By Katsuhiro Asagiri
TOKYO, Japan, Apr 7 2026 (IPS)

As tensions surrounding Iran deepen and uncertainty spreads across global energy markets, Japan is once again confronting a structural weakness: its heavy dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

For decades, Japan has relied on crude imports from a region repeatedly shaken by war, confrontation and instability. With the stability of the Strait of Hormuz and surrounding waters once again under threat, Tokyo is accelerating efforts to diversify both supply sources and transport routes. In that process, Kazakhstan has emerged as an increasingly important partner.

Yet the strengthening relationship between Japan and Kazakhstan is not limited to oil, uranium or logistics. It also has a deeper historical and ethical dimension. Both countries carry the memory of nuclear suffering and have sought to transform that memory into a foundation for dialogue, cooperation and advocacy for peace.

Central Asia plus Japan Dialogue” (CA+JAD) Credit: Primi Minister’s Office of Japan

That framework has since taken on even greater urgency.

One important element is the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, the so-called Middle Corridor. Connecting Central Asia and Europe without passing through Russia, this route has drawn attention as a new transport channel for energy and strategic goods. In an era shaped by war, sanctions, shipping disruptions and intensifying rivalry among major powers, such corridors have become increasingly important for Japan.

Kazakhstan stands at the center of this calculation.

Middle Corridor. Credit: TITR

Japanese energy interests are already present in the Caspian region. INPEX, a Japanese company, holds stakes in major oil projects including Kazakhstan’s Kashagan field and Azerbaijan’s ACG field. Crude from these fields could serve as an alternative supply source to Middle Eastern oil for Japan. In addition, routes through the Caspian and Mediterranean can avoid the Strait of Hormuz, although that means longer transport times and higher shipping costs.

Karipbek Kuyukov(2nd from left) and Dmitriy Vesselov(2nd from right). Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

Even so, energy alone cannot fully explain the distinctiveness of Japan-Kazakhstan ties.

What gives this relationship unusual depth is their shared historical experience of nuclear suffering. Kazakhstan endured the grave consequences of 456 nuclear tests conducted at the Semipalatinsk test site during the Soviet era. Japan remains the only country ever attacked with atomic bombs in wartime, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki continue to stand as enduring symbols of the catastrophic human cost of nuclear weapons.

The two histories are different. But the ethical language that emerged from them has much in common.

The remains of the Prefectural Industry Promotion Building, after the dropping of the atomic bomb, in Hiroshima, Japan. This site was later preserved as a monument. Credit: UN Photo/DB

What matters here is the “dialogue” dimension of Kazakhstan’s diplomacy.

A Group photo of participants of the regional conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and nuclear-free-zone in Central Asia held on August 29, 2023. Credit: Jibek Joly TV Channel

Through the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions, held in Astana since 2003, Kazakhstan has sought to position itself not merely as a supplier of resources or a transit country, but as a hub for dialogue across political, religious and civilizational divides. This initiative has become part of the country’s diplomatic identity, grounded in denuclearization, mediation and coexistence.

For Japan, this adds another layer to Kazakhstan’s significance. Kazakhstan is not only a country with oil, uranium and transport routes. It is also a state that has sought to transform its own history of suffering into diplomacy centered on peace, trust and human security.

7th Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions Group Photo by Secretariate of the 7th Congress

This approach resonates with the realities of today’s world, where multiple crises overlap.

Credit: akorda.kz

In this context, the relationship between Japan and Kazakhstan carries a broader lesson.

Cooperation between states does not have to be shaped only by economic and strategic interests. It can also incorporate shared memory, moral purpose and a commitment to dialogue. In practical terms, that means cooperation on energy and transport. Politically, it means contributing to a more stable and diversified regional order. Humanitarianly, it means sustaining the argument that security must not be separated from its human consequences.

Of course, this relationship is not free from limits or contradictions. Alternative routes are costly. State behavior is still heavily shaped by strategic calculation. Dialogue alone cannot neutralize the pressures of war.

Even so, in an international environment marked by fragmentation, coercion and renewed nuclear anxiety, the growing closeness between Japan and Kazakhstan means more than a tactical adjustment. It is also an attempt to connect realism with responsibility.

That is why this relationship deserves attention.

At a time when many countries are retreating into narrower and more inward-looking definitions of national interest, Japan and Kazakhstan are seeking to build a partnership that links resource security and diplomacy, memory and strategy, and national resilience with the search for peace.

Credit: UN photo

This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with UN ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Will AI kickstart a new age of nuclear power? Credit: Unsplash/Taylor Vick In a data centre (above), servers are high-performance computers that process and store data. Meanwhile, the United Nations has taken a firm stance that decisions regarding the use of nuclear weapons must rest with humans, not machines, warning that integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) presents an unacceptable risk to global security.

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 6 2026 (IPS)

As artificial intelligence (AI) threatens to dominate every aspect of human lives —including political, economic, social and cultural –there is also the danger of the potential militarization of AI.

The integration of AI into nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems, as well as its use in military decision-making, introduces severe, unprecedented risks to global security, according to one report.

Key negative effects include the acceleration of decision-making to “machine speed” (leaving little time for human judgment), increased vulnerability to cyberattacks, and the erosion of strategic stability.

According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, command and control of nuclear weapons is a delicate and complicated system, designed to prevent error while ensuring reliability under high-pressure conditions.

In environments where vast amounts of data shape high-stakes outcomes, artificial intelligence has become a natural consideration.

“The integration of a rapidly evolving technology raises fundamental questions about responsibility, data quality, and system reliability. When a single error could have irreversible consequences, how can confidence be built around the integration of machine learning into systems that have long relied on human judgment and oversight?”

“What guardrails should be maintained? Where are the opportunities for international collaboration and consensus?”

Tariq Rauf, former Head of Verification and Security Policy at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told IPS the role of and integration of Artificial Generative Intelligence (AGI) raises some of the most consequential questions of our technological era.

The integration of AGI into nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems is not merely an engineering challenge — it is a civilizational one.

The Problem of Machine Speed

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the integration of AGI into NC3 systems, he pointed out, is the compression of decision-making timelines to “machine speed.” Nuclear strategy has historically depended on deliberate human judgment — the ability of decision-makers to pause, assess ambiguous data, consult advisors, and choose restraint even under pressure or attack.

AGI systems, by contrast, are designed to process and respond at velocities no human can match. In a crisis, this creates a dangerous paradox: the very speed that makes AGI attractive also makes meaningful human oversight nearly impossible.

“If an AGI system misidentifies a sensor anomaly as an incoming missile — something that has happened with human-operated systems before, as the 1983 Soviet false alarm incident illustrates — the window for correction could shrink from minutes to seconds.”

The margin for error in nuclear decision-making has always been uncomfortably thin; AGI risks eliminating it entirely, said Rauf.

Data Quality and System Reliability

Data quality and integrity are foundational concerns regarding AGI. Machine learning systems are only as reliable as the data on which they are trained, he argued.

“Nuclear environments present unique ultra complex challenges: they involve rare, high-stakes events with limited historical data, adversarial actors who may deliberately feed misinformation into sensor networks, and geopolitical contexts that shift faster than training datasets can capture”.

An AGI system that confidently acts on corrupted or misrepresented data in a nuclear context could trigger escalation based on a fiction. Worse still, the opacity of many machine learning models — the so-called “black box” problem — means that even system designers may not be able to explain why a particular output was generated, let alone correct it in real time, declared Rauf.

Vladislav Chernavskikh, Researcher, Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme, at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) told IPS existing state approaches to AI-nuclear nexus already broadly converge on the principle of retaining human control in nuclear decision making, yet there is no consensus on how this should be defined or operationalized.

A formal recognition of this principle by nuclear-weapon states and elaboration of what human control constitutes in this context and how it can manifest in the nuclear weapons domain can be one of the first steps towards minimising risks, he declared.

At the AI Impact Summit in New Delhi last month, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the future of AI cannot be decided by a handful of countries and the whims of a few billionaires.

Last year, the General Assembly took two decisive steps, he said.

First, by creating an Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence, and second, by launching a Global Dialogue on AI Governance within the UN, where all countries, together with the private sector, academia and civil society, can all have a voice.

He told participants at the summit that real impact means technology that improves lives and protects the planet. And he called on them to build AI for everyone, with dignity as the default setting.

UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters last month, the Secretary-General is not calling for the United Nations to rule over AI. He’s calling for – and has put in place – an architecture with the help of Member States to try to ensure that everybody gets a seat at the table.

And as he said: “AI will and has already impacted all of us. It is vital that those countries who may not have the technology also have a voice and that science and fairness be put at the centre of AI.”

Responsibility and Accountability

In a further analysis, Rauf said when AGI recommendations or autonomous actions contribute to catastrophic outcomes, the question of accountability becomes deeply problematic.

Traditional chains of command assign clear human responsibility at each decision point. AGI integration fractures this clarity. Is it the software developer, the military commander, the government that deployed the system, or the algorithm itself that bears responsibility for a miscalculation? he asked.

The absence of clear accountability frameworks is not just a legal or ethical problem — it is a strategic one, because adversaries and allies alike need to understand who is in control and what decision logic is being applied.

Cyberattack Vulnerability

AGI-enhanced or dependent NC3 systems also expand the attack surface for adversaries. Sophisticated cyberattacks — including adversarial inputs designed to manipulate AGI outputs — could potentially spoof or blind these systems in ways that are difficult to detect until it is too late. The integration of AGI thus creates new vectors for destabilization that did not exist in earlier nuclear architectures, said Rauf.

The Case for International Collaboration

Despite these alarming challenges, international collaboration could be a potential avenue for managing risk. Confidence-building measures, shared technical standards, and bilateral or multilateral ‘enforceable’ agreements on the limits of AGI autonomy in nuclear systems could help preserve strategic stability.

Arms control history, said Rauf, shows that even adversaries can agree on rules that serve mutual interests in survival. Extending that tradition to AGI-enabled NC3 systems is urgently needed — before the technology outpaces diplomacy entirely.

“The integration of AGI into nuclear systems technically might be inevitable. Whether it is managed wisely is a political and moral choice that remains very much open and seems beyond the intellectual, moral/ethical processing capabilities of today’s civil and military ‘leaders’, declared Rauf.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Secretary-General António Guterres attends the Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe.

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 2 2026 (IPS)

The United States and Israel launched a joint military strike on Iran on February 28. Iran followed with military strikes on Israeli bases and on Arab Gulf states, including Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. The realized threat of a new war has caused alarm for the security situation in the Middle East and its impact on civilian populations.

While the latest outbreak of fighting unfolded in the Middle East, the UN Security Council in New York convened an emergency meeting to deliberate over the military attacks in Iran. The session was convened at the request of Iran and members of the Security Council.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres briefed the Council on the situation up to that point and condemned the escalating hostilities. “We are witnessing a grave threat to international peace and security. Military action carries the risk of igniting a chain of events that no one can control in the most volatile region of the world,” he warned.

Under Article 2 of the UN Charter, all member states shall “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” Guterres reminded the Council. He reiterated that there would be no “viable alternative to the peaceful settlement of international disputes” and that “lasting peace” could only be accomplished through diplomatic negotiations.

Guterres also noted that the U.S.-Israeli strikes took place following the latest round of indirect negotiations between the U.S. and Iran mediated by Oman, which were expected to lead into further political talks. “I deeply regret that this opportunity of diplomacy has been squandered.”

According to Iran, the U.S.-Israeli strikes constituted a clear violation of the UN Charter and a threat to international peace and security. Sayed Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s Foreign Minister, said in a letter addressed to Guterres that in response to the aggression, Iran was invoking its right to self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter. This outlines that the Charter shall not “impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense,” and that any actions taken by member states to exercise their right to self-defense must be “immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and the responsibility” of the Council to take actions as it “deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

“The United States and the Israeli regime shall bear full and direct responsibility for all ensuing consequences, including any escalation arising from their unlawful actions,” Aragchi said. Noting the “grave and far-reaching consequences” of a regional conflict, Aragchi wrote of the collective responsibility of the UN and the Security Council to take immediate action and to “discharge their duties without delay.”

Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani of Iran reiterated the point before the Security Council, remarking on the threat to the country’s sovereignty and that actions taken by the U.S. and Israel were in violation of the UN Charter. There is also the added context that the first round of U.S.-Israeli strikes killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Some members of the Council spoke against Iran’s military actions on Saturday and against the regime under Khanmenei as it related to its nuclear program and its “appalling violence and repression against its own people.” The U.K., France and Germany jointly condemned the regime and its attacks on countries in the region.

Acting Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom James Kariuki remarked that the present was a “fragile moment for the Middle East.” As the president of the Security Council for the month of February, Kariuki noted that Iran “repeatedly ignored calls” for a solution to its nuclear program and the seeming lack of cooperation with the IAEA. He stated that Iran “must refrain from further strikes, and its appalling behavior, to allow a path back to diplomacy. ”

“My country, which is a champion of peace and coexistence, never expected to be targeted by wanton aggressions without any justification,” said Bahrain Ambassador Jamal Al Rowaiei. Bahrain was one of the Gulf states targeted by Iranian military forces and currently sits on the Security Council as an elected member. Al Rowaiei condemned Iran for its attacks on residential areas and vital facilities—including a U.S. Navy base—and called for all in “containing this crisis” to protect the stability of the region.

Other member states remarked on the threats to international peace and security. In condemning the military attacks on Iran and the Arab Gulf states, Pakistan Ambassador Asim Ahmad regretted that “diplomacy has once again been derailed,” referring to the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. “These military actions undermine dialogue and further erode trust that was already in short supply,” said Ahmad.

Echoing Guterres’ sentiments, other UN entities and leaders reiterated calls to continue negotiations and to respect international law. Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), said that he was “deeply troubled” by the situation in the Middle East and expressed that world leaders should choose the “challenging path of dialogue” over the “senseless route of destruction.”

“My heart goes out to the civilians trapped in the crossfire. Regardless of borders, everyone deserves to live without the threat of violence around them,” he said.

Across Iran, civilian infrastructures have been destroyed, leading to scores of casualties. Of note, schools have been bombed by Israeli airstrikes, including a girls’ elementary school in Minab in Hormozgan province in southern Iran. As of March 1, the death toll from this strike has risen to 165, according to state sources.

UNICEF issued a statement shortly after the school bombings, warning that the “weekend’s military escalation in the Middle East marks a dangerous moment for millions of children in the region.” They called for an immediate end to the hostilities and for all parties to uphold their obligations to international humanitarian and human rights law, including the protection of children. “Targeting civilians and civilian objects, including schools, is a violation of international law.”

“Bombs and missiles are not the way to resolve differences but only result in death, destruction and human misery,” said Volker Türk, the UN Human Rights Chief. He added that all parties must de-escalate and return to the negotiating table and warned that failing to do so would only lead to further “senseless civilian deaths” and “destruction on a potentially unimaginable scale.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said that they were “closely monitoring” developments, urging restraint to “avoid any nuclear safety risks.”

The U.S. will take over as president of the Security Council in March. It will be a matter of waiting to see the role that this institution will play in protecting the principles of international law and preventing further loss of civilian lives.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A photograph of the 1971 Licorne nuclear test, which was conducted in French Polynesia in the Pacific Ocean. Credit: CTBTO

By John Burroughs
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Feb 12 2026 (IPS)

The most recent agreement limiting U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals, New START, expired on February 5, and prospects for any kind of follow-on agreement are very uncertain.

Progress over several decades in halting the growth of nuclear arsenals and then in reducing them is in acute danger of being undone. That is despite the fact that the objective of “cessation of the nuclear arms race” is embedded in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a keystone multilateral global security agreement.

In a U.S. statement delivered February 6 in the Conference on Disarmament, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Thomas DiNanno said that a “new architecture” is needed, one that takes “into account all Russian nuclear weapons, both novel and existing strategic systems, and address[es] the breakout growth of Chinese nuclear weapons stockpiles.”

That is a challenging project. An informal arrangement between the United States and Russia for transparently abiding by New START limits for at least a short period of time seems within the realm of possibility.

But obstacles to successful negotiation of a new treaty or treaties involving the United States, Russia, and China are major.

The Chinese have shown no interest in discussing limits on their arsenal, which remains much smaller than the U.S. and Russian arsenals. Russia wants negotiations to address U.S. missile defense plans and non-nuclear strategic strike capabilities.

The United States wants Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons and novel systems like a long-range nuclear-armed torpedo, both not limited by New START, to be addressed. More broadly, the ascendance of authoritarian nationalism and acute geopolitical tensions are not conducive to progress.

Nonetheless, especially with the next five-year Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference coming up this spring, it must be emphasized that the United States, Russia, and China are bound by the NPT Article VI obligation to pursue in good faith negotiations on “cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date” and on nuclear disarmament.

When the negotiations on the NPT were completed in 1968, cessation of the nuclear arms race was understood to centrally involve a cap on strategic arsenals held by the U.S. and the Soviet Union, a ban on nuclear explosive testing, and a ban on producing fissile materials for nuclear weapons.

Ending nuclear arms racing was seen as setting the stage for negotiations on nuclear disarmament, meaning the elimination of nuclear arms.

After the NPT entered into force in 1970, the United States and Russia expeditiously moved to cut back on arms racing by negotiating bilateral treaties limiting delivery systems and missile defenses.

The size of the Soviet stockpile of nuclear warheads, however, continued to climb until the mid-1980s. Then a series of treaties, above all the 1991 START I agreement, dramatically reduced the two arsenals while still leaving in place civilization destroying numbers of warheads.

With the demise of New START, there is no treaty regulating the arsenals of the United States, Russia, China, and other nuclear-armed states. China is expanding its arsenal and the United States and Russia are poised to follow suit. The three countries also in differing ways are diversifying their arsenals and increasing the capabilities of delivery systems.

Increasing, diversifying, and modernizing nuclear arsenals as now underway or planned amounts to a repudiation of the NPT objective of cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and fails to meet the legal requirement of good faith in pursuing that objective.

The NPT Review Conference would be an appropriate setting for launching an initiative to reverse this dangerous and unlawful trend. It must also be stressed that arms control among the three powers does not and should not exclude multilateral negotiations for establishment of the “architecture” of a world free of nuclear weapons.

John Burroughs is Senior Analyst, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

US President Barack Obama delivers his first major speech, stating a commitment to seek peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, in front of thousands in Prague, Czech Republic, April 5, 2009. Credit: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 12 2026 (IPS)

When the nuclear Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the US and Russia expired last week, it ended a historic era— but triggered widespread speculation about the future.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said “February 5 was a grave moment for international peace and security”.

For the first time in more than half a century, he pointed out, “we face a world without any binding limits on the strategic nuclear arsenals of the Russian Federation and the United States of America – the two States that possess the overwhelming majority of the global stockpile of nuclear weapons.”

US President Donald Trump dismissed the termination of the treaty rather sarcastically when he told the New York Times last month: “if it expires, it expires”—and denounced the expiring treaty as “a badly negotiated deal”.

“We will do a better agreement”, he promised, adding that China, which has one of the world’s fastest growing nuclear arsenals, “and other parties” should be part of any future treaty.

The Chinese, according to the Times, “have made clear they are not interested”.

Currently, the world’s nine nuclear powers are the US, UK, Russia, France and China—all permanent members of the Security Council—plus India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.

Collectively, they possess an estimated 12,100 to 12,500 nuclear warheads, with Russia and the US owning nearly 90% of the total eve while all nine are actively modernizing their arsenals.

Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute told IPS the START Treaty should be extended at least a year by formal or informal means. Is that as good as obtaining a new treaty that would include China as the US administration wants? No.

“Is it as good as fulfilling legally required steps such as adherence to the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) unanimous ruling to negotiate the universal elimination of nuclear weapons or the fulfillment of the promise of nuclear disarmament embodied in Article 6 of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)? No”.

However, argued Granoff, doing nothing is asserting that a modest threat reducing easily obtained step now should not be taken because there are better ways forward. A modest positive step is no impediment to moving in other desired manners.

Fully terminating START communicates to the entire world that the US and Russia are so diplomatically inept that they cannot be trusted to continue to hold the entire world hostage to annihilation by holding thousands of first-use-ready nuclear weapons over everyone’s heads without adequate reasonable restraint, said Granoff.

The arguments being put forth as to why nothing can be done are inadequate.

First, the US argues that a new arrangement, a new treaty, is needed to bring China into the fold of restraint, he said.

“A modest step of extending START for a year by mutual presidential decrees while new negotiations take place does not negate creating a new treaty that would include China.”

Second, the arguments used to rationalize the new arms race fail to consider the folly of producing more accurate, usable, and powerful nuclear weapons”, declared Granoff.

Guterres pointed out the dissolution of decades of achievement could not come at a worse time – the risk of a nuclear weapon being used is the highest in decades.

“Yet even in this moment of uncertainty, we must search for hope. This is an opportunity to reset and create an arms control regime fit for a rapidly evolving context.”

“I welcome that the Presidents of both States have made clear that they appreciate the destabilizing impact of a nuclear arms race and the need to prevent the return to a world of unchecked nuclear proliferation.

“The world now looks to the Russian Federation and the United States to translate words into action. I urge both States to return to the negotiating table without delay and to agree upon a successor framework that restores verifiable limits, reduces risks, and strengthens our common security’, said Guterres.

In a statement released last week, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (PNND), a global network of legislators working to achieve a nuclear weapons-free world, said the importance of the New START treaty is hard to overstate.

“As other nuclear treaties have been abrogated in recent years, this was the only deal left with notification, inspection, verification and treaty compliance mechanisms between Russia and the US. Between them, they possess 87% of the world’s nuclear weapons.”

The demise of the treaty will bring a definitive and alarming end to nuclear restraint between the two powers. It may very well accelerate the global nuclear arms race, PNND warned.

This was one of the key reasons that on January 27, 2026, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reset the Doomsday Clock to 85 Seconds to Midnight.

Last year, PNND Co-President Senator Markey introduced draft legislation into the US Senate urging the government to negotiate new post-START agreements with Russia and China. The legislation is supported by a number of other Senators and by a companion bill in the House of Representatives. But this seems to have fallen on deaf ears in the Trump Administration.

Granoff, providing a deeper analysis, told IPS the scientific data makes clear that a full-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia would annihilate humanity and that a limited nuclear exchange of less than 2% of the world’s arsenals would put around 5 million tons of soot into the stratosphere leading billions of deaths and the devastation of modern civilization everywhere.

“Realism reveals that the alleged need to duplicate the arsenals of adversary nations is not needed for deterrence. Realism also reveals that there is actually little to no meaningful difference between a nation having 600 (as China does now) or over 1400 deployed nuclear weapons, mirroring the US and Russia, or 30,000 nuclear weapons as Russia and the US each had at the height of the last arms race”.

“The reality is that devastation globally of a small portion of the world’s nuclear arsenals would be unambiguously unacceptable to any sane person. We could say that realism informs us that we have moved from Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to Self-Assured Destruction (SAD). The fact is that if any of the 9 states with the weapons were to use several hundred nuclear weapons that nation itself would also be devastated. MAD today reveals a new acronym, SAD.”

Meanwhile, a posting in the US State Department website reads:

Treaty Structure: The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, also known as the New START Treaty, enhances U.S. national security by placing verifiable limits on all Russian deployed intercontinental-range nuclear weapons. The United States and the Russian Federation had agreed to extend the treaty through February 4, 2026.

