse. First, it sets the international norm about the illegality of nuclear weapons. Already nuclear-armed states have expressed fears of a ban treaty through calling it a “distraction” promoted by “radical dreamers”. Second, by positioning nuclear weapons as illegal, a nuclear ban treaty facilitates divestments from the nuclear weapons industry. The campaign has so far pressured investment banks to refrain from investing in the nuclear weapons industry. Third, a ban treaty would be a valuable tool for the public, particularly the nuclear-armed states, to press their government to disarm. In the past, outlawing weapons usually precedes their elimination. Indonesia is the chair of the working group on disarmament of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Due to its size, if NAM were to start negotiations on a treaty banning nuclear weapons (that is, actually start, rather than “call for” or “support”), the game would be changed forever. Sadly, NAM has shown no interest in exploring ban treaty negotiations. This is also partly due to its large membership, including India and Pakistan, who possess nuclear weapons. Such diversity within NAM is probably the main reason why its joint statements have been watered down to accommodate the lowest common denominator. Yet, NAM members are actually intrigued by the idea of a ban treaty. If its mechanism hampers progressive policy in disarmament, then its members, particularly Indonesia, should not shy away from pursuing it outside NAM. Strong national and regional positions can be the place to start, though a ban treaty might not be the panacea for all problems in nuclear disarmament. Amid deadlock in the NPT and CD machinery, a nuclear ban treaty is so far the most significant and feasible step the world can take to realize a world free of nuclear weapons. ●