Strategic Offensive Limits: The New START Treaty entered into force on February 5, 2011. Under the treaty, the United States and the Russian Federation had seven years to meet the treaty’s central limits on strategic offensive arms (by February 5, 2018) and are then obligated to maintain those limits for as long as the treaty remains in force.

Aggregate Limits

Both the United States and the Russian Federation met the central limits of the New START Treaty by February 5, 2018, and have stayed at or below them ever since. Those limits are:

• 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments;
• 1,550 nuclear warheads on deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments (each such heavy bomber is counted as one warhead toward this limit);
• 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Injured civilians, having escaped the raging inferno, gathered on a pavement west of Miyuki-bashi in Hiroshima, Japan, at about 11 a.m. on 6 August 1945. Credit: UN Photo/Yoshito Matsushige
 
On the 80th anniversary, which was commemorated in August 2025, Izumi Nakamitsu, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, said: “We remember those who perished. We stand with the families who carry their memory,” as she delivered the UN Secretary-General's message.
 
She paid tribute to the hibakusha – the term for those who survived Hiroshima and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki – “whose voices have become a moral force for peace. While their numbers grow smaller each year, their testimony — and their eternal message of peace — will never leave us,” she said.

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 23 2026 (IPS)

The two current ongoing conflicts, which have claimed the lives of hundreds and thousands of people, are between nuclear and non-nuclear states: Russia vs Ukraine and Israel vs Palestine, while some of the potential nuclear vs non-nuclear conflicts include China vs Taiwan, North Korea vs South Korea and the United States vs Iran (Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia, Cuba and Denmark).

The growing list now includes another potential conflict: nuclear China vs non-nuclear Japan is the world’s only country devastated by US atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 which killed over 150,000 to 246,000, mostly civilians.

A statement last month by Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi warned that her country could intervene militarily if China were to attack Taiwan—a statement that has the potential for a new conflict in Asia.

According to the New York Times, Beijing has “responded furiously,” asserting that self-governing Taiwan is an integral part of Chinese territory. The government has also urged millions of tourists to avoid Japan, has restricted seafood imports and increased military patrols.

Meanwhile, amidst rising military tension, the Japanese government has called for a snap general election on February 8, to seek a fresh public mandate for the new administration.

In an article titled “An Anxious Nation Restarts One of its Biggest Nuclear Plants,” the Times said on January 22 that “Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO)—the same utility that operated the Fukushima plant—has restarted the first reactor, Unit 6, at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa complex, one of the world’s largest nuclear facilities.”

Before 2011, nuclear power provided about 30 percent of Japan’s electricity, the Times pointed out.

According to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute, Japan’s military budget in 2024 had grown to the 10th largest in the world. China’s military budget has also been growing, in 2024 being second only to that of the United States.

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director of the Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, and North American Coordinator for “Mayors for Peace,” told IPS that Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s recent statement that an armed attack on Taiwan by China could constitute an “existential threat” to Japan is very worrying indeed.

In 1967, she said, Japan’s then–Prime Minister Eisaku Sato set out the Three Non-Nuclear Principles—of not possessing, not producing, and not permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons—which were formally adopted by the House of Representatives in 1971.

“However, Japan’s commitment to these Principles has been called into question over the years, and it is widely believed that Japan has the capability to rapidly produce nuclear weapons, should the decision be made to do so.”

Beijing is ratcheting up the rhetorical heat. Whether true or not, a recent report by the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association and the Nuclear Strategic Planning Research Institute, a think tank affiliated with the China National Nuclear Corporation, alleges that Japan is engaged in a secret nuclear weapons program and poses a serious threat to world peace. Meanwhile, China is rapidly modernizing and increasing the size of its own nuclear arsenal, said Cabasso.

“Japan, as the only country in the world to have experienced the use of nuclear weapons in war, has the unique moral standing to be a champion for dialogue and diplomacy, peace, and nuclear disarmament.”

Japan and China’s leadership—and for that matter, all world leaders—should listen to the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who on January 20 issued a Joint Appeal on behalf of the 8,560 members of Mayors for Peace in 166 countries and territories, declaring, “We urge all policymakers to make every possible diplomatic effort to pursue the peaceful resolution of conflicts through dialogue and to take concrete steps toward the realization of a peaceful world free from nuclear weapons.”

Dr. M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Director pro tem, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS even without nuclear weapons being utilized, the use of military force in Taiwan would be disastrous for global security, and especially for the people of Taiwan.

“Any resolution of the dispute over Taiwan should follow two fundamental principles: it should be settled through dialogue and discussion, and it should prioritize the wishes of the inhabitants of Taiwan. Finally, all parties should avoid provocative remarks,” he declared.

The new developing story also figured at a recent UN press briefing.

Question: We know that there is a long-standing policy of Japan, called the three non-nuclear principles, which basically says that Japan shall neither possess nor manufacture nuclear weapons nor shall it permit their introduction into Japanese territory. But currently, the Japanese Government is under a discussion of revision of some of those security documents, including this policy, which draws quite anger from people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and some of the Nobel Peace Prize winners. What’s the position of the UN?

UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric: Look, I think the Secretary-General’s position on denuclearization has been clear and he has stated it a number of times. Obviously, Member States will set whatever policy they wish to set. What is important for us is that the current tensions between the People’s Republic of China and Japan be dealt through dialogue so as to lower the tensions that we’re currently seeing… I think the Secretary-General’s position on denuclearization and non-proliferation is well known and has been unchanged.

At a party leaders’ debate last November, Tetsuo Saito, representative of the New Komei Party, which was founded in 1964 by the late Dr. Daisaku Ikeda, leader of Japan’s Soka Gakkai Buddhist movement, questioned Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in the Diet about the government’s stance on the Three Non-Nuclear Principles and Japan’s security policy.

He criticized remarks by a senior government official suggesting Japan should possess nuclear weapons, calling them contrary to Japan’s post-war policy and damaging to diplomatic and security efforts.

He emphasized that the principles—not to possess, not to produce, and not to permit nuclear weapons on Japanese soil—and Japan’s obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are fundamental and must remain unassailable.

• Saito stated that the Takaichi administration’s position leaves room for ambiguity, especially when Takaichi’s replies were perceived as non-committal about maintaining the principles.
• He expressed concern that this ambiguity could open the door to future revision and said Komeito will continue to press the government to uphold the principles without qualification in future Diet sessions.
• In December 2025, Saito reiterated in public remarks that the Three Non-Nuclear Principles and Japan’s policy against nuclear weapons should be preserved.
• He has urged the government to reaffirm this commitment clearly to both domestic and international audiences and to listen to hibakusha (atomic-bomb survivors) and civil society voices advocating nuclear abolition.

Elaborating further, Cabasso said that given Japan’s brutal invasion of China during World War II and China’s growing threats to reclaim Taiwan, dangerous long-simmering tensions between the two countries have reemerged. In an increasingly unstable and unpredictable geopolitical world, Japan and China’s war of words is a train wreck waiting to happen.

Article 9 of Japan’s 1947 Peace Constitution, imposed on Japan by the United States in an act of victor’s justice, states, “the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right and the threat of use of force as a means of settling disputes,” and armed forces “will never be maintained.”

However, these provisions have been eroding in the 21st century, with Japan in 2004 sending its Self-Defense Forces out of area – to Iraq – for the first time since World War II. And in 2014, then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reinterpreted Article 9, allowing Japan to engage in military action if one of its allies were to be attacked.

The following year, she pointed out, the Japanese Diet enacted a series of laws allowing the Self-Defense Forces to provide material support to allies engaged in combat internationally in an “existential crisis situation” for Japan. The justification was that failing to defend or support an ally would weaken alliances and endanger Japan.

References

Japan Secretly Building Nukes, Could Go Nuclear Overnight Under Takaichi’s Policy Shift, Chinese Report Claims
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/japan-secretly-building-nukes-could-go-nuclear/

Mayors for Peace Joint Appeal, January 20, 2026
https://www.mayorsforpeace.org/en/

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

“Central Asia plus Japan Dialogue” (CA+JAD). Credit: Prime Minister’s Office of Japan

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
TOKYO, Japan, Dec 22 2025 (IPS)

Leaders of Japan and the five Central Asian states met in Tokyo on Dec. 20 and adopted the “Tokyo Declaration,” launching a new leaders-level format under the “Central Asia plus Japan Dialogue” (CA+JAD). The declaration places at the core of cooperation two priorities: strengthening supply-chain resilience for critical minerals, and supporting the Trans-Caspian Corridor (the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route), which links Central Asia with Europe without transiting Russia.

Chaired by Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, the meeting reflected Central Asia’s strategic importance as a Eurasian crossroads and as a region with mineral resources essential to decarbonization and advanced industries. As major powers step up engagement across the region, Central Asia’s weight as a stage for diplomacy and trade has been growing.

“Central Asia plus Japan Dialogue” (CA+JAD). Credit: Prime Minister’s Office of Japan

The Japanese government emphasized a practical, implementation-oriented approach—translating cooperation into deliverable projects. For Central Asian countries, the Trans-Caspian Corridor is also a means to expand transport options and reduce dependence on any single transit route. It can help attract investment for modernizing ports, railways and customs systems, while increasing opportunities to capture transit and logistics revenues.

For Japan, corridor development and cooperation on minerals serve as a form of risk diversification in economic security. By diversifying both procurement sources and transport routes for critical minerals—such as rare earths and lithium—needed for batteries, renewable energy technologies and electronic devices, Japan aims to prepare for heightened geopolitical risk. There is also a clear intent to expand opportunities for Japanese companies to participate in infrastructure, logistics and digital sectors.

Japan–Kazakhstan Joint Statement as the Anchor

President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev(left) and Prime Minister Sane Takaichi (right) signing a joint statement. Credit: Prime Minister’s Office of Japan

On Dec. 18, Prime Minister Takaichi and President Tokayev held a summit meeting and issued a joint statement on a “future-oriented expanded strategic partnership.” The statement reaffirmed a rules-based international order grounded in the principles of the U.N. Charter, and the two leaders agreed to advance cooperation through concrete initiatives in areas including critical minerals, the energy transition, and transport and logistics connectivity.

On the Trans-Caspian Corridor, the joint statement specified practical measures aimed at easing customs and port bottlenecks—such as training for customs officials in cooperation with the World Customs Organization (WCO) and support for improving cargo inspection scanners (cargo inspection equipment) at Aktau Port in western Kazakhstan. The two leaders also welcomed plans to launch regular direct flights in 2026 and agreed to begin intergovernmental negotiations toward the conclusion of a bilateral air services agreement. In addition, the joint statement expressed an intent to exchange information and explore potential avenues of cooperation with the “UN Regional Centre for the SDGs for Central Asia and Afghanistan”, which was established in Almaty.

Middle Corridor. Photo credit: TITR

Tokayev Warns of Nuclear Risks in Tokyo

On the following day, Dec. 19, President Tokayev delivered a lecture at the United Nations University in Tokyo, warning that “nuclear risks are rising again.”

Kassym-Jomart Tokayev delivered a lecture at the United Nations University

He referred not only to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but also to Kazakhstan’s Semipalatinsk nuclear test site, where the former Soviet Union conducted more than 450 nuclear tests, arguing that both Japan and Kazakhstan are countries that know the devastating consequences wrought by nuclear weapons. He said practical steps must be steadily accumulated to advance nuclear disarmament and reduce nuclear risks.

Semipalatinsk Former Nuclear Weapon Test site/ Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

Tokayev also cited Kazakhstan’s decision to relinquish the nuclear weapons left on its territory after the Soviet collapse, suggesting that security should not depend solely on nuclear deterrence.

Kazakhstan has, around Aug. 29—the date the Semipalatinsk test site was closed and also the U.N.-designated International Day against Nuclear Tests—hosted meetings in Astana that foreground the inhumane impacts of nuclear weapons and call for strengthening norms underpinning the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. These gatherings have included participation by civil society groups such as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and Soka Gakkai International (SGI).

A Group photo of participants of the regional conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and nuclear-free-zone in Central Asia held on August 29, 2023. Credit: Jibek Joly TV Channel

Three Priority Areas: Resilience, Connectivity, Human Development

At the Dec. 20 summit, President Tokayev attended alongside the presidents of Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. Prime Minister Takaichi noted that Central Asia’s growing population and rapid economic expansion have raised the region’s international profile, and stressed the importance of regional cooperation and engagement with external partners.

Japan announced the “CA+JAD Tokyo Initiative,” setting out three priority areas for cooperation: (1) green and resilience (including the energy transition, disaster risk reduction and supply-chain resilience for critical minerals); (2) connectivity (including the Trans-Caspian Corridor and A.I. cooperation); and (3) human development (including scholarship programs and cooperation in health and medical fields).

The Tokyo Declaration also explicitly set out the launch of the “Japan–Central Asia Partnership for AI Cooperation,” with a view to applying A.I. to resource development and related areas. More than 150 documents were signed and announced by public and private stakeholders on the margins of the meeting, and a goal was presented to develop business projects totaling 3 trillion yen over the next five years.

Multipolar Engagement and Kazakhstan’s “Multi-Vector” Diplomacy

The Tokyo gathering also underscored the reality of accelerating summit diplomacy around Central Asia. China convened a leaders’ meeting with the five Central Asian states in Kazakhstan earlier this year, and the United States invited the same five leaders to Washington in November.

Credit: Prime Minister’s Office of Japan

For Japan, the new leaders-level format provides a means to deepen engagement with Central Asia by connecting resources, logistics and technology. For President Tokayev, the visit also served as a platform to argue that, as nuclear risks re-emerge at the forefront, Eurasia’s economic future cannot be separated from the security challenges that shape it.

INPS Japan

Related articles:

Kazakhstan Takes Lead in Global Push for Nuclear Disarmament Amid Heightened Tensions

Kazakhstan Committed to a Nuclear-Weapons-Free World

Kazakhstan’s leadership in multilateralism: A Beacon for global peace and stability

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A nuclear test is carried out on an island in French Polynesia in 1971. Credit: CTBTO

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 5 2025 (IPS)

President Donald Trump’s recent announcement to resume nuclear testing rekindles nightmares of a bygone era where military personnel and civilians were exposed to devastating radioactive fallouts.

In the five decades between 1945 and the opening for the signature of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, over 2,000 nuclear tests were carried out all over the world. The United States conducted 1,032 tests between 1945 and 1992.

According to published reports and surveys, it was primarily military personnel who participated in U.S. nuclear weapons testing. The U.S. government initially withheld information about the effects of radiation, leading to health problems for many veterans.

And it was not until 1996 that Congress repealed the Nuclear Radiation and Secrecy Agreements Act, which allowed veterans to discuss their experiences without fear of treason charges.

Although a 1998 compensation bill did not pass, the government has since issued an apology to the survivors and their families.

Some civilians were exposed to radioactive fallout from early nuclear tests, like the Trinity test in New Mexico. And like atomic veterans, these civilians also suffered from long-term health effects due to their exposure to radiation, the reports said.

Dr. M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security Director pro tem of the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS one doesn’t know exactly what kind of nuclear tests might be conducted.

Even though the United States has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, in 1963, it did sign and ratify the “Treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water,” commonly known as the Partial Test Ban Treaty.

Since then, he pointed out, all of its nuclear tests have been conducted underground. There are two kinds of environmental dangers associated with underground nuclear tests. The first is that radioactive contamination may escape into the atmosphere, either at the time of the explosion or more gradually during routine post-test activities.

“More than half of all tests conducted at the Nevada Test site have led to radioactivity being released to the atmosphere. The second is that the radioactivity left underground makes its way over a long period of time into groundwater or to the surface.”

In 1999, he said, scientists detected plutonium 1.3 kilometers away from a 1968 nuclear weapons test in Nevada. In addition to these environmental dangers, the greater danger is that if the United States resumes nuclear weapon testing, then other countries would follow suit.

“Already, we have seen calls to prepare to resume testing from hawks in other countries, such as India.”

Decades ago, Ramana pointed out, when the US government planned to test nuclear weapons at Bikini atoll, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) said, “What should be vaporized is not an obsolete battleship but the whole process of the manufacture of the atomic bomb.”

“That statement is still relevant. We should be shutting down the capacity to build and use nuclear weapons, not refining the ability to carry out mass murder,” declared Dr. Ramana.

Meanwhile, in the five decades between 1945 and the opening for signature of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, over 2,000 nuclear tests were carried out all over the world.

• • The United States conducted 1,032 tests between 1945 and 1992.

• • The Soviet Union carried out 715 tests between 1949 and 1990.

• • The United Kingdom carried out 45 tests between 1952 and 1991.

• • France carried out 210 tests between 1960 and 1996.

• • China carried out 45 tests between 1964 and 1996.

• India carried out 1 test in 1974.

Natalie Goldring, Acronym Institute’s representative at the United Nations, told IPS that President Trump’s threat to resume US nuclear testing is remarkably shortsighted and dangerous, even by his impulsive and reckless standards.

“President Trump seems to be making the incorrect assumption that the US government always gets the last move in foreign policy. He attempts to conduct foreign policy by issuing pronouncements, rather than engaging in the hard work of policymaking and diplomacy or even ensuring that his actions are legal.”

In this case, he is apparently assuming that the US government can unilaterally decide to resume nuclear testing without prompting the same actions from other countries, she said.

Proponents of permanent nuclear weapons development and nuclear weapons testing claim that testing preserves the reliability of the arsenal and sends a message of US strength to potential adversaries.

“But the United States already has a robust testing program to ensure the reliability of its nuclear weapons. Rather than demonstrating strength, a US return to nuclear weapons testing could be used as a justification to do the same by other current and prospective nuclear weapons states. In effect, it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

As William Broad recently reported in the New York Times, part of the challenge of interpreting President Trump’s pronouncement on nuclear testing is that it’s not clear what he means. Does he mean full-scale, supercritical testing, or is he talking about testing that produces an extremely small explosion, such as hydronuclear testing?

Either way, the US government would be breaking the testing moratorium that it has observed since 1992, she pointed out.

“Nuclear testing has ramifications and costs in many areas, including human, political, economic, environmental, military, and legal. States with nuclear weapons tend to focus on the perceived military and political aspects of these weapons.”

But they frequently ignore the profound human, economic, and environmental costs for those who were soldiers or civilians at or near test sites or in the areas surrounding those sites. Little attention or funding has been provided to survivors or to cleaning up the land poisoned by nuclear testing, said Goldring.

Rather than resuming nuclear testing, those funds could be used to help remedy the effects of past tests, including reducing some of the human and environmental costs.

Instead of threatening to resume nuclear tests and risking that other countries with nuclear weapons will follow our dangerous example, President Trump could take more constructive actions.

One immediate example is that the last nuclear arms control agreement between the US government and Russia, New START, expires early next year. This agreement limited the number of deployed nuclear weapons for both the United States and Russia and contained useful verification provisions that are unlikely to continue when the agreement expires.

It’s probably too late to negotiate even a simple follow-on agreement, but the US and Russia could still commit to maintaining New START’s limits, said Goldring.

If President Trump really wants to be the peacemaker he claims to be, he could commit the United States to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

The TPNW is a comprehensive renunciation of nuclear weapons programs; States commit themselves not to develop, test, produce, acquire, possess, stockpile, use, or threaten to use nuclear weapons.

“Rather than taking us backwards, as President Trump proposes to do, we need to move forward.”

In 1946, Albert Einstein wrote, “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”

The TPNW offers a way forward out of this predicament. Testing will perpetuate and exacerbate the human, environmental, and economic costs, among others, she said.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The first USSR nuclear test Joe 1 at Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan, 29 August 1949. Credit: CTBTO

By John Burroughs
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Dec 2 2025 (IPS)

In a Truth Social post that reverberated around the world, on October 29 President Donald Trump wrote: “Because of other countries’ testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.”

A month later, it remains unclear what “testing programs” Trump had in mind. Other than North Korea, which last tested in 2017, no country has carried out nuclear-explosive testing since 1998.

Some commentators speculated that Trump was referring to tests of nuclear weapons delivery systems, since Russia had just carried out tests of innovative systems, a long-range torpedo and a nuclear-powered cruise missile.

Perhaps to underline that the United States too tests delivery systems, in an unusual November 13 press release Sandia National Laboratories announced an August test in which an F-35 aircraft dropped inert nuclear bombs.

It appears, though, that the testing in question concerns nuclear warheads. In what was clearly an effort to contain the implications of Trump’s announcement, on November 2, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said regarding US plans that “I think the tests we’re talking about right now” involve “noncritical” rather than “nuclear” explosions. The Energy Department is responsible for development and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal.

In contrast, Trump’s remarks in an interview taped on October 31 point toward alleged underground nuclear-explosive testing by Russia, China, and other countries as the basis for parallel US testing. His remarks perhaps were sparked by years-old US intelligence assessments that Russia and China may have conducted extremely low-yield experiments that cannot be detected remotely.

The prudent approach is to assume that Trump is talking about a US return to nuclear-explosive testing. That assumption is reinforced by the fact that a few days after Trump’s social media post, the United States was the sole country to vote against a UN General Assembly resolution supporting the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The Russian government is taking this approach. On November 5, President Vladimir Putin ordered relevant agencies to study the possible start of preparations for explosive testing of nuclear warheads.

US resumption of nuclear-explosive testing would be a disastrous policy. It would elevate the role of nuclear arms in international affairs, making nuclear conflict more likely. Indeed, nuclear tests can function as a kind of threat.

It likely would also stimulate and facilitate nuclear arms racing already underway among the United States, Russia, and China. Over the longer term nuclear-explosive testing would encourage additional countries to acquire nuclear weapons, as they come to terms with deeper reliance on nuclear arms by the major powers.

Resumption of nuclear test explosions would also be contrary to US international obligations. The United States and China have signed but not ratified the CTBT. Russia is in the same position, having withdrawn its ratification in 2023 to maintain parity with the United States. Due to the lack of necessary ratifications, the CTBT has not entered into force. Since the CTBT was negotiated in 1996, the three countries have observed a moratorium on nuclear-explosive testing.

That posture is consistent with the international law obligation, set forth in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, of a signatory state to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty.

The object and purpose of the CTBT is perfectly clear: to prevent and prohibit the carrying out of a nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.

The CTBT is a major multilateral agreement with an active implementing organization that operates a multi-faceted world-wide system to verify the testing prohibition. It stands as a precedent for a future global agreement or agreements that would control fissile materials used to make nuclear weapons, control missiles and other delivery systems, and reduce and eliminate nuclear arsenals.

The sidelining or evisceration of the CTBT due to an outbreak of nuclear-explosive testing would reverse decades of progress towards establishing a nuclear-weapons-free world.

A return to nuclear-explosive testing would similarly be incompatible with compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Its Article VI requires the negotiation of “cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date.”

Nuclear-explosive testing has long been understood as a driver of nuclear arms racing. The preamble to the NPT recalls the determination expressed in the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits above-ground nuclear tests, “to seek to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time and to continue negotiations to this end.”

In 1995, as part of a package enabling the NPT’s indefinite extension, a review conference committed to completion of negotiations on the CTBT by 1996, which was accomplished. In 2000 and 2010, review conferences called for bringing the CTBT into force.

To resume nuclear-explosive testing though a comprehensive ban has been negotiated, and to support design and development of nuclear weapons through such testing, would be a thoroughgoing repudiation of a key aim of the NPT, the cessation of the nuclear arms race.

That would erode the legitimacy of the NPT, which since 1970 has served as an important barrier to the spread of nuclear arms. The next review conference will be held in the spring of 2026. Resumption of nuclear-explosive testing, or intensified preparations to do so, would severely undermine any prospect of an agreed outcome.

It is imperative that the United States not resume explosive testing of nuclear weapons. It would be a very hard blow to the web of agreements and norms that limit nuclear arms and lay the groundwork for their elimination, and it could even lead toward the truly catastrophic consequences of a nuclear conflict.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

CTBTO Executive Secretary Robert Floyd addressing staff, Vienna International Centre, Vienna, Austria, 2023. Credit: CTBTO Preparatory Commission

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 12 2025 (IPS)

The US took another step backward –to break ranks with the United Nations– when it voted against a draft resolution calling for the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The negative vote followed an announcement by President Trump last month that the US plans to resume nuclear testing after a 33-year hiatus. The US stood alone on the UN vote, which was supported by almost all member States in the General Assembly’s First Committee.

The resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority: with 168 votes in favor, with one against (United States) and 3 abstentions (India, Mauritius, Syria).

During Trump’s first term, the US abstained on the vote. And in other years they had been voting in favour.

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, which monitors and analyzes U.S. nuclear weapons programs and policies, told IPS the chaos and uncertainty arose from Trump’s factually-challenged social media post that “because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.”

The U.S. government’s first ever “No” vote, on the annual UN resolution in support of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), raises further troubling questions about U.S. intentions.

Trump did not specify whether he meant explosive nuclear testing, missile tests, or something else. Russia and China are not conducting explosive nuclear tests, so the U.S. has no basis to respond in kind. They are conducting missile tests, but so is the United States, Cabasso pointed out.

In fact, she said, the U.S. conducted a “routine” test of an unarmed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile on November 5. The Department of Defense (now, Department of War) is responsible for missile tests, but it is the Department of Energy that is responsible for preparation for explosive nuclear testing.

Trump’s announcement was followed by mixed signals.

On November 2, Energy Secretary Chris Wright sought to explain Trump’s post when he told Fox News “I think the tests we’re talking about right now are system tests. These are not nuclear explosions. These are what we call non-critical explosions.”

The headline in a New York Times article was dead on target: Trump pushes Tests with a Nuclear Bang: A Top Aide Says Non-nuclear”.

The waters were further muddied, said Cabasso, by Trump’s unsubstantiated allegations in an interview with 60 Minutes (recorded October 31 but aired November 2) that Russia and China have been secretly conducting explosive nuclear tests deep underground.

In a written statement explaining its General Assembly vote, the U.S. – the only country to cast a No vote – stated, “The United States voted No…. because several paragraphs are inconsistent with U.S. policy or are undergoing policy review…. The United States is not currently pursuing CTBT ratification and therefore cannot support calls for ratification and entry into force.”

Of the other nuclear-armed states, the Russian Federation, China, France, United Kingdom, Israel, and Pakistan voted Yes. India abstained, and North Korea did not vote. Thus, the United States distinguished itself as a “rogue” nuclear armed State.

Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute, told IPS “calling the statement dumb and dumber does not further the argument that such a resumption of nuclear weapons testing would be contrary to promises made to induce indefinite extension of the NPT, justify further more sophisticated weapons developments in violation of the good faith duties to pursue disarmament under the NPT, end the US advantage of knowing more because it has tested more, upgrade the salience of the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons as legitimate tools of communication amongst nations, lead to increased spending on developing weapons which destroy the user as well as adversaries if used, and stimulate greater international fear and instability.“

“We critically need to develop trust and cooperation to, inter alia, protect the oceans and the climate, end the scourge of corruption stealing between two and four trillion from the world’s productive economies, stop the creation and production of new and even more dangerous weapons as we amplify adversity, ignore preparation for the inevitable next pandemic, eliminate poverty and generally pursue the sanity of human security rather than perpetual instability and the dangerous belief that by madness, mistakes by machines or humans, or design we will not lead ourselves into destroying civilization through the use of these horrific devices,” he said.

Elaborating further, Cabasso pointed out that under the 1980 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when it has signed the treaty.

The United States, Russia and China have all signed but not ratified the CTBT. Russia withdrew its ratification in 2023 to maintain parity with the U.S. The three countries moratoria on nuclear explosive testing until now are consistent with the intent of the CTBT, but Trump’s statements and the U.S. vote in the General Assembly call this commitment into question.

Indicating just how dangerous and uncertain this situation is, Russian President Vladimir Putin, in response, has ordered officials to draft proposals for a possible test of nuclear weapons.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov was quoted in TASS, saying “In order to come to a conclusion about the advisability of beginning preparations for such tests, it will take exactly as much time as it takes for us to fully understand the intentions of the United States of America.”

“As we continue to advocate for nuclear risk reduction and the global elimination of nuclear weapons”, said Cabasso, “we must remain vigilant that the option of explosive nuclear weapons testing remains off the table”.

The United States should reverse course, commit to a permanent cessation of explosive nuclear weapons testing, ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and invite other nuclear armed states to follow suit. This would be a huge contribution to long term prospects for international peace and security, she declared.

According to the Washington-based Arms Control Association (ACA), if the United States resumes its nuclear testing, other countries, such as Russia, North Korea, and perhaps China, will likely follow suit, escalating the nuclear arms race, and increasing global tensions.

In response to Trump’s rhetoric, Representative. Dina Titus (Democrat-Nevada.) has introduced the Renewing Efforts to Suspend Testing and Reinforce Arms Control Initiatives Now (RESTRAIN) Act (H.R. 5894) which creates “a prohibition of explosive nuclear testing while simultaneously preventing any funding from going toward the Trump Administration’s effort to conduct explosive nuclear tests.”

And Senator Ed Markey (Democrat-Massachusetts) has introduced companion legislation in the Senate as the No Nuclear Testing Act (S. 3090) to block renewed testing and has called on the Senate to approve ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

In its appeal, ACA says: “We encourage you to reach out to your Member of Congress this week and tell them to block the resumption of nuclear explosive testing including by co-sponsoring the “RESTRAIN Act” and “No Nuclear Testing Act.”

ACA has been at the forefront of the effort to halt nuclear weapons testing for decades.

“Since Trump’s call for renewed nuclear testing, we have flown into action to get our message out, to rally Congressional opposition, to organize with other civil society organizations, and mobilize international opposition to the resumption of nuclear testing by any nation.”

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM in collabolation with INPS Japan amd Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Titan II ICBM - decommissioned nuclear missile - at the Titan Missile Museum, Green Valley, Sahuarita, Arizona. Credit: Stephen Cobb/Unsplash

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 6 2025 (IPS)

In recent days, nuclear state leaders have flouted the regulations and norms around nuclear non-proliferation and are flirting more openly with nuclear might in the name of projecting strength.

In the last week, the United States and the Russian Federation have made public shows of their nuclear messaging. On the 27th of October, President Vladimir Putin revealed a new nuclear-powered missile capable of staying airborne far longer than conventional missiles and even evading missile defense systems. Some experts have suggested that this is meant to reinforce Russia’s nuclear might, which Putin has leaned on since the start of the Ukraine invasion in February 2022.

More recently, on 29 October, President Donald Trump announced via social media that he wanted to resume nuclear testing for the first time in thirty years. In his post he wrote, “Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.”

As he made this announcement just before his meeting with President Xi Jinping, some experts have considered that China’s expanding nuclear arsenal has prompted some calls in Washington D.C. to quickly modernize the U.S.’s own nuclear forces. Nuclear testing by major powers like China, Russia or the U.S. has not been conducted in decades. Yet analyses have warned that such an act would only further complicate relations between this triad.

All these developments should not come as a surprise. Even as countries have been aware of the dangers of nuclear weapons since 1945, this has not completely stopped them from expanding their forces. As of June 2025, there are over 12,400 nuclear warheads in the world in only a small percentage of countries. The U.S. and Russia account for 90 percent of those warheads, both possessing more than 5,000 nuclear warheads. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), nearly all nine of the nuclear states moved to modernize their existing nuclear arsenals and acquire new missiles in 2024.

Increasing geopolitical tensions have increased feelings of uncertainty and instability, which seems to have led countries to prioritize national security. The nuclear-armed states have made moves to expand the capabilities of their arsenals. SIPRI estimates that China now owns 600 nuclear warheads. Both the United Kingdom and France have ongoing programs to develop strategic weapons, including missiles and submarines. North Korea continues to expand its military nuclear program, accelerating the production of fissile material to make more nuclear warheads.

Concerns about nuclear testing have been reflected in headlines. Credit: IPS

The threat of nuclear weapons seemed to loom over major events this year, even as their efficacy as a deterrent was thrown into question. As India and Pakistan engaged in aerial battles and strategic strikes in May, the conflict demonstrated to the world how close two nuclear powers could come to war.

Meanwhile, in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine and the perceived threat from Russia, European nations, including France and the U.K., are moving to prioritize investments in defense, including deterrence. Germany, Denmark and Lithuania are among some of the countries that have also expressed interest in hosting nuclear weapons for the nuclear states.

William Potter, Director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, expressed concern over the dangers posed by nuclear weapons due to miscalculations and misperceptions at a time when “there is a total lack of trust, respect, and empathy among the nuclear weapons possessors.”

“The more nuclear weapons, the greater the risk of their inadvertent use, but even more dangerous is the absence of a political climate in which serious arms control and disarmament measures can be pursued,” Potter told IPS.

The safeguards for nuclear arms control are also being challenged. The NEW-Start treaty, the last remaining arms control treaty between the U.S. and Russia, is set to expire in February 2026, though both countries have considered voluntarily maintaining the limits on deployed strategic nuclear weapons for one year. Yet in this past week, that promise has been undercut by both parties.

At the same time, there are the continuous calls for nonproliferation and disarmament. Advocates from all over have raised awareness on the impacts of radiation on communities, on public safety and on the environment. The United Nations has platformed and rallied these advocates and has raised the alarm for disarmament since its official beginning on 24 October, 1945.

Amidst this, there is the fear of a new nuclear arms race. During the high-level meeting on the elimination of nuclear weapons in September this year, the UN’s Chef de Cabinet Courtenay Rattray, who delivered remarks on behalf of Secretary-General António Guterres, said that the world was “sleepwalking” into this new arms race, now defined by new technologies and new domains for conflict such as cyberspace. Rattney warned that “the risks of escalation and miscalculation are multiplying.”

So if the nuclear states are modernizing their arsenals, how do modern technologies fit in? Artificial intelligence (AI) is the latest frontier that countries are navigating and investing significant resources in to achieve progress. Given that, national and global regulations on the safe governance of AI are still nascent as countries still work to agree on universal agreements for the frameworks for the ethical applications of AI.

As it becomes increasingly sophisticated and more accessible, member states have been investing resources into incorporating AI in the military domain. Given that it does not fit neatly into pre-existing deterrence frameworks, this has also raised concerns over AI’s possible “destabilizing effects,” according to Wilfred Wan, Director of the SIPRI Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme.

It has prompted stakeholders to engage in serious negotiations on AI governance in the military domain, including guardrails to reduce the risk of escalation, Wan told IPS. At the multilateral level, he cites the example of the Blueprint for Action that came out of the second summit on Responsible AI in the Military Domain (REAIM) in 2024. It is a non-binding agreement among 61 countries, including nuclear powers like the U.S., the U.K., France and Pakistan, that provides a framework for the responsibility that parties need to take in integrating AI, and recognizing gaps that policymakers must take into account. There is also the UN General Assembly Resolution 79/239 on “[AI] in the military domain and its implications for international peace and security.”

“This is certainly not a substitute for disarmament progress, but in the current strategic context, it can help rebuild some of the trust and confidence necessary for revitalizing those efforts,” Wan said.

Researchers from SIPRI have found there are no governance frameworks specifically for the nuclear-AI nexus compared to those for conventional military systems. “In the nuclear context, discussions have largely centered on retaining human control in nuclear decision-making. This is an essential principle but does not address other ways in which AI integration can affect the environment in which nuclear decisions are made, directly or indirectly,” Wan explained.

“Absent a framework that addresses these aspects, including through regulatory and technical measures, there remains the risk of accelerated integration of AI among nuclear-armed states in a manner that destabilizes the security environment, threatens strategic stability, and impacts the risk of nuclear use.”

When assessing the existing approaches to the governance of military AI, it shows common areas of concern, such as raising awareness through multi-stakeholder engagement and preserving the capacity for human intervention, along with applying safety and security measures to mitigate escalation risks.

At this time, nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation are critical and may even provide insight into negotiating the governance of AI in nuclear forces. The approaches to fostering multi-stakeholder dialogue that include policymakers, non-nuclear states, experts and the private sector could similarly apply to discussions around AI in nuclear forces. Though it should be noted that their limited knowledge of nuclear force structures may constrain meaningful contributions to the debate. Nevertheless, their participation must be facilitated if nuclear parties truly value human control in this factor.

Nuclear and non-nuclear states must recommit to the anti-nuclear agreements, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Potter stressed the importance of disarmament and nonproliferation education, particularly to empower future generations to “pursue creative ways to reduce pressing nuclear dangers.”

The UN can employ its influence in advancing disarmament efforts through dialogue and awareness efforts from the General Assembly and the Office of Disarmament Affairs (UN-ODA). The UN has also confirmed it will convene an independent scientific panel to assess the effects of nuclear warfare and an Expert Group on Nuclear-Free War Zones.

“Nuclear disarmament is more important today than ever before, but it is not simply a question of securing lower numbers of nuclear weapons,” Potter said. “At a time when the “nuclear taboo” has been eroded and discussions about the use of nuclear weapons have been normalized, it is vital that policymakers act boldly in a fashion commensurate with the threat.”

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The first USSR nuclear test "Joe 1" at Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan, 29 August 1949. Credit: CTBTO

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 31 2025 (IPS)

The lingering after-effects of nuclear tests by the world’s nuclear powers have left a devastating impact on hundreds and thousands of victims world-wide.

The history of nuclear testing, according to the United Nations, began 16 July 1945 at a desert test site in Alamogordo, New Mexico when the United States exploded its first atomic bomb.

In the five decades, between 1945 and the opening for signature of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, over 2,000 nuclear tests were carried out all over the world.

• The United States conducted 1,032 tests between 1945 and 1992.
• The Soviet Union carried out 715 tests between 1949 and 1990.
• The United Kingdom carried out 45 tests between 1952 and 1991.
• France carried out 210 tests between 1960 and 1996.
• China carried out 45 tests between 1964 and 1996.
• India carried out 1 test in 1974.

Since the CTBT was opened for signature in September 1996, 10 nuclear tests have been conducted:

• India conducted two tests in 1998.
• Pakistan conducted two tests in 1998.
• The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea conducted nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, 2013, 2016, and 2017.

On October 30, President Donald Ttrump, just ahead of his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, announced on social media, that the US will resume testing nuclear weapons for the first time in over 30 years.

But this time on an “equal basis” with Russia and China.

The main former US nuclear test sites were the Nevada Test Site (now the Nevada National Security Site) and the Pacific Proving Grounds in the Marshall Islands and near Kiritimati (Christmas) Island. Other tests also occurred in various locations across the United States, including New Mexico, Colorado, Alaska, and Mississippi.

The Nevada test site, located in Nye County, Nevada, was the most active, with over 1,000 tests conducted between 1951 and 1992.

Speaking at a meeting, September 26, on The International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned “nuclear testing threats are returning, while nuclear saber rattling is louder than in past decades.”

Meanwhile, a New York Times story October 29, headlined “China is Racing to Lead World in Nuclear Power,” harks back to the 45 nuclear tests by China between 1964 and 1996.

According to one report, nuclear test survivors in China, particularly ethnic Uyghurs in Xinjiang, face a situation where their health issues from radiation exposure are largely unrecognized, and their voices are systematically silenced by the government.

“The Chinese state has actively suppressed information about the devastating consequences of its nuclear testing program on the local population”.

According to an AI generated overview, China’s tests included both atmospheric and underground tests, which included 22 atmospheric detonations, which exposed the local population to significant radioactive fallout.

The Chinese government claimed the test site was a “barren and isolated” area with no permanent residents. In reality, Uyghur herders and farmers had lived there for centuries.

Independent research and anecdotal evidence paint a grim picture of the human and environmental costs.

Medical experts have documented a disproportionate increase in cancers, birth defects, leukemia, and degenerative disorders in Xinjiang compared to the rest of China.

Alice Slater, who serves on the boards of World BEYOND War and the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, and is a UN NGO Representative for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, told IPS regardless of China ‘s unfair treatment of downwinders at Lop Nor, is it any more egregious than the treatment of the downwinders in Nevada, Kazakhstan, and the Marshall Islands, who suffered the effects of US, Russian and French tests?

What can we LEARN from China during these terrible times if imminent nuclear annihilation?

They just reissued their joint appeal with Russia to negotiate treaties to ban weapons in space and war in space and pledged never to be the first to use or place weapons in space. Unlike the US and Russia which keep their nuclear bombs on missiles poised and ready to fire, China separates their warheads from their missiles, she said.

The Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons DID enter into force when 50 countries ratified it, she pointed out. Although many more than 50 have now signed and ratified it, NONE of the nuclear weapons states or any of the US allies harboring under the US nuclear “umbrella” have signed., said Slater.

Tariq Rauf, Former Head of Verification and Security Policy, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told IPS: Is the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty a Flawed Treaty?

The objective of a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing originally had been truly comprehensive: non-proliferation and disarmament, but the CTBT lacks substantive link to nuclear disarmament, he pointed out.

“Throughout the treaty negotiations, the purpose of a ban on all forms of testing became progressively de-linked from the ultimate objective of the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

In the final text, non-nuclear-weapon States were barely able to establish a relationship between the exhortations for disarmament in the preamble and the operative text.

The CTBT even permits non-explosive forms of testing, which, with advances in technology, may today be used to refine nuclear weapons and to design new ones. Nuclear test sites remain active in China, Russia, US (DPRK, India, Pakistan ??). France is the only NWS to have decommissioned its test site.

China, Egypt, Iran, Russia and the US need to ratify, but there is no pressure exerted on these NPT States in NPT meetings. And the same goes for non-signatories, DPRK, India, Israel and Pakistan, he said.

“It seems that the CTBT will never enter into force, but hopefully the moratoria on nuclear testing would continue?”

Kazakhstan and the Marshall Islands are leading efforts to set up an international trust fund for victims of nuclear testing, under the aegis of Article 6 of the TNPW. The CTBT lacks any provision on assistance to victims of testing, Rauf said.

According to the United Nations, The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty bans nuclear testing everywhere on the planet — surface, atmosphere, underwater and underground.

The Treaty takes on significance as it also aims to obstruct the development of nuclear weapons: both the initial development of nuclear weapons as well as their substantial improvement (e.g. the advent of thermonuclear weapons) necessitate real nuclear testing.

The CTBT makes it almost impossible for countries that do not yet have nuclear weapons to develop them. And it makes it almost impossible for countries that have nuclear weapons to develop new or more advanced weapons. It also helps prevent the damage caused by nuclear testing to humans and the environment.

Reacting to Trump’s announcement, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (Democrat -Rhode Island), the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said: “Once again, President Trump has it wrong when it comes to nuclear weapons policy.”

This time, he seems to have ordered the Pentagon to resume nuclear explosive weapons testing. This confusing directive reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of our nuclear enterprise—it is the Department of Energy, not the Department of Defense, that manages our nuclear weapons complex and any testing activities.

“Breaking the explosive testing moratorium that the United States, Russia, and China have maintained since the 1990s would be strategically reckless, inevitably prompting Moscow and Beijing to resume their own testing programs”.

Further, he said, American explosive testing would provide justification for Pakistan, India, and North Korea to expand their own testing regimes, destabilizing an already fragile global nonproliferation architecture at precisely the moment we can least afford it.

“The United States would gain very little from such testing, and we would sacrifice decades of hard-won progress in preventing nuclear proliferation.”

This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

INPS Japan

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
TOKYO, Oct 10 2025 (IPS)

Toda Peace Memorial Hall. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The hall itself is symbolic in Japan’s peace movement. It is named after Josei Toda, the second president of the Buddhist organisation Soka Gakkai, who in 1957 made his historic Declaration Calling for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons before 50,000 youth members. That appeal has become a moral pillar of Soka Gakkai’s global campaign for peace and disarmament.

Reclaiming Women’s Voices

Semipalatinsk Former Nuclear Weapon Test site. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

Her documentary, Jara—meaning “wound” in Kazakh—tells the stories of women from Semey, formerly known as Semipalatinsk, the site of 456 Soviet nuclear tests conducted between 1949 and 1989.

Unlike earlier films that focused on physical devastation and disability caused by nuclear testing, Jara explores the unseen and intergenerational impacts: the stigma, the psychological scars, and the inherited fear of bearing children.

“Most films show Semey as ‘the most nuked place on Earth.’ I wanted to show resilience instead of fear—to reclaim our story in our own voice,” she said.

Aigerim Seitenova Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

Seitenova’s personal connection to the issue began with humiliation.

As a university student in Almaty, the largest city in Kazakhstan, when she introduced herself as being from Semey, a classmate mockingly asked if she had “a tail.”

“That moment stayed with me,” she recalled. “It made me realise that nuclear harm is not only physical. It lives on in prejudice and silence.”

That experience would later drive her to create a film that breaks that silence.

Patriarchy and Nuclear Power

In Jara, women appear not as passive victims but as active participants in their communities, confronting the legacies of secrecy and discrimination.

“In militarised societies, nuclear weapons are symbols of superiority,” Seitenova said in her speech. “Peace and cooperation are dismissed as weak— as feminine. That’s the mindset we must challenge.”

Her feminist perspective connects nuclear weapons and patriarchy, arguing that both systems thrive on domination and power over others.

From the Steppes to Global Advocacy

Author made a documentary of the 2018 conference which Seitenova participated. Credit:INPS Japan

Born into a third-generation family affected by radiation exposure in Semey, Seitenova said her activism was inspired by “quiet endurance and the absence of open discussion.”

In 2018, she joined the Youth for CTBTO and Group of Eminent Persons (GEM) ‘Youth International Conference’ organised by the Kazakh government. During the five-day programme, young representatives from nuclear-weapon, non-nuclear and nuclear-dependent states travelled along with nuclear disarmament experts overnight by train from Astana to Kurchatov, visiting the former test site. “It was the first time I saw the land that shaped my people’s history,” she said.

Aigerim Seitenova captured in a scene from “Jara”. Credit: Aigerim Seitenova

She cites Togzhan Kassenova’s Atomic Steppe and Ray Acheson’s Banning the Bomb, Smashing the Patriarchy as works that helped her articulate how nuclear policy and gender inequality are intertwined.

Mr. Hiroshi Nose, director of Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum explaining the impact of Atom Bomb. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri, President of INPS Japan

In October, Seitenova travelled to Japan to participate in the 24th World Congress of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) in Nagasaki, meeting survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Seitenova(Center) was among a youth representative from communities affected by nuclear testings sharing her experiences at the Nuclear Survivors Forum held at UN Church Center, New York. Credit: ICAN / Haruka Sakaguchi

That spirit carried into the Tokyo screening, where diplomats, journalists and peace activists discussed nuclear justice, gender equality and youth participation.

Turning Pain into Power

Through her organisation, the Kazakh Nuclear Frontline Coalition (ASQAQQNFC), Seitenova works to connect nuclear-affected communities with policymakers implementing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

“The fight for nuclear justice is not about the past—it’s about the future,” she said. “It’s about ensuring that no one else has to live with the consequences of nuclear weapons.”

As the applause filled the Toda Peace Memorial Hall, the resonance was unmistakable—linking a hall named for a man who condemned the bomb to the wind-scarred plains of Semey, where the voices of women are at last being heard.

Credit: SGI

This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

INPS Japan

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A nuclear test is carried out on an island in French Polynesia in 1971. Credit: the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO)

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 30 2025 (IPS)

Is the unpredictable Trump administration toying with the idea of resuming nuclear tests?

The New York times reported April 10 that some of Trump’s senior advisers had proposed the resumption of “test denotations for the sake of national security”. The last such US explosion took place in 1992.

But former US Representative Brandon Williams, (Republican-New York), the new administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which plays an integral role in the nation’s $1.7 trillion nuclear weapons modernization effort, testified last April before the Senate Armed Services Committee he would not recommend the re-start of nuclear weapons testing.

The last confirmed full-scale nuclear explosive test was conducted by North Korea in September 2017—with perhaps more to come.

Speaking at a meeting, September 26, on “the international day for the total elimination of nuclear weapons,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned “nuclear testing threats are returning, while nuclear saber rattling is louder than in past decades.”

Hard-won progress – reductions in arsenals, the cessation of testing – these are being undone before our eyes. We are sleepwalking into a new nuclear arms race, Guterres warned.

“I call on every State to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, ending once and for all and for all the dark legacy of nuclear tests.

And every State must support the victims of nuclear use and testing – and confront the enduring harm: poisoned lands, chronic illness, and lasting trauma” declared Guterres.

Meanwhile, the devastating after-effects of past nuclear tests from a bygone era are still lingering.

During the British nuclear weapons tests in Australia between 1952 and 1963, Indigenous voices were systematically ignored, resulting in severe health and cultural devastation, according to a published report.

Through decades of relentless campaigning, survivors and their descendants have forced a belated official acknowledgement of the harm caused. However, the fight for full justice continues to this day, with the voices of many still unheard.

For years, both governments dismissed or covered up the health dangers associated with the tests, despite Aboriginal communities reporting severe health issues like rashes, blindness, and cancers. A 1956 letter from an Australian government scientist mocked a patrol officer for prioritizing the safety of a “handful of natives” over the British Commonwealth.

Despite state-sanctioned ignorance, Aboriginal survivors and their advocates refused to be silenced, ensuring their experiences were recognized.

Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Director pro-tem, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS a resumption of nuclear weapon testing by the United States will most likely lead other countries like Russia, China, India, and North Korea to test their nuclear weapons.

In turn, this will increase the likelihood of an accelerated nuclear arms race, and a greater likelihood of nuclear weapons being used somewhere in the world with catastrophic consequences.

But even without nuclear war, the people who live close to these test sites, which in many cases have included indigenous communities, will suffer from exposure to radioactive contamination and other environmental effects.

The only countervailing force that one can place some hope on under these circumstances is the peace and disarmament movement, that might be able to catalyze public opposition to testing, declared Dr Ramana.

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, told IPS: It is somewhat reassuring that the new head of the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, Brandon Williams, during his confirmation hearings said he would advise against resuming explosive nuclear tests.

“However, the second Trump regime’s likely nuclear policy is spelled out in a manifesto by Project 2025, which proposes that a second Trump administration prioritize nuclear weapons programs over other security programs, accelerate the development and production of all nuclear weapons programs, increase funding for the development and production of new and modernized nuclear warheads, and prepare to test new nuclear weapons,” she pointed out.

Separately, Robert O’Brien, Trump’s national security advisor during his first term, wrote in Foreign Affairs, that in order to counter China and Russia’s continued investments in their nuclear arsenals, the U.S. should resume nuclear testing.

“And we must keep in mind that Russell Vought, one of the architects and co-authors of Project 2025, is now the Director of the powerful Office of Management and Budget,” said Cabasso.

Since 1945, she said, there have been 2,056 nuclear weapons tests by at least eight countries. Most of these tests have been conducted on the lands of indigenous and colonized people.

The United States conducted 1,030 of those tests in the atmosphere, underwater, and underground, while the USSR carried out 715 nuclear test detonations.

“Not only did these nuclear test explosions fuel the development and spread of nuclear weapons, but hundreds of thousands of people have died and millions more have suffered—and continue to suffer—from illnesses directly related to the radioactive fallout from nuclear detonations in the United States, islands in the Pacific, in Australia, China, Algeria, across Russia, in Kazakhstan, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and elsewhere,” said Cabasso.

According to an AI extract: Some of the major nuclear test sites include:

• Nevada Test Site, USA: A primary location for U.S. atmospheric and underground testing for over 40 years. Fallout from atmospheric tests was carried by wind over vast downwind areas.

• Pacific Proving Grounds: A U.S. site in the Marshall Islands where numerous high-yield tests, including the 1954 Castle Bravo shot, caused extensive radioactive contamination.

• Semipalatinsk Test Site, Kazakhstan: A major Soviet test site where 456 tests exposed as many as one million people to radiation, leading to high rates of cancer and birth defects.

• Novaya Zemlya, Russia: The Soviet Union’s test site for the largest nuclear explosion in history, the Tsar Bomba, in 1961.

• Lop Nor, China: The location for all of China’s nuclear tests.

• Reggane and Ekker, Algeria; Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls, French Polynesia: French nuclear test sites.

• Maralinga, Emu Field, and Montebello, Australia: British test sites.

Environmental and health effects include:

• Global radioactive fallout: Atmospheric testing spread radioactive particles, such as iodine-131, cesium-137, and strontium-90, globally. This significantly increased atmospheric radioactivity, which peaked in 1963.

• Increased cancer rates: Long-term exposure to radioactive fallout has been linked to increased rates of various cancers, including thyroid cancer, leukemia, and other solid tumors. The highest risks are often seen in communities living downwind of test sites and in those exposed during childhood.

• Acute radiation sickness: Individuals near test sites who were exposed to high levels of radiation suffered from immediate symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and hair loss.

• Soil and water contamination: Radioactive particles can contaminate soil, water, and air for decades, entering the food chain and posing long-term risks.

• Disruption of ecosystems: Radioactive fallout can cause genetic mutations and death in animal populations, leading to wider ecological disruption.

• Psychological impact: Survivors and affected communities have also experienced profound psychological trauma, anxiety, and fear.

• Downwinder compensation: In the U.S., the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was established in 1990 to provide compensation to “Downwinders” who contracted specific cancers and diseases from fallout exposure from the Nevada Test Site.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Peace is in our hands. Credit: www.nuclearabolitionday.org

By Jackie Cabasso and Alyn Ware
OAKLAND, California / BASEL, Switzerland, Sep 26 2025 (IPS)

In 2013, frustrated at the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament, the United Nations General Assembly declared September 26 as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. This international day provides an opportunity to enhance public awareness and education about the threat posed to humanity by nuclear weapons and the necessity for their total elimination.

Annually on September 26, the UN also holds a high-level meeting of world leaders to discuss “urgent and effective measures” to achieve global nuclear disarmament.

At this year’s high-level meeting, world leaders meeting at the UN to commemorate the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons are being called upon to stand down nuclear forces, end the costly nuclear arms race and commit to achieving the global elimination of nuclear weapons no later than 2045, the 100th anniversary of the United Nations.

https://www.nuclearabolitionday.org/joint-letter

The call is being issued in a Joint Appeal for September 26 by over 500 civil society organizations representing peace, disarmament, human rights, environment, business, religious, youth, development and academic communities from around the world. It has been endorsed by an additional 800 individuals, including parliamentarians, local officials, religious leaders, Nobel Laureates, former diplomats, academics, scientists, medical professionals, youth leaders, and other members of civil society.

The designation of this date is not arbitrary. One of many times humanity has come perilously close to nuclear war was September 26, 1983, at the height of the Cold War. A nuclear war was narrowly averted when Colonel Stanislav Petrov, Duty Officer at a Russian nuclear early warning facility, broke protocol by not affirming to senior command an apparent incoming ballistic missile attack from the United States (later confirmed as a false alarm).

Two years later, the countries at the brink jointly declared that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” This commitment has been reaffirmed in intervening years, including in a statement by the P-5 states in 2022 and in the Pact for the Future adopted by consensus at last year’s UN Summit of the Future.

However, today the risk of nuclear war by accident, miscalculation, crisis escalation, or malicious intent, is higher than ever, with the Doomsday Clock ticking closer to midnight than in 1983. The use of nuclear weapons by any of the nine nuclear-armed States or their nuclear allies would have catastrophic human, economic, and environmental consequences.

The use of just a small fraction of the 12,500 nuclear weapons in the world’s stockpiles could end life as we know it. In addition, the $100 billion spent annually on nuclear weapons is sorely needed to support peacemaking, environmental protection, and other urgent needs of humanity and the planet, as expressed through the Sustainable Development Goals.

The world’s highest court, the International Court of Justice, in 1996 affirmed that the threat and use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal and that there is a universal obligation for states to negotiate in good faith to achieve comprehensive nuclear disarmament.

States currently relying on nuclear weapons for their security have an obligation to replace these policies with approaches based on international law and common security, as outlined in the UN Charter.

Dr. Deepshikha Kumari Vijh, Executive Director of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, who will present the Joint Appeal to the September 26 High-Level Meeting, points out, “The 1996 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion held that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. Nuclear Weapon States are urged to meet this obligation.”

Nuclear armed and allied States can’t avoid the nuclear disarmament obligation on the excuse that they need nuclear weapons for security. In order to fulfill this obligation, they are required to meet their security needs in other ways, including in accordance with the UN Charter which prohibits the threat or use of force.

The Pact for the Future includes commitments to prevent nuclear war and achieve the global elimination of nuclear weapons. UN Member States should use the opportunity of the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and UN High Level Plenary Meeting on September 26 to announce concrete plans to achieve these goals.

The signers of the Joint Appeal call on leaders, legislators, and officials at all levels of governance (local/municipal, states, countries, and regional bodies) to:

Affirm that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible;

Advance tangible measures by nuclear-armed and allied States to implement this obligation, including standing down nuclear forces and adopting policies never to initiate a nuclear war;

Pledge to achieve the global elimination of nuclear weapons no later than the UN’s centennial anniversary in 2045, and immediately undertake actions, including through multilateral negotiations, to implement this pledge;

Cut nuclear weapons budgets, and end public and private investments in the nuclear weapons industry; and

Redirect these funds to strengthen the United Nations, advance peacekeeping and conflict resolution, accelerate steps to protect the climate, and meet human and economic needs as required under Article 26 of the UN Charter.

There are a number of pathways to reaching the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. But the nuclear-armed States and their allies must commit to ending reliance on the ever-more-dangerous doctrine of nuclear deterrence – the threatened use of nuclear weapons – as the basis for their national security.

They could do this by negotiating a comprehensive and inclusive nuclear-weapons-convention similar to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Or they could start with a framework agreement on nuclear disarmament and fill in the details of the implementation mechanisms later.

Or they could negotiate protocols that would enable them to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Under any of these pathways, the elimination of nuclear weapons no later than 2045 is imperative and it is feasible.

No time is better than 2025 – the 80th anniversary of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the establishment of the United Nations – to undertake these actions to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world to protect current and future generations.

Read the Joint Appeal for September 26 and see the list of endorsing organizations and individuals at www.nuclearabolitionday.org.

Jackie Cabasso is Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation (USA) and Alyn Ware is Director of the Basel Peace Office (Switzerland), on behalf of the September 26 Working Group

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
TOKYO, Sep 1 2025 (IPS)

Marking the United Nations’ International Day Against Nuclear Tests, young activists and experts gathered at the UN University in Tokyo for an event titled “The Role of Youth in Supporting Global Hibakusha.” The forum underscored how youth solidarity can amplify the voices of survivors of nuclear testing and bombings, known collectively as the “Global Hibakusha” — communities scarred by the use, production, and testing of nuclear weapons, from Hiroshima to the Marshall Islands — and strengthen global momentum toward nuclear abolition.

The event was part conference, part call to arms. Its message was clear: the nuclear age is not a matter of history, but a crisis that continues to live in the bodies, memories, and struggles of people worldwide. And young people, the organizers emphasized, must shoulder the responsibility of carrying those voices forward.

Youth Survey on Nuclear Awareness

Daiki Nakazawa (right) and Momoka Abe(left) presenting the final results of a Youth Peace Awareness Survey. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

The five organizations presented the final results of a Youth Peace Awareness Survey, conducted between January 6 and August 9, across five countries—the United States, Australia, Kazakhstan, Japan, and the Marshall Islands. Targeting youth aged 18 to 35, the survey drew responses from 1,580 participants, examining their knowledge of nuclear weapons, attitudes, and readiness for action.

“In every country surveyed, those who had heard the testimony of survivors were more likely to be taking action for nuclear abolition,” said Daiki Nakazawa, a representative from SGI Youth. “It shows that listening to Hibakusha is not simply remembrance. It is a catalyst for activism.”

His colleague, Momoka Abe, added that for their generation, survivor accounts “remain one of the most powerful ways to understand both the human costs of nuclear weapons and the urgency of preventing their use.”

Remembering Kazakhstan’s Nuclear Legacy

Semipalatinsk Former Nuclear Weapon Test site. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

He reminded the Tokyo audience that much of the data on those tests was removed to Moscow during the Soviet collapse, leaving independent assessments patchy at best. “The consequences are still poorly understood,” he said. “But the human suffering is clear.”

Kazakhstan’s government closed the Semipalatinsk site in 1991, the year of its independence, and voluntarily renounced the world’s fourth-largest nuclear arsenal. It was that historic gesture that the U.N. chose to honor when it designated August 29 as a global day against nuclear testing in 2009.

A Japanese Perspective

Kazakhstan presided over the 3rd meeting of state parties to TPNW which will take place at the United Nations Headquarters in New York between March 3 and 7 in 2025. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri, President of INPS Japan

Yuki Nihei, an SGI youth who traveled to New York in March for the Third Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), recounted a moment that made that gap vivid. At a side event on Global Hibakusha, she listened to testimony from an Indigenous Australian exposed to British nuclear tests.

“There was no warning. No consent. And to this day, they receive little compensation, and their suffering is barely acknowledged,” she said. “While Hiroshima and Nagasaki are often recalled in Japan as historical tragedies, but hearing from Global Hibakusha shows that nuclear harm is present-tense. A lot of people are still suffering now.”

That realization, she said, pushed her to think differently about solidarity:“As a Japanese youth, I want to stand with Global Hibakusha in pursuit of genuine nuclear abolition.”

The Treaty and Its Challenges

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, signed 20 September 2017 by 50 United Nations member states. Credit: UN Photo / Paulo Filgueiras

Takagaki also offered a note of caution against reducing youth activism to inheritance. “We often hear that young people should ‘carry on the voices of Hibakusha,’” he said. “That is important, but it is not enough. Each of us must also decide what kind of society we want to build — and take responsibility for creating it.”

Kazakhstan’s Call for Action

Anvar Milzatillayev, Counselor of the Embassy of Kazakhstan in Japan.　Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

“Testimonies of survivors must continue to be shared,” he stressed, “because they have the power to transform awareness into action.” Milzatillayev expressed confidence in the “three powers of youth”—to spread the truth of nuclear harm, to connect across borders, and to mobilize society—adding: “Together with young people of Kazakhstan, Japan, and around the world, we will support the Global Hibakusha and build a nuclear-free future. I truly believe this is possible.”

Professor Tshilidzi Marwala, the Rector of the United Nations University, also emphasized the responsibility to carry forward the voices of all those affected by nuclear weapons. Renewing the United Nations’ founding pledge “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” he called on the generations who will shape the future to take action for peace with foresight and courage.

This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with UN ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Monitoring Iran and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Credit: IAEA
 
The IAEA applies safeguards to verify states are honouring their international legal obligations to use nuclear material for peaceful purposes only.

By Kelsey Davenport
WASHINGTON DC, Aug 29 2025 (IPS)

The decision early this week by the E3 (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) to initiate the process to snap back UN sanctions on Iran that were modified as part of the 2015 nuclear deal must be paired with an effective diplomatic strategy that restarts talks between the United States and Iran.

If the E3 and the United States fail to prioritize pragmatic diplomacy in the coming weeks and provide assurance that there will be no further military attacks while bilateral talks proceed, they risk pushing Tehran closer to nuclear weapons and putting the region back on a path to war.

Under the so-called snapback process outlined in Resolution 2231, which endorsed the 2015 nuclear deal, the Security Council now has 30 days to pass a resolution continuing the UN sanctions relief.

If such a resolution does not pass, there will be an automatic reimposition of the UN sanctions and nuclear restrictions—including a prohibition on uranium enrichment—contained in resolutions passed by the Security Council between 2006 and 2010 as part of the global pressure campaign that contributed to the negotiation of the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Iran has threatened to respond to the snapping back of UN measures, including by withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)—a step that would put the United States and Iran back on a path to conflict.

To avert this crisis, the Trump administration must take advantage of the 30-day window before snapback is finalized to reach an interim agreement with Iran that stabilizes the current crisis and extends the option to snapback UN sanctions.

Such an arrangement would reduce the risk of further conflict and create the time and space for the complex negotiations that will be necessary to negotiate a comprehensive nuclear deal.

In any interim agreement, the Trump administration must prioritize the return of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to Iran. IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi’s announcement that inspectors returned to Iran and Tehran’s decision to allow inspectors access to the Bushehr site is a positive step, but it is imperative that Iran meets its legal obligations by allowing the full resumption of IAEA safeguards inspections at all sites and cooperating with IAEA efforts to account for Iran’s stockpiles of nuclear materials, particularly the uranium enriched to 60 percent.

An interim deal should also take into account Iran’s legitimate concerns about further illegal attacks on its nuclear facilities and scientists by solidifying the ceasefire that ended the 12-day war between Israel, Iran, and the United States and recognizing Iran’s NPT right to a peaceful nuclear program under IAEA safeguards.

An agreement along these lines would be insufficient to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis, but it would be a positive step that de-escalates tensions and creates time for further diplomacy to reduce Iran’s proliferation risk in the long term.

Failure to use the 30-day window to reach an agreement that staves off snapback risks putting the United States, Israel, and Iran back on the path to conflict and could drive Tehran to follow through on its threat to withdraw from the NPT, a step that increases the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran and weakens the treaty.

Despite President Donald Trump’s claims that the U.S. and Israeli military strikes set Iran’s program back by years, military action is incapable of addressing Iran’s proliferation threat. Iran’s nuclear knowledge cannot be bombed away, and Tehran still possesses nuclear capabilities and material that pose an urgent proliferation threat.

And now some of those materials, including Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to near-weapons grade levels, remain accounted for and unmonitored. It is highly likely that Iran retains the capabilities and materials to quickly return to the threshold of nuclear weapons or weaponize if the decision were made to do so.

If Trump fails to seize this moment, he risks dragging the United States back into a military conflict with Iran, weakening the NPT, and driving Tehran closer to the bomb. It is in neither the interest of Tehran nor Washington to miss this window of opportunity to pursue a lasting diplomatic solution that verifiably blocks Iran’s pathways to nuclear weapons and provides Iran with benefits in return.

The Arms Control Association is an independent, nongovernmental, nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to the providing authoritative information and practical solutions to eliminate the threats posed by the world’s most dangerous weapons.

Kelsey Davenport is the Director for Nonproliferation Policy, and is a leading expert on nuclear and missile programs in Iran and North Korea and on international efforts to prevent proliferation and nuclear terrorism.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Chrystal Tabobandung, Founder of RAISE Indigenous cultural awareness.

By Minoru Harada
TOKYO, Aug 28 2025 (IPS)

Minoru Harada, president of the Soka Gakkai Buddhist organization, has today issued a statement marking 80 years since the end of World War II, titled “Creating a Wave of Change Toward a Century Without War,” clarifying its ongoing commitment to peace.

Harada’s statement is grounded in the determination that no one on this planet should have to endure the horrors of war. Sharing his own wartime experiences of the terror of the firebombing of Tokyo, Harada expresses condolences for those killed in war and regret for the suffering caused by the Japanese military during World War II.

He writes: “As a Japanese citizen, I once again firmly pledge to continue working to build peace not only in the Asia-Pacific region, where Japan’s past actions caused immense devastation and suffering, but also throughout the world, guided by deep reflection on this history.”

Harada stresses that concern for the suffering of innocent civilians underpins the Soka Gakkai’s commitment to peace. The same concern motivated the manifold efforts to build peace and renounce war initiated by his mentor SGI President Daisaku Ikeda (1928–2023)—from his visits to countries in Asia devastated by Japanese brutality to his efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and his contribution of annual peace proposals over a 40-year period.

Harada expresses grave concern about the ongoing conflicts and calamitous situations in Ukraine and Gaza and calls for persistent diplomatic efforts to achieve genuine ceasefires. He laments that the 80-year-old goal of the Charter of the United Nations—freeing the world from the scourge of war—has not yet been achieved and urges adherence to international humanitarian law. He also proposes galvanizing public opinion toward the prohibition and abolition of nuclear weapons.

Harada concludes by outlining three key commitments by the Soka Gakkai:

Firstly, ongoing youth exchanges, in line with the organization’s long track record of promoting grassroots exchanges with neighboring countries in Asia, including China and South Korea. He writes: “We firmly believe that friendships forged by the youth of the next generation will serve as the most powerful foundation for a bulwark against war.”

Secondly, Harada confirms the commitment to continued engagement in interfaith dialogue of the Soka Gakkai and the SGI (Soka Gakkai International).

And thirdly, he urges the expansion of global solidarity and commits to ongoing support for UN-centered efforts to address issues such as human rights and climate change.

He states: “Now, more than ever, the international community must transition from an era characterized by increasing mutual mistrust leading to military buildup to one in which nations work together to tackle common threats and challenges facing humanity. By steadily advancing such efforts, the path toward a century defined by the renunciation of war will inevitably come into clear view.”

The Soka Gakkai is a global community-based Buddhist organization that promotes peace, culture and education centered on respect for the dignity of life. Its members study and put into practice the humanistic philosophy of Nichiren Buddhism. Minoru Harada has been Soka Gakkai president since 2006.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Atomic Bomb Dome by Jan Letzel and modern Hiroshima. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
TOKYO / ASTANA, Aug 7 2025 (IPS)

Eighty years ago, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki left a lasting reminder to humanity of the inhuman nature of nuclear weapons. Kazakhstan, too, is a nation deeply scarred by nuclear tests conducted during the Soviet era. Having covered the activities of Soka Gakkai International (SGI) in Kazakhstan—including its support for exhibitions and documentary productions on nuclear abolition in Astana—, INPS Japan recently interviewed Zhanna Shayakhmetova, editor-in-chief of The Astana Times, a leading English-language newspaper in the country that continues to convey messages of disarmament and peace to the world. In the interview, Shayakhmetova spoke about the role of religious leaders who will gather in Astana from around the world this September, the importance of passing on memories to younger generations, and the responsibility journalism holds in this endeavor.

Interview with Zhanna Shayakhmetova, the editor-in-chief of The Astana Times

Q: This August marks the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – tragic events that continue to remind the world of the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons. Amid ongoing conflicts and rising geopolitical tensions among nuclear-armed states, the Doomsday Clock now stands at just 89 seconds to midnight. While civil society movements are intensifying their calls for disarmament, achieving broader and sustained public awareness—especially among younger generations—remains a pressing challenge. In this context, Kazakhstan will host the 8th Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions in September, an initiative known for promoting interfaith dialogue and tolerance. What potential do you see in the role of religious leaders in advancing peace and nuclear disarmament, particularly through education and moral leadership?

Zhanna Shayakhmetova

A: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrate the horrifying, destructive power of nuclear weapons. These explosions have a lasting impact on humanity. In one of his interviews, activist Karipbek Kuyukov said, “it was a moment of shame for the international community and of horror for the people of Japan. It is a moment upon which we should forever shine a light to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used to kill again.” Kuyukov is among the 1.5 million Kazakh people who have suffered as a result of the 456 nuclear tests conducted over 40 years at the Soviet Union’s Semipalatinsk Test Site. He was born without arms as a result of his parents’ exposure to those tests before Kazakhstan shut down the site in 1991. Kuyukov is an internationally recognized non-proliferation activist and painter, whose works capture the suffering of the victims of nuclear weapon testing.

Religious leaders hold a special and consequential position when it comes to advancing peace and nuclear disarmament. That’s why Kazakhstan’s hosting the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions is very timely and deeply significant. Our country has taken bold steps toward disarmament. The gathering will bring together faith leaders and convey a powerful message that peace is not just a political goal, but also a spiritual one. If world leaders can speak with a united voice, especially to young people, they can shift the narrative from fear and apathy to one of responsibility and hope.

7th Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions Group. Credit: Secretariate of the 7th Congress

Q: Japan has undertaken extensive efforts to preserve the memory of its nuclear past through peace museums, education, and the testimonies of hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors). In your view, how important is it for Kazakhstan to similarly preserve and communicate the experiences of those affected by Soviet-era nuclear testing? What methods do you consider most effective in ensuring these stories are remembered and passed on to future generations?

Stronger Than Death Monument, Semey

A: I believe it’s vital that Kazakhstan continues to preserve and tell the stories of those affected by Soviet-era nuclear testing. These are not just historical facts; these are lived experiences that have shaped our communities, particularly in areas like Semei. The generations continue to feel the physical and emotional toll of these explosions.

I consider personal storytelling and education effective methods. Documentaries and photo exhibitions in schools and public spaces can bring stories to life for younger generations who may not be familiar with this part of the past. Students can connect on a human level through literature, films and digital media by integrating survivor testimonies into school curricula.

As journalists, we have a responsibility to keep these stories visible, and not just on anniversaries, but as part of an ongoing dialogue about peace. Kazakhstan has a powerful story to tell, and we can’t let it fade in silence.

One of the touching stories we covered was about Tore Naerland from Norway, who co-founded Bike for Peace in 1977. After losing his eyesight as a teen, he chose to dedicate his life to helping others. While biking across the world, he met a Hiroshima survivor whose life inspired him to focus on the nuclear disarmament movement. Stories like his remind us why these conversations still matter.

Karipbek Kuyukov

Q:Kazakhstan has gained international recognition for its leadership in nuclear disarmament – becoming the first nation to close a major nuclear test site and voluntarily relinquish its atomic arsenal. How do you see the role of Kazakh media, including The Astana Times, in raising global awareness of this legacy and in promoting Kazakhstan’s contributions to disarmament and non-proliferation?

A: At The Astana Times, we’re committed to reporting accurately and consistently on disarmament. Our newsroom supports fact-based coverage on the nuclear file, and we see it as our mission to amplify Kazakhstan’s continued contribution to global non-proliferation efforts.

We’ve also made space for the next generation. We regularly publish young voices on this topic and have worked with advocates like social scientist Marzhan Nurzhan, who contributed articles to increase public awareness about the nuclear legacy consequences.

From left to right: Izumi Nakamitsu, Akan Rakhmetullin and Christopher King. Credit: Nagima Abuova / The Astana Times

Our correspondent Nagima Abuova covered the Third Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) on March 3 – 7, 2025, at the UN Headquarters in New York. It was a proud moment for us, the Astana Times was the only English-language Kazakh outlet reporting directly from the event, and First Deputy Foreign Minister Akan Rakhmetullin chaired the meeting.

We also look ahead. This September, our journalist Aibarshyn Akhmetkali will represent Kazakh media at the Science and Technology Conference series (SnT2025) in Vienna, hosted by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO). It’s another opportunity to put Kazakhstan’s voice on the global stage and build momentum for a world free of nuclear testing.

Kazakhstan has something meaningful to contribute to the global disarmament dialogue, and we at The Astana Times are committed to ensuring the world hears it.

Semipalatinsk Former Nuclear Weapon Test site. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

Q:Both Japan and Kazakhstan advocate strongly for a world free of nuclear weapons. From your perspective, how can journalism contribute to strengthening international solidarity among nuclear-affected communities and to advancing global disarmament efforts, such as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)? What responsibilities do media professionals hold in fostering informed public dialogue on these issues?

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, signed 20 September 2017 by 50 United Nations member states. Credit: UN Photo / Paulo Filgueiras

A: Journalism is key in connecting nuclear-affected countries and advancing global efforts such as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Kazakhstan and Japan share a tragic history with nuclear weapons, and that shared experience creates a basis for solidarity between governments and people.

Our responsibility as professionals is to shine light on these human stories. We have a responsibility to give voice to survivors, activists, and scientists whose lived experiences often get overshadowed by politics. We help people globally to understand and see the nuclear weapon consequences that are personal, generational and unjust. By reporting on events such as the TPNW meetings and CTBTO conferences, and by publishing the voices of young people and expert perspectives, we contribute to a more informed and engaged public.

INPS Japan

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A nuclear test is carried out on an island in French Polynesia in 1971. Credit: CTBTO

By Tariq Rauf
VIENNA, Austria, Aug 7 2025 (IPS)

On 16th July this year I was at the University of Chicago, attending a Nobel Laureate Assembly, and visited the site where at 15:25 PM local time on 2 December 1942, the nuclear physicist Enrico Fermi achieved the first self-sustaining atomic fission chain reaction.

Three years later, at precisely 5:30 PM on 16 July 1945, the nuclear age began with the detonation of the “Trinity” nuclear explosive device over the New Mexico desert.

At approximately 8:15 AM Hiroshima time on 6 August 1945, the US Air Force unleashed the “Little Boy”, a 9,700-pound uranium gun-type bomb, over the city. While no one will ever know for certain how many died as a result of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, it is estimated at least 70,000 people perished as a result of initial blast, heat and radiation effects.

Three days later, on 9 August 1945, at 11:02 AM, the US Air Force at an altitude of 1,650 feet detonated the plutonium device “Fat Man”, with an estimated explosive yield of 21,000 tonnes (kilotons), about 40 percent greater than that of the Hiroshima bomb. It is estimated that about 40,000 people perished initially, with 60,000 more injured.

By January 1946, the number of deaths in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki exceeded more than 150,000, with perhaps ultimately twice that number dead within the ensuing five years.

Between 16 July 1945 and 3 December 2017, it is estimated that 2,121 nuclear test detonations involving 2,476 nuclear explosive devices have been carried out by ten States – in chronological order: USA, USSR, UK, France, China, India, Israel/South Africa, Pakistan and North Korea.

Though the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) prohibits all nuclear test detonations, in all environments, and has been signed to date by 187 States and ratified by 178, it still languishes having not entered into force.

In particular, entry-into-force depends on 44 named States to have ratified. Nine such States are holding up entry into force: alphabetically, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and USA. Indonesia was the latest among this group of 44 States to have ratified in February 2012 – since then not a single State among the remaining nine has taken any steps to sign and/or ratify the CTBT, placing its future in doubt.

While the CTBT prohibits all nuclear testing once in force, nevertheless it has created a powerful global norm against further nuclear test detonations. On the other hand, all nine current nuclear-armed States are modernizing their nuclear explosive devices (warheads), in one way or another, and their nuclear weapon engineers and scientists direly would like to resume some limited explosive testing to validate new designs and certify older existing ones.

Only the CTBT stands in their way. Were any one of the nine nuclear-armed States to resume nuclear test detonations, it is quite probable that others would follow. Though not confirmed, it is speculated that pressure to test nuclear devices likely is strongest in India, followed by Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan and the United States.

The United States and Russia both have advanced technical programmes utilizing quantum computing for advanced simulation and testing to non-explosively certify existing nuclear warheads for safety and reliability, and validate new designs. Nonetheless, nuclear warhead designers ideally would like to detonate new designs for certification, safety and reliability.

In conclusion, the moratorium on nuclear test detonations is hanging by a slender thread in these troubled times of exacerbated tensions between the United States versus China and Russia, India versus China and Pakistan, and North Korea in the Korean Peninsula. Were there to be “friendly” nuclear proliferation by States such as Germany, Poland, or South Korea; or new nuclear States to emerge such as Iran and Taiwan (China), the spectre of nuclear explosive testing once again could arise.

We are living in lawless times internationally, of might over right; it remains a perilous challenge to sustain existing global nuclear arms control and disarmament norms including those against nuclear test detonations.

The views expressed in this article are personal comments by Tariq Rauf, former Head of Verification and Security Policy at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Erico Platt looks at the disarmament exhibition that she staged, "Three Quarters of a Century After Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Hibakusha—Brave Survivors Working for a Nuclear-Free World". On 6 and 9 August 1945, the United States detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, during World War II. Credit: UNODA/Diane Barnes

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 4 2025 (IPS)

The 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II triggers the question: Is nuclear testing dead or is it still alive–and threatening?

The August 6-9 anniversary marks the devastating bombings, which claimed the lives of between 150,000 and 246,000 civilians– and still remains the only use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict.

Are there any lessons learnt? And will the unpredictable Trump Administration resume nuclear testing?

The New York Times quoted Senator Jackey Rosen (Democrat-Nevada) as saying that her state hosted nearly 1,000 nuclear tests, mostly underground, during the Cold War.

The US has not ratified the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). While the U.S. signed the treaty in 1996, the Senate has not given its consent to ratification. The Senate rejected the treaty in 1999.

Until today, the Nevada Test Site remains contaminated with an estimated 11,100 PBq of radioactive material in the soil and 4,440 PBq in groundwater.

In the years following nuclear tests, thousands of residents developed cancers and diseases they believe were caused by the nuclear blast. Individuals known as “downwinders,” exposed in communities across the United States, have fought for nearly 80 years to receive government recognition.

The last nuclear test conducted by the United States was on September 23, 1992, at the Nevada Test Site (now known as the Nevada National Security Site). The test was part of Operation Julin, and specifically, it was the “Divider” test, according to the Nevada National Security Site.

At a disarmament exhibition in UN Headquarters in New York, a visitor reads text about a young boy bringing his little brother to a cremation site in Nagasaki, Japan. Credit: UNODA/Erico Platt

Brandon Williams, who is expected to be the next keeper of the US nuclear arsenal, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last April, he would NOT recommend to re-start US nuclear testing.

Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump last week ordered two “nuclear submarines” to be positioned in regions near Russia in response to threats from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. But left unsaid was: were they nuclear-armed submarines or nuclear-powered submarines?

“I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that,” Trump said in a social media post that called Medvedev’s statements highly provocative.

Dr. Natalie Goldring, the Acronym Institute’s representative at the United Nations, told IPS the 80th anniversary of the horrific bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an opportunity to recommit to a world free of nuclear weapons, including by immediately adopting a permanent moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. In contrast, the Trump administration is reportedly considering restarting nuclear weapons testing.

In the first several months of the second Trump administration, she pointed out, there has been ample evidence of the administration’s dependence on the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025”, formally known as “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.” The Project 2025 section on the National Nuclear Security Administration stated that a conservative administration should:

“Reject ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and indicate a willingness to conduct nuclear tests in response to adversary nuclear developments if necessary. This will require that NNSA be directed to move to immediate and test readiness to give the Administration maximum flexibility in responding to adversary actions.”

Dr Goldring said “Implementing Project 2025’s recommendations would mean immediately moving toward resuming nuclear weapons testing, without even demonstrating that any adversary actions had occurred. This is an aggressive stance, and could be a self-fulfilling prophecy, prompting the behavior we should be seeking to dissuade.”

“Of course, we can’t reliably predict what President Trump will do, given his impulsive and mercurial nature. He could decide to resume nuclear testing in the mistaken belief that it would make the US look strong. He seems to be fond of dramatic gestures, with little apparent consideration for potential negative consequences. “

“Testing is a symptom of the enormous problem of reliance on nuclear weapons. When we get rid of nuclear weapons, we get rid of the nuclear testing problem. Absent abolition, there will likely be continued pressure to test”.

She said: “Nuclear weapons pose extraordinary risks – in their development, testing, deployment, use, and threats of use. The only real solution to the overwhelming risk associated with nuclear weapons is abolition. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons provides an effective blueprint for abolition.”

“If abolition of nuclear weapons is not accomplished, the question isn’t whether nuclear weapons will be exploded in wartime again. It’s only a question of when that will happen. And, of course, nuclear weapons are “used” frequently in other ways, including to threaten other countries, and to attempt to coerce them into particular actions or inaction.”

Dr Goldring said nuclear testing should have ended decades ago. Unfortunately, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has not entered into force, in part because of the failure of the US Senate to ratify the treaty. Even so, with the exception of North Korea, a defacto nuclear testing ban has seemingly been in effect since the 1990s.

“The human and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons testing continue to be enormous. Rather than spending money restarting nuclear testing and developing and deploying new nuclear weapons, we should be committing ourselves to long-term assistance to the affected communities. Such assistance must address their medical, economic, and environmental needs, among others,” declared Dr Goldring.

Project 2025:

https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf?_gl=1*1vnou5w*_gcl_au*NTM3NTg3MTYzLjE3NTM4MTU4NTI.*_ga*MTYyNTkxMjI5OS4xNzUzODE1ODUz*_ga_W14BT6YQ87*czE3NTM4NTcwODEkbzIkZzEkdDE3NTM4NTczMTYkajYwJGwwJGgw

p. 431

Expressing his personal views, Tariq Rauf, former Head of Verification and Security Policy at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told IPS between 16 July 1945 and 3 December 2017, it is estimated that 2,121 nuclear test detonations involving 2,476 nuclear explosive devices have been carried out by ten States – in chronological order: USA, USSR, UK, France, China, India, Israel/South Africa, Pakistan and North Korea.

Though the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) prohibits all nuclear test detonations, in all environments, and has been signed to date by 187 States and ratified by 178, it still languishes having not entered into force.

In particular, he said, entry-into-force depends on 44 named States to have ratified. Nine such States are holding up entry into force: alphabetically, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and USA.

Indonesia was the latest among this group of 44 States to have ratified in February 2012 – since then not a single State among the remaining nine has taken any steps to sign and/or ratify the CTBT, placing its future in doubt.

While the CTBT prohibits all nuclear testing once in force, nevertheless it has created a powerful global norm against further nuclear test detonations. On the other hand, all nine current nuclear-armed States are modernizing their nuclear explosive devices (warheads), in one way or another, and their nuclear weapon engineers and scientists direly would like to resume some limited explosive testing to validate new designs and certify older existing ones.

Only the CTBT stands in their way. Were any one of the nine nuclear-armed States to resume nuclear test detonations, it is quite probable that others would follow. Though not confirmed, it is speculated that pressure to test nuclear devices likely is strongest in India, followed by Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan and the United States, said Rauf.

Meanwhile, Senator Edward Markey, co-President Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (PNND) — along with Senators Merkley, Sanders, Van Holen and Welch – marked the 80th anniversary by introducing Senate Resolution 317 urging the United States to lead the world to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race, including by:

• working with Russia, China and the other nuclear-armed countries to reduce nuclear risks and arsenals;
• renouncing the first use of nuclear weapons;
• limiting the President’s sole authority to start nuclear war;
• ending the production of new nuclear weapons;
• maintaining the global moratorium on nuclear testing.

“Eighty years after the Trinity test, much progress has been made to reduce nuclear dangers, but much work remains to be done,” said Senator Markey.

“The United States, Russia, and China must work together to reduce their arsenals. In particular, Washington and Moscow must work to replace the New START Treaty before it expires next year. If they do not, we may be on the cusp of a new and more dangerous nuclear arms race. When it comes to reducing the risk of nuclear war, we cannot afford to go backward.”

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, told IPS: “As we approach the 80th commemorations of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we are called upon to remember the estimated 210,000 human beings who were instantly incinerated by the blasts, or who died from agonizing burns and radiation sickness by the end of 1945.

Those who survived, she pointed out, have continued to suffer from physical and emotional damage for eight decades, and radiation-related illnesses among their children and grandchildren are being documented.

“Authoritarian nationalists now hold state power in seven of the nine nuclear-armed states that wield some 13,000 nuclear weapons, most an order of magnitude more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki – over 90% of them in the hands of the U.S. and Russia. Even limited progress towards arms control and disarmament has gone into reverse. The growing dangers of wars among nuclear armed states are palpable and intolerable”.

But Hiroshima and Nagasaki, she argued, were only the tip of the iceberg. Since 1945, there have been 2,056 explosive nuclear weapons tests by at least eight countries. Most of these test explosions have been conducted on the lands of indigenous and colonized people.

The U.S. conducted 1,030 of those tests in the atmosphere, underwater, and underground, while the USSR carried out 715 nuclear test detonations.

Not only did these nuclear test explosions fuel the development and spread of new and more deadly types of nuclear weapons, but hundreds of thousands of people have died and millions more have suffered—and continue to suffer—from illnesses directly related to the radioactive fallout from nuclear detonations in the United States, islands in the Pacific, in Australia, China, Algeria, across Russia, in Kazakhstan, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and elsewhere.

“While we’re not seeing visible signs of resumption of full scale nuclear testing by the U.S., it is very disturbing that Project 2025 proposes that the second Trump administration prioritize nuclear weapons programs over other security programs, accelerate the development and production of all nuclear weapons programs, and increase funding for the development and production of new and modernized nuclear warheads,” said Cabasso.

It also proposes that the administration prepare to test new nuclear weapons. Separately, Robert O’Brien, Trump’s national security advisor during his first term, has written that in order to counter China and Russia’s continued investments in their nuclear arsenals, the U.S. should resume nuclear testing.

“Should the United States conduct a full-scale explosive nuclear test, the moratorium on full-scale explosive nuclear testing that has largely held since 1992 would be shattered. It is almost certain that other nuclear-armed states would follow suit. It would be the final nail in the coffin of nuclear arms control and disarmament for the foreseeable future and would signal an unfettered new nuclear arms race,” she warned.

As the 2024 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Nihon Hidankyo, the organization of Japanese atomic bomb survivors, has warned: “Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist.” Nuclear weapons must be eliminated before they eliminate us.

As recognized in the 1945 Constitution of UNESCO, “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.” It is incumbent on each of us to contribute in some way to this noble project.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A nuclear test that was carried out on an island in French Polynesia in 1971. Credit: CTBTO

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 28 2025 (IPS)

The rising nuclear threats over Europe and East Asia are increasingly ominous—particularly in the ongoing Russian-Ukraine military conflict and in the North- South political confrontation in the Korean Peninsula.

The appointment last week of a 21-member Panel of scientists, following a General Assembly resolution, has been described as “a response to a global environment in which the risk of nuclear war is higher than at any point since the depths of the Cold War”.

The move comes ahead of the 80th anniversary, in early August, of the devastating atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which claimed the lives of between 150,000 and 246,000, mostly civilians– and still remains the only use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict.

As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned last week: “Nuclear weapons are wielded as tools of coercion and nuclear arsenals are being upgraded. A nuclear arms race is once again a very real possibility. The guardrails against nuclear devastation are being eroded.”

A more authoritative warning, in the current context, may come from the new “Scientific Panel on the Effects of Nuclear War.”

Guterres announced the appointment of “an independent scientific panel of experts tasked with examining the physical effects and societal consequences of a nuclear war on a local, regional and planetary scale in the days, weeks and decades following a (future) nuclear war.”

The panel will study the possible impact of a nuclear war on everything “from public health to ecosystems, agriculture, and global socioeconomic systems”. The last cross-sectional United Nations study of this kind was undertaken almost four decades ago in 1988.

The link to the list of scientists:
https://press.un.org/en/2025/dc3900.doc.htm

Randy Rydell, a former Senior Political Affairs Officer in the UN’s Office for Disarmament Affairs (1998-2014) and Executive Advisor to Mayors for Peace (2014-2025), told IPS: “The General Assembly deserves credit for creating this panel, an action well within its Charter mandates for commissioning studies and deliberating disarmament issues.”

Amid new threats to use such weapons, soaring nuclear-weapons budgets, and the lack of disarmament negotiations, he said, such a panel will help to educate the public, and hopefully their leaders, about the full scope of the horrific consequences from any use of such weapons.

“I hope it will encourage all parties to appreciate the need for disarmament as the most effective way — actually the only way — to eliminate such threats all together. By clarifying nuclear weapon effects using the most recent scientific tools, the panel can help to restore disarmament to its rightful place, high on the global and national public agendas,” he said.

The panelists are described as leaders in their fields, across a range of scientific disciplines, and come from all regions of the world. They will seek input from a wide range of stakeholders, from international and regional organizations to the International Committee of the Red Cross to civil society and affected communities. The Panel will hold its first meeting in September and will submit a final report to the General Assembly in 2027.

Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute told IPS the unleashing of the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons, by any of the nine states (UK, US, Russia, China, France, Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea) with these devices, would result in consequences of such horror that our imaginative capacity would be vastly inadequate.

The Panel’s hard science approach might help open the eyes of our minds to this reality, he pointed out. “Not only would devastation of the web of human life be shocked, threaded, and possibly damaged beyond repair but we would be annihilating millions of other living forms — insects, plants, fish, reptiles, mammals, and birds”.

The arrogance of such injury to the animal kingdom to protect an invention of our human hands, states, is an arrogance rarely reflected upon. Objective scientific understanding of the specific effects of these weapons, hopefully, will compel greater cooperation in the efforts of nations to stop their spread, stop the current arms race making uses more likely, and re-enliven disarmament efforts, said Granoff.

“The value of more people and especially decision makers having trustworthy empirical knowledge as well as far greater public awareness might lead to a revival of the process that reduced arsenals, in the past recent decades, from over 70,000 to less than 13,000, a proof that progress can be made when the will for sanity, safety and realism prevail.”

The scientific dimension of nuclear weapons, he argued, is understandably difficult to comprehend.

“The UN in its 1991 report found the ‘(n)uclear weapons represent a historically new form of weaponry with unparalleled destructive potential. A single large nuclear weapon could release explosive power comparable to all the energy released from the conventional weapons used in all past wars.’” (quoting the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, UNITED NATIONS, EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WAR ON HEALTH AND HEALTH SERVICES 7 (2d ed. 1987)); see also DEPARTMENT FOR DISARMAMENT AFFAIRS, UNITED NATIONS, NUCLEAR WEAPONS: A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY 7 (1991).

In 1995, the prestigious Canberra Commission, convened by the government of Australia, stated, “The destructiveness of nuclear weapons is immense. Any use would be catastrophic. . . . There is no doubt that, if the peoples of the world were more fully aware of the inherent danger of nuclear weapons and the consequences of their use, they would reject them, and not permit their continued possession or acquisition on their behalf by their governments, even for an alleged need for self defence,” declared Granoff.

Professor Zia Mian, Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University told IPS the University’s Program on Science and Global Security, back in 2015, launched a process to seek a UN General Assembly resolution for a UN study on the effects and humanitarian impacts of nuclear war.

In 2023, the Scientific Advisory Group of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in its report to the Second Meeting of TPNW states recommended a new UN General Assembly mandated study on the consequences of nuclear war, he pointed out.

The Group suggested a “global scientific study on the climatic, environmental, physical and social effects in the weeks to decades following nuclear war,” one that examined “whether and how the interactions of these different physical, environmental and social effects over various timescales might lead to cascading humanitarian consequences,” said Professor Mian, who is also co-director of the Princeton Program on Science and Global Security and co-chair of the Scientific Advisory Group of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

The panel is tasked with publishing a comprehensive report, making key conclusions, and identifying areas requiring future research. The report will be considered by the UN General Assembly at its eighty-second session in 2027.

The last cross-sectional United Nations study of this kind was undertaken almost four decades ago in 1988 (Study on the Climatic and Other Global Effects of Nuclear War, United Nations publication, Sales No. E.89.IX.1).

Questions regarding the panel can be addressed to nweffectspanel@un.org.

Zia Mian, We Need a U.N. Study of the Effects of Nuclear War, Scientific American, October 28, 2024; Nuclear War Effects and Scientific Research: Time for a 21st Century UN Study, First Committee Monitor, Reaching Critical Will, New York, October 4, 2024.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: ASEAN

By Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, Jul 18 2025 (IPS)

Who in Asia would ask for an Asian NATO? Past attempts to develop Asian security compacts under US leadership have not been glittering successes. The two treaty organisations that the US set up in the 50s to counter the Communist tide, the CENTO and the SEATO, have long dissipated.

Indo-China was taken over by the Communists, despite American and allied military interventions, the large-scale bombing, the devastation of countries and the loss of millions of lives.

Now the countries targeted, having survived the US led interventions, and having adopted liberal economic approaches, are thriving. Today the Indo-Chinese countries have mutually beneficial economic and political relations with China.

China has invested billions to develop infrastructure in the Indo-China region under its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the economic benefits are palpable.

Over one billion USD has been invested in the region and beyond under the BRI with the goal of realising a common prosperous future. The strengthening economic ties would seem to outweigh any need for new military alliances.

After the ouster of the Shah in Iran, Central Asia has become a quagmire for US and Western interests. Despite the expenditure of billions, repeated military interventions and millions of deaths, mainly of non-combatants, no one would suggest that peace has dawned on the Central Asian region covered by CENTO.

The ten ASEAN countries have developed an intertwined economic relationship with China and have benefitted hugely from the bilateral free trade agreement. Today China has replaced the US as the main trading partner of ASEAN, with bilateral trade reaching almost a billion US Dollars.

Goods produced in ASEAN, including fruits and vegetables, have ready access to the lucrative Chinese market and millions of Chinese tourists are pouring into ASEAN countries. The bilateral student exchange is thriving with Chinese students accessing educational opportunities, particularly in Singapore and Malaysia.

Admittedly, there could be flash points in the South China Sea, highlighted, and at times exaggerate in particular, by the Western media. But given the nature of the strengthening bilateral economic and people to people relationship between ASEAN and China and the historical depth of their ties, left to themselves, it is likely that the countries of the region will resolve their differences on their own. No one from the region has, so far, proposed a military alliance to resolve their differences.

It is instructive that within days of the US announcing punitive tariffs on Australian copper and pharmaceutical exports, Prime Minister Albanese of Australia was in China with a high powered trade delegation promoting trade and tourism. China is Australia’s largest trading partner and is unlikely to be eager to upset the apple cart (beef market?) by promoting a defence arrangement targeting China.

Australian exports to China amounted to AUD 196 billion in 2024 and are growing. Australia’s exports to China have a significant positive impact on the living standards of average Australians.

The QUAD involving the US, Japan, Australia and India, although promoted with much hype when it was first created, has in recent times become less prominent.

China is nuclear armed but has a no-first-use policy. Nuclear armed North Korea has a policy centred on deterring attacks. In the circumstances to promote a NATO type arrangement in East and South East Asia as a deterrent would seem excessive and provocative. China has only one base outside mainland China (In Djibouti) to counter piracy in the region.

North Korea has none. China nor North Korea have any defence oriented military personnel outside their own territories. The US has thousands of military personnel in bases surrounding China. The US pivot to Asia had China in its cross hairs. It is the US that has identified China as a strategic threat not the other way around.

The best way to reduce real and imaginary tensions (some stoked intentionally), would be to encourage parties to engage in dialogue with each other. A fractured world needs peace, not more conflict, for human progress.

What we require are alliances that promote infrastructure development for developing countries, that address the threat of climate change and sea level rise, which strive to eliminate extreme poverty, and which will make the world a better place for the living and for future generations.

In the past, US military incursions in the region did not produce peace. On the contrary, the progress of countries was dramatically curtailed, thousands of combatants and civilians died and millions were maimed. We must learn from the past painful experiences.

Dr Palitha Kohona is former chief of the UN Treaty section, a former Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations, and until recently, Ambassador to China.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Malaysia is Chair of ASEAN for 2025.

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 16 2025 (IPS)

The US is apparently contemplating the possible creation—either a formal or an informal– security alliance in the Asia-Pacific region on the lines of the longstanding collective defense pact, the 32-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

If the proposal materializes, the new alliance is expected to include Japan, South Korea, Australia, plus, the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), comprising Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, among others.

The New York Times last month quoted US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as saying: ”No one should doubt America’s commitment to our Indo-Pacific allies and partners. We will continue to wrap our arms around our friends and find new ways to work together”.

He said Indo-Pacific is a “region where the United States favours continuity in security alliances more than disruption”.

Ely Ratner, a former US assistant secretary of defense for Indo-Pacific security issues, has suggested. in an article in Foreign Affairs, that the US and its allies in Asia should form a collective defense pact, similar to NATO.

The proposed new alliance is primarily meant to be a protective shield against the two nuclear armed countries in the region: China and North Korea.

Of the world’s nine nuclear powers, the only region with four nuclear-armed countries is Asia: India, China, Pakistan and North Korea—the others outside Asia include the US, UK, France, Russia and Israel.

Meanwhile, AUKUS, a trilateral security partnership linking Australia, the UK and the United States, is aimed at “promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific that is secure and stable”

Hegseth’s visit to the region was followed by a visit from another senior US official, Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Addressing a press conference in Kuala Lumpur on July 10, Rubio said: “You know my very first meeting – I don’t know if you know this, but when I was sworn-in. I went to the State Department, I gave a speech on the steps, and then my first meeting right out of the box was with Japan, South Korea, and India”.

“And we’ve repeated that meeting numerous times since then with that group. We have a running internal joke with my counterpart from Japan: I have literally now seen him about 8 to 12 times, and our joke is that we see each other more than we see our own families,” he said.

Tammy Bruce State Department Spokesperson told reporters July 10 that Rubio was in Kuala Lumpur for the ASEAN-related foreign ministers’ meetings and bilateral engagements, reaffirming the United States commitment – our enduring commitment, “If I may add – to a free, open, and secure Indo-Pacific”.

Rubio participated in the ASEAN-U.S. Post-Ministerial Conference and held meetings with Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar and counterparts from Malaysia, Russia, Japan, and the Philippines. The Indo-Pacific region accounts for two thirds of global growth and remains a central focus of U.S. foreign policy, he said.

Rubio also signed a nuclear cooperation Memorandum of Understanding with Malaysia, advancing civil nuclear energy collaboration under the highest standards of safety, security, and nonproliferation.

Negotiations towards a 123 Agreement are underway. And once finalized, it would permit the transfer of nuclear material and equipment for peaceful purposes, further deepening bilateral energy, security, and economic ties.

Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act generally requires the conclusion of a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement for significant transfers of nuclear material or equipment from the United States.

Moreover, such agreements, commonly referred to as “123 Agreements,” facilitate cooperation in other areas, such as technical exchanges, scientific research, and safeguards discussions, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA}

In conjunction with other nonproliferation tools, particularly the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), 123 Agreements help to advance U.S. nonproliferation principles. They establish the legal framework for significant nuclear cooperation with other countries.

In order for a partner to enter into a 123 Agreement with the United States, that partner must adhere to a set of strong nonproliferation requirements. The U.S. State Department is responsible for negotiating 123 Agreements, with the technical assistance and concurrence of DOE/NNSA and in consultation with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

According to the US Department of Energy, about 25 countries currently have 123 agreements in force.

But there is also a more militaristic perspective to the proposed security alliance.

Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs and Graduate Program Director, MPPGA at University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS if it is created, this new forum will add to the already growing trend of militarization, which will increase the risk of war, especially with China, and divert money from other urgent priorities such as dealing with climate change.

“And, should it be set up, the U.S. government will try to make its members buy more expensive and destructive weapons from U.S. arms manufacturers, which will strengthen their political power over policy making in the United States, and in turn will make the social landscape in the United States even worse,” said Dr Ramana.

Stressing the growing new relationships in the region, Rubio told reporters: “And so, these engagements are very important to us. And we’re going to continue to stay very committed, because this – as I said to all of our partners, this notion or idea that the United States would ever be distracted by the Indo-Pacific or even Southeast Asia is impossible.”

“You can’t be – maybe it doesn’t always – wars get more attention, but it’s impossible to not be focused. This is where much of the story of the 21st century is going to be written. This is where two thirds of economic growth is going to happen over the next 25 or 30 years.”

And many of the countries of Southeast Asia – not only are they some of the youngest countries in the world, but they’re about to see an enormous expansion of their labor markets, their labor pool, number of workers, he said.

“This is a historic, once-in-a-generation opportunity not just for these countries to revolutionize themselves from an economic standpoint, but further strengthen our relationship. We have over 6,000 American companies that have invested heavily in these economies over the last 20 or 30 years. These are – we’re not abandoning those relationships. On the contrary, we want to strengthen and build upon them.”

Dr Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section, and until recently, Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to China, told IPS China is nuclear armed but has a no-first-use policy. Nuclear armed North Korea has a policy centred on deterring attacks. In the circumstances to promote a NATO type arrangement in East and South East Asia as a deterrent would seem excessive.

China, he pointed out, has only one base outside mainland China (in Djibouti). North Korea has none. China nor North Koea have no military personnel outside their own territories. The US has thousands of military personnel in bases surrounding China. The US pivot to Asia had China in its cross hairs.

The best way to reduce real and imaginary tensions (some stoked intentionally), he pointed out, would be to encourage parties to enter into dialogue with each other. The world needs peace, not conflict, for human progress.

“We require alliances that promote infrastructure development for developing countries, that address the threat of climate change, which strive to eliminate extreme poverty, and which will make the world a better place. In the past, US military incursions in the region did not produce peace.”

On the contrary, the progress of countries was dramatically curtailed, thousands of combatants and civilians died and millions were maimed, declared Dr Kohona.

Stressing the strong relationship between the US and Japan, Rubio said: “We obviously have very strong commitments and an alliance with Japan. We continue to cooperate very closely with them. As I speak to you now, there are active exercises going on between the United States and Japan.”

So. our relationship with them will continue to exist.

“The idea that somehow Japan would be able to develop domestic – their own capabilities for mutual self-defense is not only something that we find offensive, it’s something we’d be supportive of, obviously within the confines of their constitutional system. But they have some limitations on what they can do. But the idea that Japan’s military would become more capable is not something we would be offended by; it’s something we would actually be encouraged by”.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: ICAN/Tim Wright

By Jacqueline Cabasso
OAKLAND, California, USA, Jul 1 2025 (IPS)

July 16, 2025, will mark the 80th anniversary of “Trinity,” the first nuclear test detonation, at Alamagordo, New Mexico, and August 6 and 9 will mark the 80th anniversaries of the United States atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Rather than commemorating those somber anniversaries as a grim reminder of the past, this year they serve as a foreboding warning of what may be to come.

The Russian Federation’s nuclear threats in its war on Ukraine have made clear that the dangers of nuclear war are real and present. Tensions around the world, including between the United States and China over Taiwan and the South China Sea, and the chronic security crises on the Korean Peninsula and in the Middle East, constitute other potential nuclear flashpoints.

The recent armed clashes between India and Pakistan have demonstrated that the near-term risks of nuclear war are multifaceted and global.

Reflecting the urgency of this moment, on June 20, the day before the United States bombed Iran’s nuclear technology infrastructure, the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) International Affairs Standing Committee unanimously adopted a timely new resolution, “Urging the United States to Lead the World Back From the Brink of Nuclear War and Halt and Reverse the Nuclear Arms Race.” It was officially adopted at the closing session of the USCM’s 93rd Annual Meeting in Tampa, Florida, on June 22.

During the committee meeting, Acting Chair, Mayor Martha Guerrero, of West Sacramento, California, one of the resolution’s cosponsors, noted, “In an increasingly interconnected world, mayors are stepping into the role of diplomats…. U.S. and international mayors are shaping foreign policy from the ground up.” This is the twentieth consecutive year that the USCM has adopted a resolution submitted by U.S. members of Mayors for Peace.

The USCM is the official nonpartisan association of more than 1,400 American cities with populations over 30,000. Resolutions adopted at its annual meetings become USCM official policy that guide the organization’s advocacy efforts for the coming year.

The new Mayors for Peace resolution points out that world military expenditures rose to $2718 billion in 2024, and that the U.S. accounted for 37% of global military spending, more than the next nine countries combined, more than three times as much as China, and nearly seven times as much as Russia.

It notes that the Congressional Budget Office has projected that, if carried out, U.S. plans to operate, sustain, and modernize its strategic and tactical nuclear delivery systems and the weapons they carry would cost a total of $946 billion over the 2025–2034 period, an average of about $95 billion a year, an amount 25 percent ($190 billion) larger than its 2023 estimate of $756 billion for the 2023–2032 period.

In response to these escalating nuclear dangers and spiraling costs, the USCM “calls on the President to lead a global effort to move the world back from the nuclear brink, halt and reverse a global nuclear arms race, and prevent nuclear war, by engaging in good faith negotiations with the other eight nuclear armed states, in particular the Russian Federation and China, to halt any further buildup of nuclear arsenals and to verifiably reduce and eliminate nuclear arsenals according to negotiated timetables; seeking the renunciation by all nuclear-armed states of the option of using nuclear weapons.

First; implementing effective checks and balances on the Commander in Chief’s sole authority to order the use of U.S. nuclear weapons; ending the Cold War-era ‘hair-trigger alert’ posture; ending plans to produce and deploy new nuclear warheads and delivery systems; and maintaining the de facto global moratorium on nuclear explosive testing.”

Second, the USCM also “calls on the President to protect communities and workers affected by nuclear weapons by fully remediating the deadly legacy of environmental contamination from past and current nuclear weapons testing, development, production, storage, and maintenance activities, and by providing health monitoring, compensation, and medical care to those who have and will be harmed by nuclear weapons research, testing, and production, including through an expanded Radiation Exposure Compensation Act program.”

Third, the USCM also “calls on the President to actively plan a just economic transition for the civilian and military workforce involved in the development, testing, production, management, and dismantlement of nuclear weapons and for the communities that are economically dependent on nuclear weapons laboratories, production facilities, and military bases.”

And it urges Congress to pass H. Res. 317, “Urging the United States to Lead the World Back From the Brink of Nuclear War and Halt and Reverse the Nuclear Arms Race,” which encompasses the above points, introduced by Representative Jim McGovern (MA) on April 9, 2025.

Finally, the resolution calls on the Administration and Congress to cut increases in military and nuclear weapons spending and to restore funding for programs that are critical to American cities, including the Community Development Block Grant Program and the HOME Investment Partnership Program, and to preserve and strengthen Medicaid as a matter of public safety.

The resolution’s lead sponsor, Mayor Quentin Hart of Waterloo, Iowa, commented, “As an elected official and original sponsor, I recognize the value of human life and our duty as leaders to leave a better world for future generations. In this heightened hour of conflict and division this resolution rings as a reminder that we have so much work to do”.

“It is essential to examine how we use nuclear weapons and to foster meaningful global dialogue to prevent nuclear conflict and promote peace. I am honored to stand alongside fellow mayors worldwide as a member of Mayors for Peace, advocating for a safer, more peaceful future.”

As recognized in the resolution, Mayors for Peace, led by the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is working for a world without nuclear weapons, safe and resilient cities, and a culture of peace. As of June 1, 2025, Mayors for Peace has grown to 8,487 cities in 166 countries and territories, with 230 U.S. members.

The USCM has once again charted a responsible path. It’s long past time for the federal government to listen to the elected representatives who are closest to the people. This resolution could not be timelier – or more urgent.

The shared common-sense commitment of mayors across the country and around the world to the global elimination of nuclear weapons is a beacon of hope in these dark times.

The 2025 USCM Mayors for Peace resolution was sponsored by Mayor Quentin Hart, of Waterloo, Iowa, and cosponsored by Mayor Lacey Beaty, of Beaverton, Oregon; Mayor LaToya Cantrell, of New Orleans, Louisiana; Mayor Brad Cavanagh, of Dubuque, Iowa; Mayor Joy Cooper, of Hallandale Beach, Florida; Mayor Malik Evans, of Rochester, New York; Mayor Martha Guerrero, of West Sacramento, California; Mayor Adena Ishii, of Berkeley, California; Mayor Elizabeth Kautz, of Burnsville, Minnesota; Mayor Kim Norton, of Rochester, Minnesota; Mayor Andy Schor, of Lansing, Michigan; Mayor Matt Tuerk, of Allentown, Pennsylvania; Mayor Ellen Kamei, of Mountain View, California; Mayor Patricia Lock Dawson, of Riverside, California; Mayor Joshua Garcia, of Holyoke, Massachusetts; and Mayor S.M. Fazlul Kabir, of College Park, Maryland.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Chie Sunada of SGI (left) moderates the first panel discussion, “From Deterrence to Disarmament: The Path Forward”. Credit: SGI

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
SANTA BARBARA/Tokyo (INPSJ) , Jun 19 2025 (IPS)

Marking 80 years since the dawn of the nuclear age, peace advocates, diplomats, educators, and atomic bomb survivors from around the world gathered for the “Choose Hope” symposium on March 12–13, 2025, in Santa Barbara, California. Co-organized by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) and Soka Gakkai International (SGI), the event was held at the Music Academy of the West.

Tomohiko Aishima of SGI opens the symposium with reflections on the dialogue between Daisaku Ikeda and David Krieger, which he witnessed during his time as a reporter at Seikyo Shimbun. Credit: SGI

“This is not just about legacy,” said Dr. Ivana Nikolić Hughes, president of NAPF. “We are here to continue the journey they started and to build a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons.”

Tomohiko Aishima, Director of Peace Affairs at SGI, recalled witnessing their dialogue firsthand: “What impressed me most was that their dialogue was not merely about ideals—it was a call to action, rooted in practical solutions.”

A Warning Against Nuclear Deterrence

Annie Jacobsen, Pulitzer Prize finalist and author of Nuclear War: A Scenario delivers the 20th Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future at the start of the symposium. Credit:Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

In the keynote lecture, Pulitzer Prize finalist and author Annie Jacobsen posed the question, “What happens if nuclear deterrence fails?” Drawing from confidential interviews with U.S. government and military insiders, Jacobsen warned: “No matter how it begins, nuclear war will end in total annihilation.” She explained that once a nuclear exchange is triggered, retaliatory strikes could spread globally within just seven minutes, leading to uncontrollable destruction and the collapse of human civilization.

In a following panel, moderated by Dr. Hughes, Princeton University’s Professor Emeritus Richard Falk, Dr. Jimmy Hara of Physicians for Social Responsibility–Los Angeles (PSR-LA), Professor Peter Kuznick of American University, and ICAN Executive Director Melissa Parke addressed policy transformations urgently needed to prevent such a catastrophe.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, signed 20 September 2017 by 50 United Nations member states. Credit: UN Photo / Paulo Filgueiras

Ambassador Elayne Whyte, who presided over the 2017 UN negotiations that adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), emphasized the need for sincere dialogue, even with those who hold opposing views.

Listening to Testimony

Atomic bomb survivor Masako Wada from Nagasaki (representing Nihon Hidankyo) addressed the symposium via video message, urging participants to “continue telling the truth about the horrors of the bomb.”

Nagasaki, Japan, before and after the atomic bombing of August 9, 1945./ Public Domain

In the session “Legacy of Nuclear Use and Testing: A Call for Justice,” SGI United Nations Office Disarmament Program Coordinator Anna Ikeda shared testimony on the health effects, stigma, and trauma experienced by victims. “Nuclear justice means establishing the collective understanding that the use, testing, or threat of nuclear weapons can never be justified,” she said.

Dr. Togzhan Kassenova presented findings on the intergenerational health effects stemming from Soviet-era nuclear tests in Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan. Christian Ciobanu, representing Kiribati and NAPF, proposed establishing an international fund for victim assistance and environmental remediation. Veronique Christory of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) stressed the importance of humanitarian principles in disarmament efforts.

Anna Ikeda of SGI (center) speaks as a panelist on the second panel discussion, “Legacy of Nuclear Use and Testing: A Call for Justice”　Credit: SGI

The Intersection with Climate Justice

The final panel, “The Intersection of Climate and Nuclear Justice: Empowering Youth for Change,” was moderated by SGI Disarmament Program Coordinator Miyuki Horiguchi.

Anduin Devos of NuclearBan.US reflected on how concern over the climate crisis led her to become involved in the anti-nuclear movement. “Resources spent on nuclear weapons should be redirected to address climate solutions,” she said.

Young activists Kevin Chiu and Viktoria Lokh spoke on the importance of integrating youth voices into nuclear policy discussions. Horiguchi cited a Native American proverb—“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”—and a quote from Choose Hope: “Hope is another name for youth,” emphasizing the unique power of young people to open new eras.

Miyuki Horiguchi of SGI (left) moderates the final panel discussion, “The Intersection of Climate and Nuclear Justice: Empowering Youth for Change” Credit: SGI

Art as a Catalyst for Change

Film director Andrew Davis and artist Stella Rose discussed the role of art in inspiring awareness and action. “Art doesn’t just reflect truth—it makes us feel it, and move us to act,” said Davis.

The symposium’s final declaration also underscored the role of culture and creativity in promoting peace and deepening empathy.

The Declaration: Choosing Hope

The Choose Hope Declaration was published after the symposium. With the Doomsday Clock set at “89 seconds to midnight,” the declaration warned that a nuclear-free world is possible only through intentional and collective choices. “We choose hope over despair,” it stated.

This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Todd Moss
WASHINGTON DC, Jun 5 2025 (IPS)

On June 10, the World Bank’s board will meet to consider lifting an outdated ban on nuclear energy – one that has remained in place for decades despite the growing global need for clean, reliable electricity.

The ban limits options for developing nations, undermines climate goals, and leaves countries vulnerable to authoritarian influence. Here are some key facts to know about the ban and its impact:

FACT: Over 3 billion people lack reliable electricity.

Nuclear power can help close this gap by delivering large-scale, dependable energy to regions where renewables alone are insufficient to meet rising demand.

FACT: Global electricity demand will double by 2050, led by emerging and developing countries.

Most of the world’s growth in energy demand will be among World Bank client countries in Asia, Middle East, and Africa that are open to nuclear power but still require financing.

FACT: Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest, most reliable sources of electricity.

Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power generates electricity without carbon emissions – and unlike solar and wind, it provides round-the-clock baseload power essential for economic growth and industrialization.

FACT: The World Bank’s ban leaves developing nations dependent on Russia and China.

Without financing options from trusted institutions like the World Bank, countries turn to state-backed Russian and Chinese nuclear deals – often opaque, long-term arrangements that undermine sovereignty and energy security.

FACT: Developing countries want nuclear power – but can’t finance it.

Countries across Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America are actively exploring nuclear power but face steep financing barriers. Without World Bank support, they’re denied a viable path to energy independence.

FACT: Every credible path to a low-carbon future includes nuclear.

More than two dozen countries have pledged to triple nuclear power by 2030 to meet climate goals. Continued exclusion of nuclear from World Bank policy contradicts the urgency of the climate crisis.

FACT: The World Bank’s ban is copied by over 20 other development finance institutions.

This domino effect means that outdated policy by a few powerful shareholders is depriving low- and middle-income countries around the world of access to a key clean energy technology.

FACT: Modern nuclear technology is safer, smaller, and more flexible than ever.

Advanced reactors and small modular designs address past safety concerns and are well-suited for the needs of emerging markets, including off-grid, industrial, and remote applications.

FACT: Lifting the ban would open the door to U.S. and allied technology.

American nuclear firms are at risk of being shut out of deals due to the financing gap, while authoritarian states step in. Reversing the ban would promote fair, open competition and high safety standards.

FACT: A simple first step: build World Bank expertise.

The Bank doesn’t yet have a team of nuclear energy experts to assist and advise client countries. Creating a technical team to assess nuclear options would help countries make informed decisions – and allow the Bank to modernize itself and better serve its shareholders.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Kassym-Jomart Tokayev paid tribute to the victims with a minute of silence. Credit: Akorda

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
TOKYO / ASTANA , Jun 4 2025 (IPS)

On the windswept steppe west of Astana, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev led a solemn ceremony this week to mark Kazakhstan’s Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Political Repressions and Famine—an annual reflection on one of the nation’s darkest chapters.

The ceremony was held at the ALZHIR Memorial Complex, a former Stalin-era camp where nearly 8,000 women—wives of those declared “enemies of the state”—were once imprisoned.

“The lessons of history must never be forgotten,” Tokayev declared, referring to the Stalin-era policies that left deep scars on Kazakhstan’s cultural and intellectual life.

Credit: Map of Gulag locations in Soviet Union, Public Domain

Kazakhstan’s experience forms part of the broader story of Stalinist repression, which extended well beyond Russia’s borders. After Japan’s surrender in 1945, an estimated 560,000 to 760,000 Japanese prisoners of war and civilians were forcibly relocated and detained across Soviet territory. Among them, about 50,000 were sent to camps in what was then the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic (now Kazakhstan). In camps such as Spassky near Karaganda, many perished under harsh forced labor and brutal conditions.

Kazakh citizens suffered even greater losses. In the early 1930s, famine caused by Stalin’s agricultural collectivization policies and the forced destruction of the traditional nomadic way of life claimed as many as 2.3 million Kazakhs. This was followed by purges in which countless intellectuals and landowners were executed or exiled.

Migration of Kazakh People due to theFamine in 1932 – 33.

Since gaining independence in 1991, Kazakhstan has sought not only to confront this painful legacy but also to embrace the vision of a multiethnic and multifaith society rooted in tolerance. Its constitution guarantees equality for all ethnic and religious groups, and more than 300,000 victims have been officially rehabilitated. Declassified archives continue to shed new light on this era.

But Kazakhstan’s progress is not merely about reconciliation with the past. It has also chosen to make tolerance and dialogue central pillars of its national identity.

As I wrote in a 2023 INPS Japan article, Kazakhstan’s leadership has placed global interfaith dialogue at the heart of its foreign engagement. The Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions, launched in 2003, has become a signature platform bringing together leaders from Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other faiths for sustained dialogue.

7th Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions Group Photo by Secretariate of the 7th Congress

Palace of Peace and Reconciliation. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

Hosted at the iconic Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, the Congress reflects Kazakhstan’s role as a bridge between East and West and its commitment to promoting peaceful coexistence, mutual respect, and dialogue.

This approach holds particular relevance in a world increasingly fractured by sectarian conflict and geopolitical tensions. Kazakhstan’s efforts to transform a history marked by division and repression into a model of inclusion and cooperation offer valuable lessons for the global community.

Such values were echoed by Pope Francis, who attended the 7th Congress in 2022. In his closing address, the pontiff stated, “Religions must never incite war, hateful attitudes, hostility or extremism, but instead become a beacon of hope for peace.” He emphasized the importance of interreligious dialogue and coexistence.

Semipalatinsk former Nuclear test site. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

This commitment to nuclear disarmament also extends to interfaith diplomacy. Since the 6th Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions in 2018, Kazakhstan has worked closely with Soka Gakkai International (SGI) of Japan and the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), advancing a shared vision of peace, dialogue, and the abolition of nuclear weapons, grounded in the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use and the testimonies of Hibakusha, while promoting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) and deepening international cooperation.

A Group photo of participants of the regional conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and nuclear-free-zone in Central Asia held on August 29, 2023. Credit: Jibek Joly TV Channel

The ALZHIR Memorial itself continues to bear witness to the injustices of the past. Its preserved barracks and “Arch of Sorrow” leave a powerful impression on visitors.

Yet as this week’s remembrance ceremony and Kazakhstan’s ongoing interfaith efforts make clear, the country is determined to build a future grounded in tolerance, justice, and peace.

“Such injustices must never be repeated,” Tokayev affirmed—a principle that now informs both Kazakhstan’s domestic policies and its multi-vector diplomacy aimed at fostering dialogue and harmony on the international stage.

Katsuhiro Asagiri is the President of INPS Japan and serves as the director for media projects such as “Strengthening awareness on Nuclear Weapons” and SDGs for All” In 2024, he was honored with the “Kazakhstan Through the Eyes of Foreign Media” award, representing the Asia-Pacific region.

This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The closing session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Credit: UN TV

By Naureen Hossain
NEW YORK, May 21 2025 (IPS)

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons must not be allowed to collapse under the weight of geopolitical cynicism, the preparatory committee at the UN heard.

This year, the Third Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) (April 28-May 9) was intended to address procedural issues related to the treaty and the upcoming conference next year. The meeting was the third and final preparatory session before the review conference next year. As such, the session was an opportunity for countries to reaffirm the principles of the NPT by agreement.

Throughout the two weeks, delegations expressed their positions and deliberated over recommendations that would shape the agenda for the 2026 conference. Beyond member states, other stakeholders such as civil society groups were emphatic in expressing the urgency of the nuclear issue and calling for member states to take action.

“The continued existence of nuclear weapons remains one of the most urgent and existential dangers facing life on this planet,” said Florian Eblenkamp, an advocacy officer for the International Coalition Against Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). He went further to state, “The non-proliferation norm must not be allowed to collapse under the weight of geopolitical cynicism. If the NPT is to have a future, States Parties must send an unambiguous signal: Nuclear weapons are not to be spread. Not to be shared. Not to be normalized.”

The committee’s chair, Ambassador Harold Agyeman, who serves as the Permanent Representative of Ghana to the United Nations, told reporters early on that the success of the review conference in 2026 would be “dependent on the political will of state parties” in demonstrating progress on their obligations of the treaty and to “strengthen accountability for the related implementation of existing commitments.”

“Indeed, many around the world are concerned by the lack of raw progress on nuclear disarmament, and emerging proliferations risk that could undermine the hard-won norms established to bring about a world free of nuclear weapons and a regime to achieve that goal,” said Agyeman.

The third preparatory session took place in a time of increasing global anxiety over nuclear proliferation and even escalation. The most recent conflict between India and Pakistan has the world on edge that two nuclear powers might engage in war. Since April, Iran and the United States have been in negotiations over a new nuclear deal, which at times has seen both sides at a deadlock over limiting Iran’s nuclear programme.

Given that context, plus pre-existing tensions between other global powers, such as Russia and the war in Ukraine, this session was an opportunity for countries to act with urgency towards non-proliferation and to respect their obligations under the NPT. By the end of the conference, however, it seemed no agreement was reached. Revised recommendations for the review conference failed to reach consensus. This continues a concerning pattern of preparatory meetings that also failed to adopt an outcome.

As the meeting reached its conclusion on May 9, delegations expressed regret that the draft agreement did not reach consensus. “We regret that the desired breakthrough on transparency and accountability in the context of the strengthened due process was not reached,” said one delegate from Egypt. “The discussion was mature and based itself on mutual respect and commitment to multilateralism.

Many delegations made sure to reaffirm their commitment to the NPT and to strengthening the review process. Yet there was also a recurring acknowledgement of the “complex geopolitical situation” that presented a challenge in reaching consensus.

Civil society organizations have also been vocal in their disappointment at the lack of agreement or outcome document. ICAN stated that the lack of an agreement reflected a “horrifying lack of urgency in response to current risks.” Reaching Critical Will went further to criticize nuclear-armed states for refusing to comply with international law and their obligations to the NPT, which calls for them to eliminate nuclear weapons.

The NPT Review Conference (RevCon) is expected to be held in New York from 27 April to 22 May 2026. The PrepComm nominated Vietnam to chair the RevCon. Ambassador Dang Hoang Giang, Permanent Representative of Vietnam to the United Nations, stated that the presidency would be “characterized by inclusive, transparent, and balanced proceedings” that would ensure that the perspectives and interests of all state parties would be respected.

“The road ahead will be challenging, but we remain confident that through collective wisdom and shared determination, meaningful progress is not only possible but achievable. A robust and effective treaty ensures a safer and more secure work for everyone,” said Giang.

The presence—and threat—of nuclear weapons looms large. For good reason, they cannot simply be relegated to history as a relic of hubris and ambition when we can observe their influence in modern geopolitics. If the spirit for nuclear nonproliferation is indeed still there, then the international community must be vigilant in advocating for the NPT and other disarmament treaties, rather than let a small percentage of parties dictate the global agenda. This must be an ongoing process, lest we see the continued undermining of nonproliferation and multilateralism.

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report, NUCLEAR ABOLITION

A panel on nuclear disarmament held ahead of the 2026 Review of the Treaty of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, May 20 2025 (IPS)

The argument for nuclear disarmament is perhaps more relevant than it has been since the end of World War II, especially in a world where there is a growing gulf between nuclear states and between nuclear states and those who don’t have the weapons.

In an event held at the sidelines of the Preparatory Committee for the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) (April 28-May 9), a panel of experts deliberated over how nuclear disarmament must be achieved in the modern day. The panel was co-organized by Soka Gakkai International (SGI) and the Permanent Mission of Kazakhstan to the United Nations in New York.

As new conflicts break out and pre-existing conflicts seem to drag on and escalate, there is a greater need for global parties to reach consensus on security matters, including the place of nuclear weapons in a post-Cold War era. William Potter, the director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, expressed concern about the “erosion” of the norms for nuclear weapons.

“To say the least, the world is in a state of disarray. It’s hard to distinguish traditional allies from adversaries,” said Potter.

Potter remarked on a “growing gulf” between nuclear states—countries that possess nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction—and non-nuclear states when it comes to the urgency with which the issue of nuclear disarmament needs to be addressed.

“It is not the nuclear weapon itself… rather, the true adversary lies in the thinking that rationalizes and justifies the use of nuclear weapons,” said Chie Sunada, SGI’s Director of Disarmament and Human Rights. “It’s the dangerous mindset to annihilate others when they’re perceived as a threat or an obstacle to their objective. It is that way of thinking that disregards the sanctity of life, [which] we must collectively defend.”

Even as some global powers debate over relaxing the restrictions on nuclear weapon deployment, there are still effective, diplomatic tools that are being employed to promote disarmament. One such example is the Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zones, as codified in region-specific treaties.

Countries across Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Pacific, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia agree not to possess nuclear arms or conduct testing. For non-nuclear states, these zones allow them to “[assert] their agency” and “the right to dictate how their regional security is formulated,” according to Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova, Japan Chair for a World Without Nuclear Weapons (VCDNP). She further added that these nuclear-free zones limit the freedom of action of nuclear states by forcing them to respect the treaties that protect them.

The panel also advocated for giving more credence to a ‘no first use’ policy, in which a nuclear power refrains from using nuclear weapons when engaged in warfare with another nuclear power.

So far, China is the only nuclear power and P5 Member State that has a ‘no first use’ policy, meaning they would only use nuclear weapons in retaliation against a nuclear attack. 

India has a ‘no first use’ policy, but it includes a caveat that allows for a response to biological or chemical weapons.

Meanwhile, the other P5 members—the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, and France—along with other nuclear powers, such as Pakistan and North Korea, maintain policies that permit the first use of nuclear weapons in a conflict.

By giving further credence to a ‘no first use’ pledge that countries can adopt, this could prevent misunderstandings and miscalculations that could lead to a devastating result. In such deliberations on nuclear treaties, there need to be what Director and Deputy to the High Representative of the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), Adedeji Ebo, referred to as “confidence-building dialogues,” which can be achieved through enhancing reporting and transparency measures.

This year’s PrepComm began with a discussion on the issue. Alexander Kmentt, Director of the Disarmament, Arms Control, and Non-Proliferation Department of the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, argued that in NPT deliberations, nuclear states seemed to have greater political priority and are more inclined to maintain the status quo because their possession of nuclear weapons provides them a sense of security. This presents a power imbalance.

Meetings like this year’s NPT PrepComm and the Meeting of State Parties on the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons must also create environments where delegations and other stakeholders are well-informed and can speak with authority.

Ebo argued that non-nuclear states are “indispensable” for “achieving meaningful progress in nuclear disarmament.”

Umbrella states—countries that have nuclear protection agreements with nuclear powers—should leverage their positions and extend support to non-nuclear states in their nonproliferation stances.

There is a need to “demystify the nuclear conversation,” Ebo remarked. Diplomats and other experts that will deal with nuclear issues need to be properly informed about this matter. He also spoke of the potential power that comes from regular citizens and grassroots movements to hold their elected leaders accountable on the matter of nuclear disarmament. By bringing this issue to the attention of their elected officials, it becomes “difficult to ignore.”

“The nuclear issue is too important to be left to the states alone,” he said.

Disarmament and nonproliferation education is being carried out through nongovernmental organizations and advocacy groups, such as SGI.

Since 1957, nuclear disarmament has been part of SGI’s broader agenda for promoting the culture of peace. Sunada remarked that education plays a role in fostering “powerful, transnational solidarity” among people. To that end, SGI has organized and facilitated speaking engagements with hibakusha—survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings—to share their experiences with both Japanese and foreign audiences, along with workshops that reach over 10,000 people a year.

The panel recognized efforts toward nuclear disarmament through global diplomacy and grassroots movements. For nuclear treaties to be upheld and respected, perhaps at their core there should be a shared understanding of what constitutes a nuclear taboo, whether it prohibits the first use of nuclear weapons in warfare or if it is a complete prohibition.

Mukhatzhanova pointed out that understanding seems to vary among different groups, from policymakers and diplomats to academia and the general public and suggested that it could be beneficial to deliberate and debate on common ground for the NPT 2026 Review Conference.

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

This village is half in India and half in Pakistan. In Pakistan it is called Chilhana; on the Indian side, it's called Teetwal. Credit: Zofeen Ebrahim/IPS

By Zofeen Ebrahim
KARACHI, Pakistan, May 8 2025 (IPS)

Just after the young couple arrived at Al-Sayyed Shabistan, a quaint guesthouse in Taobat, on April 30, soldiers showed up, urging them to leave—war, they warned, could break out any moment.

Yahya Shah, guest-house owner and head of Taobat’s hotel association, told IPS over the phone, “Tourist season just began, but for two weeks the village feels like a ghost town—everyone’s hit: shopkeepers, eateries, drivers.”

Just 2 km from the tense Line of Control (not a legally recognized international border, but a de facto border under control of the military on both sides between the Indian- and Pakistani-controlled parts of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir), Taobat sits where India’s Kishenganga river crosses into Pakistan—reborn as the Neelum.

Tensions spiked after a deadly April 22 attack in the Indian-administered Pahalgam by The Resistance Front, killing 26 people—25 Indians and one Nepali.

India blamed Pakistan for backing TRF, calling it a Lashkar-e-Taiba front. Pakistan denied involvement, urging an independent probe. Meanwhile, pressure mounted on the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, to respond forcefully, as the attackers remained at large two weeks later.

The question on everyone’s mind — including Michael Kugelman, a Washington, DC-based South Asia analyst — is, “How could such a horrific attack have been carried out on soft targets in one of the most heavily militarized regions in the world?”

Taobat is the last village of Neelum Valley and the place where the Kishenganga River enters Pakistani territory and is called the Neelum river. Credit: Zofeen Ebrahim/IPS

When India crossed the line

On May 7, early morning, the intensity of the animosity between the two since the Pahalgam attack took on a serious turn when India launched a full-fledged series of attacks on Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

India claimed it targeted “terrorist camps” in Pakistan, stating, “No Pakistani military facilities have been targeted.”

Pakistan’s armed forces have been authorized to take “corresponding actions” following the strikes, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s office said following the attack.

The Indian attack killed 26 civilians, injuring 46. In addition, the Pakistani army reported downing five Indian jets. In retaliatory attacks by Pakistani forces, at least 10 people have been killed in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Reuters, quoting the local government on the Indian side, admitted that three fighter jets crashed in Jammu and Kashmir hours after India announced it had struck “nine Pakistani terrorist infrastructure sites across the border.”

The international community has called for restraint, with the United States urging the two sides to “keep lines of communication open and avoid escalation” the United Kingdom offering “in dialogue, in de-escalation and anything we can do to support that, we are here and willing to do…” United Nations’ Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the international community could not “afford a military confrontation” between the nuclear-armed nations.

Tensions between India and Pakistan ripple across South Asia.

“A tense situation between Pakistan and India is always a cause for worry for others in the region,” said Reaz Ahmad, Dhaka Tribune’s editor, with over 30 years of writing about South Asian politics. Bangladeshis only “want both nations to stop the blame game and tit-for-tat actions that only worsen life for ordinary people.” These unfortunate events, said Ahmed, referring to the war-like situation, show the “people deserve far better from their leaders.”

Daily life in Taobat Bala, about 1.5 km from Taobat. The area isn’t populated; people may work in the area but live in Taobat. Credit: Zofeen Ebrahim/IPS

Closed gates, broken pacts

Following the Pahalgam attack, India and Pakistan shut borders, halted visas, expelled visitors, and downgraded missions—familiar moves in past standoffs. But this time, India suspended the 1960 water treaty, prompting Pakistan to threaten withdrawal from the 1972 Simla Agreement.

Dr. Moonis Ahmar, former chairman of the department of international relations at Karachi University, blamed leaders of both countries for “misguiding their people” and polarizing them by spewing so much vitriol. “What was the point of bringing in the unnecessary “jugular vein” conversation out of the blue?

 The ‘jugular vein’ debate

Recently, Pakistan’s army chief of staff, General Asim Munir’s characterization of Kashmir as Pakistan’s jugular vein at a diaspora event held just days before the Pahalgam tragedy, was considered provocative and a “trigger” for the massacre.

“But that is what it is, and the general only reiterated the stand taken by the Quaid,” defended Khawaja Muhammad Asif, the country’s defense minister, referring to the country’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Defining the jugular vein, Asif said Kashmir stirred both deep emotions and economic concerns. Recalling the lesser-known massacre of the partition, he said, “Thousands of Muslims were massacred in the Jammu region by mobs and paramilitaries led by the army of Dogra ruler Hari Singh,” adding that Muslim villagers from Jammu province were forced to evacuate to West Pakistan and were then accommodated in refugee camps in the districts of Sialkot, Jhelum, Gujrat, and Rawalpindi.

Asif, a native of Sialkot, emphasized that the economic significance of Kashmir cannot be overstated. “Kashmir is our lifeline—all our rivers, including the Jhelum, Sutlej, and even the smaller tributaries flowing through my own hometown, originate there,” he said, acknowledging that India’s recent announcement to withdraw from the pact posed a “real threat.”

Village life in Taobat Bala before the escalation of violence. Credit: Zofeen Ebrahim/IPS

What is the root of conflict?

Over the years many historians from both sides have unraveled the historical, political, and emotional fault lines dividing India and Pakistan since 1947. But Kashmir remains the stumbling block, 78 years later.

“At the time of British India’s partition in August 1947, the 565 princely states were given the option to join India, Pakistan, or remain independent—provided their people had the right to decide.” Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state ruled by a Hindu king, Maharaja Hari Singh, initially chose to remain independent.

After tribal militias from Pakistan invaded parts of Jammu and Kashmir in October 1947—reportedly with covert support from Pakistani forces and encouragement from some local Muslims—the situation quickly descended into chaos and violence. Facing the threat, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession, ceding the state’s sovereignty to India in exchange for military assistance.

The Indian government, led by then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, agreed to extend help but asked Hari Singh to sign an Instrument of Accession first. The Raja agreed. The documents conferred a special status on Jammu and Kashmir and allowed it to have its constitution, a flag, and control over internal administration, except in matters of defense, foreign affairs, finance, and communications, and were subsequently enshrined under Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution.

“These rules were not just legal provisions; they were a vital protection that ensured that no non-resident could purchase immovable property in the region, and this was done to safeguard the distinct identity, local ownership, and indigenous rights of the Kashmiri people,” explained Naila Altaf Kayani, an expert in Kashmir affairs, speaking to IPS from Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

But even before 2019, especially between 1952 and 1986, and through 47 presidential orders, the historical guarantees under the Maharaja’s Instrument of Accession had slowly been diluted and J&K’s special status steadily diminished. “India effectively dismantled the State Subject Rules that had long been in place in Jammu and Kashmir,” said Kayani.

In 2019, India finally scrapped these articles completely, and J&K became a union territory (governed directly by the central government, unlike states, which have their own elected governments with significant autonomy).

Can India and Pakistan ever make peace?

Both Asif and Ahmar doubt the Kashmir dispute will be resolved in their lifetime. And till that doesn’t happen, the thorn in their side will keep pricking. But what the latter finds befuddling is the “unstable and unpredictable” Pakistan-India relationship. “The two countries swing between total silence and sudden warmth, with no steady, consistent engagement like most nations maintain,” he said.

Ironically, it’s during the lowest points in their relationship that both Indian and Pakistani leaders stand to gain the most politically, said Kugelman. “Delhi can bolster its tough-on-terror stand and reputation as a strong and defiant administration by responding with muscle, and in Pakistan, the civilian and military leaderships, which are not terribly popular, can shore up public support by rallying the country around it in the face of an Indian threat.”

Forgotten formula or a new peace plan?

Ahmar said this is the lowest point in India-Pakistan relations he has ever witnessed.

However, “if by some miracle General Pervez Musharraf’s out-of-the-box four-point formula gets a shot in the arm,” perhaps we can begin anew, on a friendlier note,” he said, referring to the July 2001 Agra summit, hosted by Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee.

The four fixes included a gradual demilitarization of troops from both sides; no change in borders but allowing the people of Jammu and Kashmir to move freely across the LoC; self-governance without independence; and a joint supervision mechanism in the region involving India, Pakistan, and Kashmir.

But until that happens, Ahmar said, it would be best to let the territory be put under international supervision until its fate is decided. “I would say, place the region under the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations for at least 10 years,” he said.

Comprising the five permanent UN Security Council members—China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US—the Trusteeship Council aims to guide territories toward self-government or independence, either as separate states or by joining neighboring countries. The last trust territory, Palau, gained independence in October 1994. “The Trusteeship Council may have completed its mission in Palau but continues to exist on paper, under the UN Charter, chapter XII,” added Ahmar.

Columnist Munazza Siddiqui, also executive producer at Geo News, a private TV channel, advocated for yet another option: “Turn the LoC into a Working Boundary (a temporary, informally demarcated line used to separate areas, often in disputed regions or during a ceasefire, but different from the LoC, which is a military control line; something in-between the LoC and an international border), similar to the one that exists between Pakistan’s Punjab and Indian-administered J&K, as recognized under UN arrangements.

“The idea is to then shift focus towards bilateral cooperation in other areas,” she pointed out, adding, “This approach can hopefully help de-escalate the violence historically associated with the Kashmir issue.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Federation of American Scientists (FAS)

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 28 2025 (IPS)

The Trump administration’s hostile attitude towards Western Europe—and the threat to pullout of the 32-member military alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) – signifies the danger of losing the longstanding protection of the US nuclear umbrella over Europe.

Jana Puglierin, director of the German office of the European Council on Foreign Relations, was quoted as saying: “Trump may, or may not, want to leave NATO officially, but he has every means to undermine NATO”.

Trump’s antagonism towards NATO also extends to the 27-member European Union (EU), which he said, was created, “to screw the US.”

The widespread speculation, in the current political climate, is whether the UK and France could provide nuclear protection to Western Europe—or will countries like Germany, Poland and the Nordics be forced to go nuclear?

The New York Times said last month that Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland , with its long history of Russian occupation, might eventually develop its own nuclear weapon.

Of the world’s approximately 12,331 nuclear warheads, roughly 9,604 are in the military stockpiles for use by missiles, aircraft, ships and submarines. The remaining warheads have been retired but are still relatively intact and are awaiting dismantlement, according to FAS.

The world’s nine nuclear-armed states are the UK, US, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.

Both UK and France have only 515 warheads compared to about 3,700 in the American arsenal, with an additional 1,300 waiting to be de-activated.

Tariq Rauf (former Head of Verification and Security Policy, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told IPS “for some time now, I have believed that NATO’s European members have failed to integrate Russia into a common European security architecture”.

It is a concerning reality that some of the new members of NATO, former East bloc countries, have endeavoured to get some form of revenge for the wrongs inflicted upon them by the USSR, and have found ways to provoke Russia which in turn has led to bad behaviour by Russia.

“Now the proverbial chickens have come home to roost and a shooting war has been going on for three years. US pull back from Europe has long been on the books, President Trump is the latest US leader who seems to let the Europeans fend for themselves. Eighty years after the end of WW2, EU economies are thriving but their foreign policy remains confused and now there are concerns about “friendly proliferation”.

The Polish president, Rauf pointed out, has openly voiced interest in developing own nuclear weapons if the US does not station nuclear weapons in his country. Interestingly, this did not elicit any concerns from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or other countries as Poland is a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Both France and the UK still labour under delusions of being global powers and have pretensions of providing “extended deterrence” to their European friends as the US distances itself.

In the UK, Prime Minister Starmer is cutting support to pensioners and other social programmes, as well as overseas development assistance, to fund new nuclear-missile submarines and maintaining an arsenal of about 260 operational nuclear weapons.

In France, President Macron is reversing President de Gaulle’s policy and is openly offering to bring in EU countries under a French nuclear “umbrella”, even as the economy declines and social problems increase.

While France has about 300 operational nuclear warheads, it has permanently closed and dismantled it nuclear weapon test sites and facilities to make nuclear material for nuclear weapons.

Germany has reversed policy as well and will again host US medium-range nuclear-armed ballistic missiles; as will the UK which will bring back US nuclear-armed bombers.

The 55-year old NPT system is on the verge of collapse and it that happens the result will be a cascade of nuclear proliferation in Europe and the Asia-Pacific, warned Rauf.

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, told IPS talk of a potential “Eurobomb” goes back decades, but it has escalated sharply since the Trump administration’s antipathy towards its NATO allies has caused some of them to question the reliability of the U.S. commitment to Article 5 of the 1949 NATO treaty.

Article 5, at the heart of the treaty, commits NATO states to help out any member that comes under armed attack, with the response they deem appropriate, including military responses, widely understood to include the U.S. ‘nuclear umbrella’.

In 2020, French President Macron called for a ‘strategic dialogue’ on ‘the role of France’s nuclear deterrent in [Europe’s] collective security.’ In an attempt to open discussions on this issue with Germany, France repeated the offer in 2022, but there were no takers.

Last month, Macron offered to ‘open the strategic debate’ with interested European countries to determine ‘if there are new co-operations that may emerge’.” Officials from Germany, Poland, Denmark, Lithuania, and Latvia have welcomed Macron’s call for a strategic dialogue, which would also aim to include nuclear-armed UK.

“Donald Trump’s wildly erratic pronouncements and behavior makes it impossible to predict how the U.S. will react. But clues might be found in Project 2025, widely seen as the playbook for the second Trump administration,” she said.

Project 2025 seeks to ‘Transform NATO so that U.S. allies are capable of fielding the great majority of the conventional forces required to deter Russia while relying on the United States primarily for our nuclear deterrent, and select other capabilities while reducing the U.S. force posture in Europe’.

While Trump threatened to withdraw the U.S. from NATO during his first term, the U.S. government as a whole is deeply committed to NATO, as is illustrated by the fact that in 2024 Congress passed, and President Biden signed, a law – supported by then Senator/now Secretary of State Marco Rubio, requiring that a withdrawal from NATO be approved by Congress.

“I think it’s unlikely, though not impossible, that the Trump administration will pull the U.S. out of NATO”, said Cabasso.

But, in light of the Russian Federation’s ongoing illegal war of aggression in Ukraine with its attendant drumbeat of nuclear threats, and a U.S. ally increasing seen as unreliable, a number of former and current European government officials and politicians have called for some form of an independent European nuclear force.

Such a development would violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and other applicable laws. But more alarming is the growing normalization of nuclear threats and legitimization of nuclear proliferation suggested by its proponents.

At a time when all of the nuclear armed states are qualitatively and, in some cases, quantitatively upgrading their nuclear arsenals, a new multipolar arms race is underway, and the dangers of wars among nuclear armed states are growing. Adding more nuclear-armed actors to the world stage is a truly terrifying prospect.

Germany and other NATO members should rebuff any suggestion of acquiring nuclear weapons and take the lead in rejecting reliance on nuclear weapons, use every diplomatic means at their disposal to lower the temperature with Russia and bring the Ukraine war to an end, and promote negotiations among nuclear-armed states to begin the process of nuclear disarmament.

Instead of engaging in a strategic dialogue about a potential Eurobomb, European leaders should be engaging in a dialogue to commence negotiations on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Europe, ultimately to include Russia. It’s very difficult to imagine in these dark times, but as Albert Einstein said, ‘Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life’s coming attractions’.

Elaborating further, Rauf also pointed out that the 1996 nuclear-test-ban treaty languishes and still is not in force, nuclear explosive testing moratoria seemingly are hanging by a thread. We are now in a much more precarious situation regarding accidental or deliberate nuclear war, than even in the worst times of the Cold War. Political leadership is absent – the challenges seem beyond the ken of today’s leaders who are desperately flailing for solutions.

It is well past time to dial back the confrontational rhetoric and heed the call of the UN Secretary-General addressing the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, “The nuclear option is not an option at all. It is a one-way road to annihilation. We need to avoid this dead-end at all costs. Humanity is counting on us to get this right. Let us keep working to deliver the safe, secure and peaceful world that every person needs and deserve.”

In an article published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) last January, Dr Wilfred Wan and Dr Gitte du Plessis, point out that in July 2024 Norway’s Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace signed a contract with the Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency (NDMA) for the development of a next-generation ‘supersonic strike missile’, as part of a collaborative project between Norway and Germany first announced in November 2023. The plan is for the new manoeuvrable naval strike missile, dubbed the Tyrfing, to be operational in 2035.

This is just one of several recent high-profile efforts involving Nordic states that aim to enhance European conventional capabilities in order to deter aggression and maintain strategic stability.

Others include Finland’s announcement, in May 2024, that it is acquiring Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) weapons from the United States, which comes on top of its 2021 order of US F-35 combat aircraft. Around the same time, Sweden announced that it would provide Ukraine with early warning and control aircraft equipped with its Erieye radar system. This is expected to represent a ‘big force multiplier’ for Ukraine’s F-16 combat aircraft.

These moves in the Nordic region reflect broader European trends in the development and deployment of advanced conventional precision-strike capabilities. Investments in longer-range, manoeuvrable missiles and delivery systems—including the Tyrfing and the planned deployment on German soil of US hypersonic systems and ground-launched missiles that would have been prohibited under the now-defunct Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty)—contribute to the spectre of a ‘new missile crisis’ in Europe.

Planned upgrades to European global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) will further bolster the ability of these weapon systems to rapidly locate, target and ultimately destroy targets.

For the Nordic states, and especially for new NATO members Finland and Sweden, Russia’s war in Ukraine has provided clear justification for such developments. They are seeking both to demonstrate solidarity with other NATO members and to strengthen the alliance’s conventional capabilities in order to complement the extended US nuclear deterrent. But these decisions have many implications—and come with risks—that European policymakers may not have fully considered.

This article is brought to you by IPS Noram, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The Trump team's latest bid for Saudi-Israel normalization goes way too far and appears to be a one-way street.

By Ivan Eland
WASHINGTON DC, Apr 23 2025 (IPS)

The Trump administration is reportedly pursuing a deal with Saudi Arabia that would be a pathway to developing a commercial nuclear power industry in the desert kingdom and maybe even lead to the enrichment of uranium on Saudi soil.

U.S. pursuit of this deal should be scrapped because the United States would bear all the increased commitments, costs, and risks with very little in return.

In the Abraham Accords of 2020 and early 2021, the first Trump administration brokered bilateral agreements between Israel and the Middle Eastern countries of Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Sudan to normalize diplomatic relations. The administration also attempted to get Saudi Arabia to recognize Israel as a sovereign state and open similar relations, to no avail.

The Biden administration carried the torch in this regard but it became even more difficult to get Riyadh on board after the 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel and ensuing war in Gaza. The rising civilian death toll and humanitarian crisis led to an elevation of the Palestinian cause and engendered region-wide animosity toward Israel.

The Saudis demanded at that point that Israel commit to meaningful steps toward the creation of an independent Palestinian state before any normalization would occur.

That continued into this year as the Saudi government denied President Donald Trump’s assertion that it had dropped its demand for a Palestinian state in order to normalize relations with Israel.

Even though efforts aimed at ending the war in Gaza have been unsuccessful, the second Trump administration is seemingly now reviving its efforts toward brokering an Israel-Saudi rapprochement, albeit beginning with a new U.S.-Saudi agreement first, as hinted by U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright.

The problem is that all the countries would benefit from such a grand bargain except the one brokering it — the United States, which would also absorb all of the costs. Israel and Saudi Arabia would gain the most. The Saudis have desperately wanted a nuclear power deal for some time.

Meanwhile, if there is eventual normalization, Israel would neutralize what is now a powerful Arab rival and likely even gain a new ally in its quest to counter Iran (but it had better do it fast as Riyadh and Tehran have been approaching some level of detente for some time now).

Saudi Arabia has also sought formal security guarantees, which were reportedly on the table during the Biden administration. This would supplant the long-standing informal agreement between President Franklin Roosevelt and Saudi King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud, which provided security for the desert kingdom in exchange for U.S. access to cheap oil supplies.

Yet, with a $37 trillion national debt, why would the United States take on another ward that doesn’t pay its fair share for security (a common Trump gripe about other U.S. allies)? With fracking, the United States is no longer running out of oil, as FDR assumed would be the case, and is again the world’s largest oil producer.

A formal defense pact with Saudi Arabia would incur yet more costs, further entrench the U.S. in the region, and put our own troops in harm’s way if Washington is expected to defend and bail out Riyadh in any military dispute with its neighbors.

In addition, what could go wrong if Saudi Arabia was given a nuclear program? Talks on an Israel-Saudi agreement previously faltered when the Saudis opposed restrictions that would have prevented them from using a commercial nuclear program to build nuclear weapons (to counter any Iranian nuclear capability), or to assist other countries in obtaining them.

The truth is, the Saudis have wanted to be able to enrich uranium — perhaps to bomb-grade levels — on their own soil rather than import uranium already enriched only to a level capable of generating commercial energy, for some time.

Some in the United States insist that the Saudis could get nuclear technology from other nations like Russia or China, but if they resist safeguards to prevent them from getting a weapon, then it wouldn’t matter who gave them the technology that would allow them to do it.

Thus, the Trump administration should desist in reaching any such agreement with the Saudis in its (right now) futile quest for Israel-Saudi grand rapprochement. Normalization of relations between the two countries would be a fine aspiration for the region (if it is not merely to isolate and poke Iran), but the United States meeting the Saudis’ exorbitant demands to achieve it would come at too great a cost.

After all, bilateral normalization should be in the interest of both countries, so they should negotiate it on their own without being coddled by the United States.

Ivan R. Eland is Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and Director of the Independent Institute’s Center on Peace & Liberty. Previously he was Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues. He is the author of several books, the most recent, War and the Rogue Presidency: Restoring the Republic after Congressional Failure.
https://www.independent.org/person/ivan-eland/

The views expressed by authors on Responsible Statecraft do not necessarily reflect those of the Quincy Institute or its associates.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The 3rd Meeting of State Parties on the TPNW Treaty of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons watched a 40-minute documentary, ‘I Want to Live On: The Untold Stories of the Polygon,’ on the impact of nuclear testing on the community of Kazakhstan’s Semey region. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 11 2025 (IPS)

The documentary I Want to Live On: The Untold Stories of the Polygon exposes the lifelong impacts of nuclear testing in Kazakhstan’s Semey region.

As a third-generation survivor born in Semey, international relations legal expert based in New York, Togzhan Yessenbayeva said she was aware of the “profound impact” that nuclear testing has had on her community and environment. She remarked that the tests in Semipalatinsk have left a “legacy of challenges” that people must deal with to this day.

“I think that attention from the United Nations… is not just important; it is essential. In general, a global acknowledgment of nuclear weapons and an urgent need to address it,” she said. “As we can see from this movie, it is a very hard topic to talk about. But I believe that the Third Meeting of State Parties serves as a global platform for international organizations and experts to highlight the necessity of nuclear disarmament.”

Yessenbayeva continued, “I think it’s crucial to work together to be free of nuclear threats, and we have to say this [at] a global platform. It is our national tragedy. I am calling it a tragedy because for our Kazakh people, not only for the Semey region or east Kazakhstan, but everyone has to know our tragedy.”

I Want to Live On held its very first premiere at the United Nations during the 2nd Meeting of State Parties on the Treaty of the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in 2023. The 20-minute cut of the film was well received in raising awareness of the impact of the tests conducted in the Semipalatinsk Centre on local communities in east Kazakhstan.

This year’s 3rd Meeting of State Parties on the TPNW also hosted the first-ever screening of the full 40-minute cut of the documentary on March 3, in a premiere organized by the Permanent Mission of Kazakhstan, the Center for International Security and Policy (CISP), and Soka Gakkai International (SGI).

The documentary prominently centers on interviews with second- and third-generation survivors from the town of Semey and neighboring areas, who faced and lived with the consequences of the Semipalatinsk nuclear testing site, also known as the Polygon.

CISP founder Alimzhan Akmetov, who also directed the film, said at the screening that building trust with the interviewees was a critical process, and it was only once that could be established that they agreed to sit down with him and his team. He noted that there were people they approached who refused to get involved. He says such behavior is, in part, due to a sense of frustration with past experiences where their stories were shared before, but nothing came of it.

CISP and SGI decided to screen both versions of the documentary in the UN to ensure that the issue of nuclear disarmament is pushed to the forefront of awareness, Akmetov told IPS.

“We thought, as I personally believe, the disarmament forum, in particular the TPNW conference, is the best place to show a film about the consequences of testing in Kazakhstan,” Akmetov said.

“Because people who are involved in the disarmament issues… they can share it wider, further. In the UN, many countries participate in the disarmament forum. So it could be disseminated more effectively than if I showed it only in Kazakhstan or only in Japan,” he said.

Since the 2023 premiere, Akmetov and his partners have since screened the 20-minute version in other countries, including Germany and Ireland, at these states’ invitation. The 40-minute version will soon be screened in Kazakhstan and Japan with the support of SGI.

As the film’s sponsor, SGI’s involvement is in line with one of their key missions to advocate for a culture of peace, doing so through building a coalition for nuclear abolition, according to their Executive Director of Peace and Global Issues, Tomohiko Aishima. They have done so by spotlighting the global impact of nuclear weapons, especially in countries where nuclear testing was conducted. SGI has worked towards providing nuclear survivors platforms to share their experiences beyond their region and onto the global stage.

In the documentary, the survivors share the challenges their community has faced due to the Polygon. Health issues ranging from speech and vision impairment to cancer have plagued the community, as the survivors spoke of watching friends and family members suffer through physical maladies. Cancer rates are high in the communities, with children and adolescents suffering from leukemia.

The documentary also touches on the psychological toll that the tests and prolonged radiation exposure had on the community, through the high suicide rate of suicides during the testing period. It was particularly high among children and adolescents. While the cause behind the suicides is not stated, and research into the phenomenon from that era is severely limited, several survivors attributed it to the nuclear tests.

“Hanging was called the disease of the Polygon,” one interviewee said.

Compared to the 20-minute version, the 40-minute film features additional testimonies from second- and third-generation survivors. Interspersed with these testimonies is archival footage of the tests and the immediate environmental impact. They stand in stark contrast to the reality that the survivors lived through. The archival footage clips show what was being said at the time about the tests, including claims made that radiation levels in the soil and water would eventually fall to safe levels.

One clip shows scientists testing the radiation levels of Chagan Lake located in the Abai region, and the narrator claiming that radiation fell to safe levels after fifty days. To this day, the Chagan Lake is highly radioactive, also being referred to as the ‘Atomic Lake.’

The 20-minute version of I Want to Live On can be watched on YouTube.

This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Mexican artist Pedro Reyes (second right) at the ‘Artists Against the Bomb’ event, held in the United Nations Trusteeship Council. Credit: Oritro Karim/IPS

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 6 2025 (IPS)

This week countries and communities converge in New York for the 3rd Meeting of State Parties on the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), with multiple side events to address the social, political and cultural impact of nuclear abolition across different sectors.

On March 5, the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations held an event called Fábulas Atómicas – Artists Against the Bomb in collaboration with Mexican artist Pedro Reyes, in which the relationship between the arts and the use of nuclear weapons was discussed. Throughout the last century, the arts have been used to provide cultural commentary on the threats that nuclear weapons pose to humanity.

“Using art for disarmament can take many different forms. I started by transforming gun parts into musical instruments, for instance taking a rifle and transforming it into a flute…What is the principle of a nuclear weapon? I thought it was possible to make a chain reaction that could be a creative force rather than a destructive force. That is how Artists Against the Bomb was born,” said Reyes.

Since 1952, the United Nations Disarmament Commission (UNDC) has continuously stressed the importance of international peace and disarmament. With geopolitical tensions on the rise and world superpowers such as Russia, North Korea, and the United States wielding more atomic weapons than ever before, the threat of nuclear proliferation is the highest it has been in decades.

“The bilateral and regional security arrangements that underwrote global peace and stability for decades are unravelling before our eyes. Trust is sinking, while uncertainty, insecurity, impunity and military spending are all rising. Others are expanding their inventories of nuclear weapons and materials. Some continue to rattle the nuclear sabre as a means of coercion. We see signs of new arms races including in outer space,” said United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres at the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.

Despite this, conversations surrounding nuclear weapons have been largely absent from the cultural zeitgeist. The Atomic Age, also known as the period of time between the detonation of the first atomic bombs in 1945 and the end of the Cold War in 1991, was saturated with pop culture that dealt heavily with themes of nuclear fallout.

Since the late 1980s, projects began to shift away from these themes. Reyes highlighted the importance of art in relation to cultural commentary surrounding nuclear weapons by saying, “The end of the 80s made it seem like the cold war was over. To a certain extent, people born after 1989 had not been exposed to cultural materials…With the nuclear testing ban, there haven’t been any nuclear detonations since around 1999. There’s a saying called ‘out of sight out of mind’. The threat became somewhat invisible. It is our job to use culture to bring awareness to this issue through culture by provoking rage and fear.”

Reyes adds that the current undersaturation of the nuclear weapons issue in pop culture helps to facilitate conversations as the public has become wary of discussing issues that dominate culture today. “There is no fatigue about the subject. There’s a certain fatigue surrounding projects that have been strongly discussed in the past twenty years. Nuclear weapons are an issue that we have not spoken out about enough in recent times. We need to take advantage of this lack of fatigue,” he said.

The Nuclear Art movement rose in 1945, shortly after the United States’ detonation of two atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. At this time, the majority of the American public were unaware of the scale of destruction that had occurred in Japan.

Japanese photographers that had survived the attacks such as Yoshito Masushige (Hiroshima) and Yosuke Yamahata (Nagasaki), as well as American photographers such as Wayne Miller and Joe O’Donnell, published photos of the aftermath, which were classified by the United States government for decades. Much of the world instead relied on artwork that visualized the devastation.

Contemporary artists and corporations alike began incorporating themes of atomic weapons and nuclear fallout in their work shortly after the bombings in Japan. This movement grew more prominent after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, which is considered to be the closest the world has ever come to nuclear warfare.

Western art pieces, such as Charles Bittinger’s 1946 painting, Atomic Bomb Atomic Bomb Mushroom Cloud, brought the now well-known mushroom cloud imagery into public consciousness in the United States. Other examples include U.S. military artist Standish Brackus’s pieces Still Life (1946) and At the Red Cross Hospital (1945), which depicted the wide scale destruction that nuclear weapons inflict on civilian infrastructure and the human body, respectively.

Additionally, Nuclear Art also became a fixture in Western propaganda. In 1957, the Walt Disney Company released an episode of Disneyland titled Our Friend the Atom, which highlighted the ways atomic weapons can be used for peace, falling in line with the themes of Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace speech at the UN General Assembly in 1953.

In the early 1950s, blockbuster films from both American and Japanese studios led to a widening public consciousness surrounding nuclear weapons. Science-fiction films such as The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953) and Godzilla (1959) highlighted the unintended biological consequences of nuclear fallout.

However, On the Beach (1959) marked a pivotal shift in the depiction of nuclear fallout by explicitly marking humans as responsible for a deliberate detonation that led to a societal collapse. Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove (1964) expanded on these themes by using absurdism to emphasize humanity’s role in nuclear proliferation.

Most recently, Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer (2023) brought nuclear weapons into the public consciousness once more, particularly in the West, There have been critiques on if modern artists are depicting these themes effectively. Reyes told an IPS correspondent that the arts have the ability to sway audiences in either direction. Certain representations of nuclear weapons in pop culture can be classified as either “above the cloud” or “under the cloud”.

“Films like Oppenheimer show the overwhelming power of science and the moral conflict of atomic bombs but never show the victims or consequences. Films like that are almost pro-bomb because they fail to humanize these conflicts. Other films show what’s really at stake. It’s important to be able to identify which side cultural productions are on,” said Reyes.

It is crucial for contemporary artists to depict the correct messages in their work to achieve any substantial cultural progress in nuclear disarmament. Pop culture must continue to show the true extent of the dangers that nuclear weapons pose.

“We have to be very clear in arguing that nobody can win a nuclear war,” said Reyes. “And that’s why it’s very important to show the consequences. It has been normalized through video games and other mediums that make them seem not as problematic as they are. It’s our job to do a lot of explaining and find entertaining ways for people to understand.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau