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
  

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
  

The Nobel Peace Prize Forum with leading experts on global nuclear politics, including three former Nobel laureates, convened to discuss the continued risk of nuclear weapons. Credit: Soka Gakkai mInternational.

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS & OSLO, Dec 12 2024 (IPS)

The existential threat that nuclear weapons present remains as pertinent as ever, even when they have not been deployed in war for nearly 80 years. As some countries seek out nuclear weapons or to upgrade and modernize their existing warheads, global voices in nuclear politics and disarmament warn of the potential risk of a new nuclear arms race amid the weakening of nuclear treaties that prohibit the proliferation and use of nuclear arms.

At this year’s Nobel Peace Prize Forum in Oslo, Norway, leading experts on global nuclear politics, including three former Nobel laureates, convened to discuss the risk of growing nuclear arsenals and what must be done to mitigate these risks. The forum ‘NUKES: How to Counter the Threat’ was hosted on December 11 at University Aula with the support of the city of Oslo, the International Forum for Understanding, and Soka Gakkai International.

The Nobel Institute has awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on 13 occasions to individuals and groups whose work was in service to the argument for the prohibition of nuclear weapons. This was seen up to the present day with Japanese grassroots organization Nihon Hidankyo, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10. When accepting the award, co-chair Terumi Tanaka called for the world to listen to the testimonies of A-bomb survivors and to feel the “deep inhumanity of nuclear weapons.”

The forum began with the testimonies from two Hibakusha, survivors of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

Keiko Ogura was eight years old in Hiroshima. She recalled the trauma she carried with her in the aftermath of the bombing, as she saw people die around her, not yet knowing that they were suffering due to radiation. She and other Hibakusha came forward years later to share their experiences and the direct costs of deploying nuclear weapons.

“Before I die, we want to see this planet free of nuclear weapons,” said Ogura. “For us, discounting the number of nuclear weapons is nonsense. A single nuclear weapon means destruction of this world.”

Masao Tomonaga was two years old when Nagasaki was bombed, and his memories of that time are based on his mother’s recollections of that day. He followed in his father’s footsteps to become a doctor, who oversaw Hibakusha care at Nagasaki University and conducted research into the medical consequences of radiation from nuclear fallout. In his own research, Tomonaga found that the stem cells in the survivors’ bodies contained genetic abnormalities due to radiation, which made them vulnerable to leukemia and cancer. As one of the few cells that accumulates and survives across generations, he noted, they also accumulate “genetic errors” that could occur randomly across a lifetime. He hypothesized that the Hibakusha likely held pre-cancerous cells within them.

In the past decade, there have been efforts to reduce the number of nuclear warheads among the countries that held them. Yet in recent years, the attitude has started to shift in the opposite direction. Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Mariano Grossi, remarked that this shift is marked by military nuclear doctrines that were previously respected and are now being questioned or overstepped.

“We are seeing a normalization of discourse of use of nuclear weapons,” Grossi warned, remarking on how these doctrines are being revisited to allow for some concession for the possession and use of nuclear weapons.

In such times, Grossi remarked, world leaders have an “irrevocable responsibility” to make the critical steps forward to nuclear disarmament. “It’s time that we are reminded at the right level of the necessity of this decision at the top, whether we like it or not,” he said. “We hope that this determination of the world leadership to tackle the issue of nuclear weapons, especially in a world so fragmented as the one we have.”

Yet in the debate of nuclear disarmament, countries seem split on their thinking of nuclear weapons. Experts also warned that the more ‘casual’ discussions of nuclear weapons by major parties also demonstrates an undermining of nuclear treaties. Although 191 member states joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), critics have pointed out that this has not been enforced to the extent that it is intended to, especially among the major players.

Speaking during a panel discussion on the risks of nuclear activity, Manpreet Sethi of the Centre for Air Power Studies in New Delhi, India, reflected on how certain countries—nuclear powers—held different perceptions of the risk of nuclear warfare.

“There is no shared sense of risk like there was during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962,” Sethi said. “Everyone is perceiving risk differently.” Sethi also remarked that countries were pushing the boundaries on the ‘nuclear envelope’—the limits on nuclear deployment, evident in the language used in discussing nuclear arms and proliferation.

The threat of nuclear warfare is also heightened when considering the advances made in technology and the impact of modernization and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. Wilfred Wan, Director of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme in SIPRI, noted that disruptive technologies such as AI and automation would only “increase the vulnerabilities in nuclear weapons.” The relative unknown factors that remain with AI would also bring an “aura of instability [and] unpredictability to nuclear weapons.” “The only way to eliminate risk… is to eliminate nuclear weapons,” said Wan.

What are the measures then to mitigate the risks of nuclear arsenals in the present day? For one, dialogue between nuclear states and non-nuclear states is one possible step forward for non-nuclear states to call for nuclear states to cease their activities and work towards reduction. Tong Zhao, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, stated that the Global South is in a position to make these demands, especially as many of these countries are also signatories to the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Melissa Parke, Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), has said that one step forward would be for all countries, including nuclear powers, to sign the TPNW. The United Nations recently approved a new study on the effects of nuclear warfare for the modern age, a study that would be more comprehensive and update the understanding of nuclear warfare for the 21st century.

“The new UN study will be looking at things like the latest scientific confirmation from the 2022 Nature Food Journal that… even a limited nuclear war would not only kill millions of people outright, but it would cause global climate disruption, massive amounts of soot going into the stratosphere, circling the globe, blocking out sunlight, causing agricultural collapse, and the death by starvation of more than 2 billion people in a nuclear winter,” said Parke.

“I expect the new study will confirm what the Hibakusha have been telling us—have been warning us about. That the risks are real, immediate, and immense. Confronting them now is not a matter of choice but of necessity,” she said. “And that the necessary action is not just no-use but total nuclear disarmament, as that is the only way of eliminating the existential threat of nuclear weapons.”

A concerted, collective effort will be needed to put pressure on nuclear states to move towards non-proliferation and disarmament. That effort can begin on the individual level.

Ogura remarked that the world held a collective responsibility to prohibit nuclear weapons, from world leaders to the youth of the next generation. This could be achieved if the experiences of the Hibakusha and the survivors of nuclear fallout and testing are shared and never forgotten. With a hint of optimism, she said, “We are more than just a single drop.” Water spreads the word—through the ocean, the tide, through the continent. I have a belief—someday we can make it.”

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
  

Experts from diverse fields seek answers to the question of what really makes people safe at an event organized by Soka Gakkai International and partners. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

By Joyce Chimbi
BAKU, Nov 18 2024 (IPS)

At a time when the COP29 summit is primarily focused on climate finance as a tool to cool catastrophically high global temperatures and reverse consequences for all life on earth, delegates—alarmed and concerned by the state of world peace and stability—are seeking ways to enhance safety.Delegates at a side event organized by Soka Gakkai International (SGI) and SGI-UK, British Quakers, Quaker Earthcare Witness, and Friends World Committee for Consultation (Quakers), Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), explored key questions on what climate action approaches contribute to a safer world for people and planet or risk a more unsafe world.

“We are negotiating in this COP for increased finance, yet everyone in this room who is a major fossil fuel extraction country, except Colombia, is increasing their oil and gas extraction. And outside, war is spreading, and finance for the military is at levels higher than at any time since the Cold War. We bring experts from various walks of life into discussions on what really makes us safe,” said event moderator Lindsey Fielder Cook from the Quaker United Nations Office. 

There were experts on techno-fixed reliance and risks to techno-fixed reliance, military spending, peace activists, climate finance in fragile states, and also others who spoke about their lives, faith, and working with youth. They talked about peace, climate finance, and climate action in an existential time and how human activities are also driving existential rates of species extinction and chemical pollution as we know.

Andrew Okem from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and an expert in science adaptation, vulnerability, and impacts observed, “Science has given us a range of actions that we as a society can implement and can contribute towards making our society better and safer for all of us, such as building climate-resilient agri-food systems. This includes diversifying climate-smart coping and climate-smart practices. Rapid decarbonization is critical, hence the need to phase out fossil fuels and a shift to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydropower.”

Tackling issues of peace and climate finance amid climate and conflict-driven existential threats. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

Okem spoke about the need for nature-based solutions, integrated water management, sustainable cities, and inclusive governance and decision-making. Emphasizing that any further delay “in concerted, anticipated global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss this great and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a developed and sustainable future for all.”

Lucy Plummer, member of the international grassroots lay Buddhist organization Soka Gakkai International, which actively engages in society in the areas of peace, culture, and education, said she wanted to “amplify the COP16 message. We need to make peace with nature. I have closely followed discussions, including the round table on the global framework on children, youth, peace, and climate security.”

Saying that it was encouraging that the interconnection of climate and peace is being recognized and that there was great support for this initiative from states and other key stakeholders. But Plummer also felt that the most key issue was not mentioned at all—”our ongoing war with nature. It is a war because there is so much violence in the way that we relate to nature. We urgently need to disarm our ways of thinking about nature.”

“In yesterday’s peace talks and in all of the talks happening all around the COP29, this vital piece of the puzzle is missing. Humans’ separation from nature is the root of the climate crisis, and unless we rectify this and make peace with nature, we simply will not have the wisdom needed to resolve this crisis and prevent so much suffering. The Indigenous peoples know it and have been coming to these COPs every year trying to get us to understand this. Their messages have not changed. They get it, but for some reason we are not ready to hear it or we do not want to hear it.”

Dr. Duncan McLaren, a research fellow from the UCLA School of Law and an expert in technofixes and ethical mitigation options, spoke about his research that explores the justice and political implications of global technologies, including carbon removal. His recent work explores the geopolitics of geoengineering and the governance of carbon removal techniques in the context of net zero policy goals.

“Climate insecurity is all around us. We’ve seen floods, wildfires, droughts, and storms. Clearly, emissions cuts alone can no longer avert dangerous climate change. It is wishful thinking that we can avoid reaching 1.5 degrees Celsius with just more emissions at 8,000. So that is why I have been looking at other technologies and how they might work. Carbon removal can contribute to climate repair, the repair of humanity’s relationship with the earth,” McLaren emphasized.

“Carbon removal techniques can help us counterbalance recalcitrant emissions to achieve net zero. And more importantly, deal with the unfairly generated legacy of excess emissions. But as Professor Corrie and I show in our briefing paper for the Quaker UN Office, they will only make us safer if we keep the tasks they ask us to do small. Emissions need to be cut by 95 percent.”

Harriet Mackaill-Hill from International Alert spoke about climate, conflict, and finance and the need to define the COP29 New Collective Quantified Goal through these lenses.  She said the linkages between “climate and conflict are well established. While climate is never the sole cause of conflict, it is very much a stressor. Climate will exacerbate various stressors for conflict. These can be human security, food security, or competition over natural resources, which will in turn very much create and worsen conflict. How can people adapt to the impacts of climate change when in extreme vulnerability, sometimes conflict, when livelihoods or lives are at stake?”

Deborah Burton, co-founder of Tipping Point North South, spoke about the intersection between military spending and climate finance. Giving a perspective on what makes people unsafe in terms of military spending and military missions, she said there is a need to understand “the scale of global military missions in peacetime and war and the associated scale of military spending that enables those missions.”

“They combine to achieve one thing and one thing only: the undermining of human safety in this climate emergency. So, the estimated global military carbon footprint, and it is an estimate because it’s not fully reported by any stretch of the imagination, is estimated to be at 5.5 percent of total global emissions. This is more than the combined annual emissions of the 54 nations of the African continent. It is twice as much as emissions of civilian aviation, and that estimate does not include conflict-related emissions.”

Shirine Jurdi spoke of her lived experience from Lebanon linking to climate finance. She said, “There is no climate justice during war, and there is no ecological justice during war. With every bomb that drops, the land, the sea, and the people suffer irreparable harm.”

Stressing that “safety is not only about survival and its destruction. It is about thriving in peace under skies that are blue, not filled with smoke or phosphorus bombs. To create a safer world, let’s stop colonization and redirect resources from destruction to building sustainable, productive communities. Let us invest in ecological peacebuilding and restore the lands and the ecosystems damaged by conflict.”

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
  

Japanese organization Nihon Hidankyo waws today awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Credit: Niklas Elmehed/Nobel Prize

By IPS Correspondent
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 11 2024 (IPS)

The United Nations Secretary General António Guterres congratulated grassroots Japanese organization Nihon Hidankyo on being awarded the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize.

“The atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, also known as the hibakusha, are selfless, soul-bearing witnesses of the horrific human cost of nuclear weapons,” he said in a statement.

“While their numbers grow smaller each year, the relentless work and resilience of the hibakusha are the backbone of the global nuclear disarmament movement.”

The Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the 2024 Peace Prize for “its efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and for demonstrating through witness testimony that nuclear weapons must never be used again.”

Izumi Nakamitsu, the UN High Representative of Disarmament Affairs, joined the Secretary General in congratulating the organization.

“I would like to join the Secretary-General in warmly congratulating Nihon Hidankyo for their acceptance of the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize.”

The Nobel Committee said the global movement arose in response to the atom bomb attacks of August 1945.

“The testimony of the Hibakusha—the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—is unique in this larger context. These historical witnesses have helped to generate and consolidate widespread opposition to nuclear weapons around the world by drawing on personal stories, creating educational campaigns based on their own experience, and issuing urgent warnings against the spread and use of nuclear weapons. The Hibakusha help us to describe the indescribable, to think the unthinkable, and to somehow grasp the incomprehensible pain and suffering caused by nuclear weapons.”

Survivor Toshiyuki Mimaki, who reportedly cried following the announcement and other representatives of the Hibakusha, were identified as having contributed greatly to the establishment of the “nuclear taboo.”

The Norwegian Nobel Committee acknowledged one encouraging fact: “No nuclear weapon has been used in war in nearly 80 years.”

The award comes as the world prepares to mark 80 years since two American atomic bombs killed an estimated 120 000 inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A comparable number died of burn and radiation injuries in the months and years that followed.

“Today’s nuclear weapons have far greater destructive power. They can kill millions and would impact the climate catastrophically. A nuclear war could destroy our civilization,” the committee said.

“The fates of those who survived the infernos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were long concealed and neglected. In 1956, local Hibakusha associations along with victims of nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific formed the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations. This name was shortened in Japanese to Nihon Hidankyo. It would become the largest and most influential Hibakusha organisation in Japan.”

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 fulfills Alfred Nobel’s desire to recognize efforts of the greatest benefit to humankind.

Guterres said he would “never forget my many meetings with them over the years. Their haunting living testimony reminds the world that the nuclear threat is not confined to history books.  Nuclear weapons remain a clear and present danger to humanity, once again appearing in the daily rhetoric of international relations.”

He said the only way to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons is to eliminate them altogether.
IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

September 26th marks the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. Credit: International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)Darren Ornitz

By Tariq Rauf
VIENNA, Austria, Oct 8 2024 (IPS)

In recent years, the rhetoric, strategy and practice of nuclear deterrence has grown riskier, more urgent, more dangerous, less stable, and increasingly in the hands of deficient leaders and policymakers.

Playing Nuclear Games

The ten States that have manufactured and test detonated nuclear weapons since 1945, each have received and/or provided assistance to other States – no existing nuclear weapon development and acquisition programme is truly indigenous or independent.

Furthermore, all ten nuclear-armed States have in place policies to use their nuclear weapons in circumstances assessed by them as threatening their vital security interests, sovereignty and territorial integrity; and in this context, all of them at one time or another have made implicit or explicit threats to use nuclear weapons.

On 26th September this year, at the commencement of the United Nations General Assembly’s annual high-level commemoration of the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, Secretary-General António Guterres warned that, “We are heading in the wrong direction entirely. Not since the worst days of the cold war has the spectre of nuclear weapons cast such a dark shadow”. He noted that nuclear-armed States “must stop gambling with humanity’s future” and must honour their commitments and obligations for nuclear disarmament.

The President of the General Assembly, Philémon Yang (Cameroon), also warned that, “This is a time when nuclear blackmail has emerged, and some are recklessly threatening to unleash a nuclear catastrophe. This simply cannot continue. We must step back from the nuclear precipice, and we must act now”.

In this regard, let’s take a brief detour back into the early history of the nuclear age. Following the Trinity nuclear test detonation of 16th July 1945, nuclear scientist Leó Szilárd observed that, “Almost without exception, all the creative physicists had misgivings about the use of the bomb” and further that “Truman did not understand at all what was involved regarding nuclear weapons”.

Last year, the movie Oppenheimer had been the rage based on a noteworthy biography of Robert Oppenheimer entitled American Prometheus written by historians Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin. Though the movie spared its viewers the horrors of the atomic bombing of Japan, it did reflect the warnings of the early nuclear weapon scientists about the long-term or permanent dangers of a nuclear arms race and associated risks of further nuclear weapons use.

On the other hand, the film overlooked other historical works including A World Destroyed: Hiroshima and its Legacies also by Martin Sherwin, that disputes and negates the US government’s narrative about the necessity of using nuclear weapons twice over civilian targets in Japan and suggests that the decisions were driven mainly by geostrategic and prestige considerations – criteria still in operation today to justify continuing retention of nuclear weapons.

Leó Szilárd’s observation that I have cited above that President Truman did not understand at all what was involved regarding nuclear weapons, unfortunately still rings true nearly 80 years on when it comes to the leaders of today’s nuclear-weapon possessor States as well as of most of their diplomats and those of 30-plus countries in military defence and security arrangements underpinned by nuclear weapons.

Now, why do I say this? In addition to nuclear doctrines based on nuclear weapons use, the UN nuclear disarmament system is in disarray. The Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, the single multilateral arms control negotiating forum, has been stymied since 1996, unable to agree on a sustained programme of work on any of its “decalogue” of agenda items.

The Disarmament Commission as the specialized, deliberative subsidiary body of the General Assembly that allows for in-depth deliberations on specific disarmament issues, inter alia “Recommendations for achieving the objective of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons”, also has been deadlocked.

The First Committee of the General Assembly deals with disarmament, global challenges and threats to peace that affect the international community and seeks out solutions to the challenges in the international security regime. Every year it adopts more than 60 resolutions on various aspects of disarmament, but with no practical results in recent years.

The 2015 and 2022 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conferences failed to agree on any measures to reduce the risks of nuclear weapons and their elimination. As did the 2023 and 2024 preparatory sessions for the 2026 NPT review conference.

The UN Summit of the Future, held on 22-23 September this year, agreed on a Pact for the Future that regrettably was a big disappointment as it lacked any concrete actions, even though it paid lip service to the call that the “The time for the total elimination of nuclear weapons is now”. The document failed to reaffirm commitments to existing global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation treaties, or to call for new ones to be negotiated.

Notably the late UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had referred to this state of affairs as “mutually assured paralysis”, and that the “disarmament machinery is rusting”.

It is unfortunate that the above-referenced developments and the current nuclear rhetoric demonstrates that knowledge of nuclear history is waning thin and diplomats, academics and the mainstream media pundits are caught up with the emotions, pressures and even confusion of challenging technological advances in weapons, an ongoing territorial war in the heart of Europe, a genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, along with tensions in Northeast Asia and South Asia.

In effect, those in control of nuclear weapons today, along with the echo chambers in allied States in defence arrangements underpinned by nuclear deterrence, are playing games tickling the tail of the Promethean nuclear fire dragon.

Tickling the Tail of the Promethean Nuclear Fire Dragon

All nuclear-armed States today have in place policies and doctrines to use their nuclear weapons. In order to constrain the further proliferation of nuclear-armed States, the five NPT recognized “nuclear-weapon States” each have advanced negative security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT and to nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties, on the non-use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

China is the only nuclear-weapon State to assert that it would not use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State. The other four nuclear-weapon States – France, Russia, UK and US – each have attached conditions to their negative security assurances to the effect that such an assurance would not be honoured were it to be attacked by a non-nuclear-weapon State in collaboration or with the assistance of another nuclear-weapon State.

The nuclear weapons employment policy of the United States clearly posits that “using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability”. For its part, Russian military doctrine envisions the threat of nuclear escalation or even first use of nuclear weapons to “de-escalate” a conflict on terms favourable to Russia.

China’s evolving nuclear doctrine envisions a “strong military dream” based on military-civil-fusion to achieve by 2049 full spectrum power projection. In South Asia, both India and Pakistan have nuclear doctrines positing use of nuclear weapons including pre-emptive nuclear strikes.

In the current heated and volatile atmosphere in central Europe in the context of the Ukraine war, it is reported that Russia is re-asserting the conditions it has traditionally laid down in its negative security assurances to States parties to the NPT and to nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZ), which essentially are similar to that of the US, to the effect that: Russia will not attack or threaten to attack a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the NPT or NWFZ treaty with nuclear weapons, unless that non-nuclear-weapon State attacks Russia in collaboration with another nuclear-weapon State.

Now, since we’re in a proxy war involving France, UK and US (all three are nuclear-weapon States) that are considering material assistance to Ukraine to attack military sites inside the territorial borders of Russia; it is not surprising that Russia has retaliated by warning Ukraine and its NATO backers that long range fires against Russia targeting its strategic military bases could trigger a nuclear response by Russia.

Strategic nuclear bases are those housing strategic nuclear delivery systems (long- and medium-range bombers, road and rail mobile ballistic missiles), command and control centres, early warning radars, naval bases for submarines, etc.

It is never a good idea for a non-nuclear-weapon State to threaten to target or to target strategic military sites in a nuclear-weapon State and it would be foolhardy to set such a precedent or to carry out military strikes that could provoke a nuclear response.

Were Ukraine to strike strategic military sites inside Russia proper, that would be the first time that a non-nuclear-weapon State would strike the continental homeland of a nuclear-armed State; though one might add that Iran’s recent missile strikes against nuclear-armed Israel fall into the same category.

Should the US/NATO allow long range fires against strategic military sites in Russia from Ukraine, that would further compound the already unacceptably high risk of a central strategic war involving four nuclear-weapon States and thus would be highly irresponsible and indefensible.

Departing NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg made comments in Washington to the effect that long range fires from Ukraine into Russian territory is the only one way to hit military targets behind the Russian lines, on Russian territory.

And that NATO should not be deterred by Russia’s “nuclear threats and rhetoric”; this in a way is questioning the credibility of Russian nuclear doctrine which is tantamount to “tickling the tail of the nuclear dragon” and could result in a Promethean nuclear fire of a central strategic war.

The new NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte also has claimed that “targeting Russian fighter jets and missiles before they can be used against Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure can help save lives”.

A just and equitable peace arrangement must be sought urgently under UN auspices to end the Ukraine war with the restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territory; and all sides must strive to avoid any further escalatory moves that could trigger a central strategic war.

Seek Peace, Not War!

It is highly reprehensible that these days the voices of war are prevalent over the voices seeking peace. The UN disarmament machinery has failed as has the Summit of the Future to curb nuclear risks. The architecture of nuclear disarmament and arms control is steadily crumbing with our eyes wide shut!

Unless we can mend our ways, it might be too late to avert a Promethean nuclear fire that consumes us all. We urgently must rethink how we manage nuclear risks; security based on nuclear deterrence is inherently flawed and risky and cannot continue on a long term basis.

A new international security system must be envisaged on the basic design principle that the effects of system failure cannot result to fundamentally disrupt or end civilization. We urgently need a new international security paradigm that can prevent an existential global nuclear catastrophe and keep the Promethean nuclear fire dragon firmly bottled up.

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Current conflicts could bring the world precariously close to a nuclear war. Credit: International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 7 2024 (IPS)

The warnings from the United Nations and from anti-nuclear activists are increasingly ominous: the world is closer to a nuclear war—by design or by accident—more than ever before.

The current conflicts—and the intense war of words—between nuclear and non-nuclear states—Russia vs. Ukraine, Israel vs. Palestine and North Korea vs. South Korea—are adding fuel to a slow-burning fire.

And according to a September 27 report in the New York Times, Russian President Vladimir Putin is quoted as saying he plans to lower the threshold for his country’s use of nuclear weapons—and is prepared to use his weapons in response to any attack carried out by Ukraine with conventional weapons that creates “a critical threat to our sovereignty”.

The new threat follows a request by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for long-range missiles, additional fighter planes and drones from the US during his visit to Washington, DC, last month.

According to the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, the US has provided more than USD 61.3 billion in military assistance “since Russia launched its premeditated, unprovoked, and brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine” on February 24, 2022, and approximately USD 64.1 billion in military assistance since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014.

The US has also used the emergency Presidential Drawdown Authority on 53 occasions since August 2021 to provide Ukraine military assistance totaling approximately USD 31.2 billion from Department of Defense (DoD) stockpiles—all of which have triggered a nuclear threat from Putin.

Asked whether the nuclear threats looming over ongoing conflicts are for real or pure rhetoric, Melissa Parke, Executive Director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), winner of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize, told IPS: “We currently face the highest risk there could be a nuclear war since the Cold War. There are two major conflicts involving nuclear-armed states in Ukraine and the Middle East where Russian and Israeli politicians have made overt threats to use nuclear weapons.”

She said there are growing geopolitical tensions between nuclear-armed states, not just between Russia and the US over Western military support for Ukraine, but also between the US and China over American efforts to build a network of alliances around China, as well as US support for Taiwan—although thankfully we have heard no overt nuclear threats from either Washington or Beijing.

“But there is a dangerous trend in Western countries, among both commentators and politicians, to argue Russia is bluffing because it hasn’t yet used nuclear weapons. The terrifying reality is that we cannot know for certain if President Putin—or any leader of a nuclear-armed state—will use nuclear weapons at any time.”

The doctrine of deterrence that all nuclear powers follow requires creating such a sense of uncertainty, which is one of the reasons it is such a dangerous theory. “We do not know what could lead a situation to escalate out of control.”

“What we do know is what could happen if it does: nuclear weapons pose unacceptable humanitarian consequences, and in the event of nuclear weapons being used, no state has the capacity to help survivors in the aftermath,” said Parke, who formerly worked for the United Nations in Gaza, Kosovo, New York and Lebanon and served as Australia’s Minister for International Development.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, speaking at the high-level meeting commemorating and promoting the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, described nuclear weapons as “double madness.”

The first madness is the existence of weapons that can wipe out entire populations, communities and cities in a single attack. “We know that any use of a nuclear weapon would unleash a humanitarian catastrophe—a nightmare spilling over borders, affecting us all. These weapons deliver no real security or stability—only looming danger and constant threats to our very existence.”

The second madness, he pointed out, is that, despite the enormous and existential risks these weapons pose to humanity, “we are no closer to eliminating them than we were 10 years ago.”

“In fact, we are heading in the wrong direction entirely. Not since the worst days of the Cold War has the specter of nuclear weapons cast such a dark shadow.”

“Nuclear saber-rattling has reached a fever pitch. We have even heard threats to use a nuclear weapon. There are fears of a new arms race,” Guterres warned.

Meanwhile, Russia is responding to the change in US nuclear posture as well as to the billions of dollars the collective West is pumping into the Ukrainian war effort by redrawing its own nuclear “redlines,” according to wire service reports.

Last week, at a meeting of Russia’s Security Council, President Putin announced that “Aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state… supported by a nuclear power should be treated as their joint attack.”

Tariq Rauf, former Head of Verification and Security Policy, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told IPS that Russia, in effect, is restating the conditions it has traditionally laid down in its negative security assurances to States parties to the NPT and to nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZ).

This, he pointed out, is essentially similar to that of the US, to the effect that: Russia will not attack or threaten to attack a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the NPT or NWFZ treaty with nuclear weapons, unless that non-nuclear-weapon State attacks Russia in collaboration with another nuclear-weapon State.

“Now, since we’re in a proxy war involving France, UK and the US (all three nuclear weapons states) materially assisting Ukraine in attacking sites inside the internationally recognized territorial borders of Russia, it is not surprising that Russia has warned Ukraine and its NATO backers that long-range fires against Russia targeting its strategic military bases could trigger a nuclear response by Russia.”

Responding to further questions, Parke of ICAN told IPS all nine nuclear armed states (US, UK, France, China, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) are modernizing and, in some cases, expanding their arsenals. Last year, ICAN research shows they spent $91.4 billion, with the United States spending more than all the others put together.

All these countries follow deterrence doctrine, which is a threat to the entire world given it is based on the readiness and willingness to use nuclear weapons.

This means all of the nuclear-armed states are tacitly threatening the rest of us, given research shows even a regional nuclear war in South Asia would lead to global famine killing 2.5 billion people.

The good news is the majority of countries reject nuclear weapons and support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The TPNW is the only bright spot in a world overshadowed by conflict. It came into force in 2021, which means it is now international law. Nearly half of all countries have either signed, ratified or acceded to the treaty, and more countries will ratify it.

“We are confident more than half of all countries will have either signed or ratified it in the near future. Pressure and encouragement from civil society and campaigners around the world have been key to bringing the TPNW into being and ensuring more and more countries join it.”

Asked about the role played by the United Nations on nuclear disarmament—and whether there is anything more the UN can do—she said: the United Nations has always played a key role in nuclear disarmament.

The very first meeting of the General Assembly called for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Since then, it has been the forum in which countries have negotiated the key multilateral treaties on nuclear weapons, not just the ban treaty, the TPNW, but also the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

The Secretary General continues to provide strong moral and political leadership, using his voice to make clear the unacceptable nature of these weapons and the urgent need to eliminate them.

The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) plays an essential role too, supporting and facilitating UN member states to join the TPNW. This week at the General Assembly high level meeting, we will see another ceremony where more countries will officially ratify the TPNW.

“It is essential the UN continues to be a strong voice for the elimination of nuclear weapons, supporting more countries that back the treaty to join it and also reminding the nuclear-armed states and their allies that support the use of nuclear weapons of the need to live up to their obligations and get rid of their nuclear weapons and the infrastructure that supports them,” Parke declared.

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report, Soka Gakkai International, Nuclear Abolition 2024

The panel for the session on “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World without Nuclear Weapons.” Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS

By AD McKenzie
PARIS, Sep 27 2024 (IPS)

In any discussion of world peace and the future of humanity, the issue of nuclear arms must be addressed, and now.

That was the message from a range of delegates at the “Imaginer la Paix / Imagine Peace” conference, held in Paris September 22 to 24, and organized by the Sant’Egidio Community, a Christian organization founded in Rome in 1968 and now based in 70 countries.

Describing its tenets as “Prayer, service to the Poor and work for Peace,” the community has hosted 38 international, multi-faith peace meetings, bringing together activists from around the world. This is the first time the conference has been held in Paris, with hundreds traveling to France, itself a nuclear-weapon state.

Occurring against the backdrop of brutal, on-going conflicts in different regions and a new race by some countries to “upgrade” their arsenal, the gathering had a sense of urgency, with growing fears that nuclear weapons might be used by warlords. Participants highlighted current and past atrocities and called upon world leaders to learn from the past.

“After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have been blessed with many who have said ‘no’—’no’ a million times, creating movements and treaties, (and) awareness… that the only reasonable insight to learn from the conception and use of nuclear weapons is to say ‘no’,” said Andrea Bartoli, president of the Sant’Egidio Foundation for Peace and Dialogue, based in New York.

Participating in a conference forum Monday titled “Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Imagining a World Without Nuclear Weapons,”  Bartoli and other speakers drew stark pictures of what living in a world with nuclear weapons entails, and they highlighted developments since World War II.

“After the two bombs were used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, humans built more than 70,000 nuclear weapons and performed more than 2,000 tests. Still today we have more than 12,500, each of them with power greatly superior to the two used in August 1945,” Bartoli said.

Despite awareness of the catastrophic potential of these weapons and despite a UN treaty prohibiting their use, some governments argue that possessing nuclear arms is a deterrent—an argument that is deceptive, according to the forum speakers.

Anna Ikeda, program coordinator for disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International. Credit: AD McKenzie/IPS

Jean-Marie Collin, director of ICAN (the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a movement launched in the early 2000s in Australia and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017), said that leaders who cite deterrence “accept the possibility of violating” international human rights.

“Nuclear weapons are designed to destroy cities and kill and maim entire populations, which means that all presidents and heads of government who implement a defense policy based on nuclear deterrence and who are therefore responsible for giving this order, are aware of this,” Collin told the forum.

ICAN campaigned for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that was adopted at the United Nations in 2017, entering into force in 2021. The adoption came nearly five decades after the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970.

The terms of the NPT consider five countries to be nuclear weapons states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China. Four other countries also possess nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel.

According to a 2024 ICAN report, these nine states jointly spent €85 billion (USD 94,6 billion) on their atomic weapon arsenals last year, an expenditure ICAN has called “obscene” and “unacceptable.” France, whose president Emmanuel Macron spoke about peace in broad, general terms at the opening of the conference, spent around €5,3 billion (about USD 5,9 billion) in 2023 on its nuclear weapons, said the report.

The policy of “deterrence” and “reciprocity,”  which essentially means “we’ll get rid of our weapons if you get rid of yours,”  has been slammed by ICAN and fellow disarmament activists.

“With the constant flow of information, we often tend to lose sight of the reality of figures,” Collin said at the peace conference. “I hope this one will hold your attention: it is estimated that more than 38,000 children were killed in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Children!”

All those killed—an estimated 210,000 people by the end of 1945—died in horrific ways, as survivors and others have testified. Delegates said that this knowledge should be the real “deterrent.”

At the forum, Anna Ikeda, program coordinator for disarmament at the UN Office of Soka Gakkai International, a global Buddhist movement, described testimony from a Hiroshima a-bomb survivor, Reiko Yamada, as one she would never forget.

“She (Yamada) stated, ‘A good friend of mine in the neighbourhood was waiting for her mother to return home with her four brothers and sisters. Later, she told me that on the second day after the bombing, a moving black lump crawled into the house. They first thought it was a black dog, but they soon realized it was their mother; she collapsed and died when she finally got to her children. They cremated her body in the yard,” Ikeda told the audience with emotion.

“Who deserves to die such a death? Nobody!” she continued. “Yet our world continues to spend billions of dollars to upkeep our nuclear arsenals, and our leaders at times imply readiness to use them. It is utterly unacceptable.”

Ikeda said that survivors, known as the “hibakusha” in Japan, have a fundamental answer to why nuclear weapons must be abolished—it is that “no one else should ever suffer what we did.”

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
  

Dr. Tshilidzi Marwala, USG and Rector of the United Nations University, and Ms. Kaoru Nemeto, Director of the United Nations Information Centre during a discussion ‘Building the Future: Synergetic Collaboration on Nuclear and Climate Crises.’ Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 23 2024 (IPS)

Driving the Summit of the Future’s core messages of international solidarity and decisive action are young people who are determined to address the intersecting issues that the world contends with today.

During the Summit’s Action Days (20-21 September), it was young people who led the conversations of increasing and defining meaningful engagement, both on- and off-site from the United Nations Headquarters.

Not only are they driving the conversation, but in the Pact for the Future adopted by world leaders at the United Nations on Sunday (September 22), youth and future generations are at the forefront of global leaders’ concerns, and their role was clearly defined with the first ever Declaration on Future Generations, with concrete steps to take account of future generations in our decision-making, including a possible envoy for future generations.

This includes a commitment to more “meaningful opportunities for young people to participate in the decisions that shape their lives, especially at the global level.”

Building the Future: Synergetic Collaboration on Nuclear and Climate Crises, a side event whose co-organizers included Soka Gakkai International (SGI) and the Future Action Festival Organizing Committee, with the support of the United Nations University (UNU) and the United Nations Information Centre (UNIC), brought together young activists to discuss the intersection between two different crises and what will define meaningful youth engagement.

Kaoru Nemoto, the Director General of UNIC in Tokyo, observed that it was “ground-breaking” to see the agenda of the Summit’s Action Days largely led and organized by youth participants, as signified by the majority of seats in the General Assembly Hall being filled by young activists.

“There is an undercurrent, a common message, that the youth can make this world a better place to live,” said Nemoto. “No matter what agenda you are working on, be it climate change, nuclear disarmament, fighting inequality… youth issues are cross-cutting, very strong cross-cutting issues across the board.”

Nemoto further added that the United Nations needs to do much more to engage youth for meaningful participation. This would mean allowing youth to consult in decision-making and to be in positions of leadership. Youth presence cannot be reduced to tokenism.

The climate and nuclear crises are existential threats that are deeply connected, said Dr. Tshilidzi Marwala, the rector of the United Nations University. Climate instability fuels the factors that lead to conflict and displacement. Conflict, such as what is happening in Sudan, Israel, Palestine, and Ukraine, increases the risk of nuclear escalation. As leaders in the present day tackle the issues, Marwala called on the youth to continue raising their voices and to hold those powers accountable.

Marwala noted that the United Nations University would be committed to “realizing meaningful participation” in all parties. For young people, while they are motivated and demonstrate a care for deeper social issues, they face challenges in having their voices heard or in feeling galvanized to take action. Marwala noted that it was important to reach out to those young people who are either not involved or feel discouraged from getting involved in political work and activism.

Chief among the Summit of the Future’s agenda is increasing youth participation in decision-making processes. It has long been acknowledged that young activists and civil society actors drive greater societal change and are motivated to act towards complex issues. Yet they frequently face challenges in participating in policymaking that would shape their countries’ positions.

Among these challenges are representation in political spaces. Within the context of Japan, young people are underrepresented in local and national politics. As Luna Serigano, an advocate from the Japan Youth Council, shared during the event, there is a wider belief among young voters in Japan that their voices will go unheard by authorities.

This is indicated in voter turnout, which shows that only 37 percent of voters are in their 20s, and only 54 percent of voters believe that their votes matter. By contrast, 71 percent of people in their 70s voted in elections. People in their 30s or younger account for just 1 percent of professionals serving in government councils and forums. The Japan Youth Council is currently advocating for active youth participation in the country’s climate change policy by calling for young people to be directly involved as committee members to work on a new energy plan for the coming year.

Yuuki Tokuda, a co-founder of GeNuine, a Japan-based NGO that explores nuclear issues through a gender perspective, shared that young people are out of decision-making spaces. Although their voices may be heard, it is not enough. As she told IPS, the climate and nuclear crises are on the minds of young people in Japan. And while they have ideas on what could be done, they are not informed on how to act.

There is some hope for increasing participation. Tokuda shared within policymakers on nuclear issues, of which 30 percent include women, have begun to engage with young people in these discussions.

“It is time to reconstruct systems so that youth can meaningfully participate in these processes,” said Tokuda. “We need more intergenerational participation in order to work towards the ban of nuclear weapons and the climate crisis.”

During the event, what meaningful youth engagement should look like was discussed. It was acknowledged that efforts have gone towards giving a space to the perspectives of young people. Including young people in the discussions is a critical step. It was suggested that direction should shift towards ensuring that young people have the authority to take the action needed to resolve intersecting, complex issues. Otherwise, the inclusion is meaningless.

“The future-oriented youth is more needed than ever to tackle the challenges in building and maintaining peace,” said Mitsuo Nishikata of SGI.

“As a youth-driven initiative such as what the Future Action Festival demonstrates, youth solidarity can stand as a starting point for resolving and passing issues.”

Next year (2025) will mark 80 years since the end of World War II and the Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bombings. Nishikata pointed out that this will be a time for crucial opportunities to advance the discussions on nuclear disarmament and climate action, ahead of the Third Meeting of State Parties on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the 30^th UN Climate Conference (COP30).

“We will continue to unite in our desire for peace, sharing the responsibility for future generations and expanding grassroots actions in Japan and globally.

Other commitments for the Pact for the Future included the first multilateral recommitment to nuclear disarmament in more than a decade, with a clear commitment to the goal of totally eliminating nuclear weapons.

It also pledged reform of the United Nations Security Council since the 1960s, with plans to improve the effectiveness and representativeness of the Council, including by redressing the historical underrepresentation of Africa as a priority.

The pact has at its core a commitment to “turbo-charge” implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including the reform of the international financial architecture so that it better represents and serves developing countries.

“We cannot build a future that is suitable for our grandchildren with a system that our grandparents created,” as the Secretary-General António Guterres stated.

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
  

Are decades of arms control treaties being threatened? Credit: International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 17 2024 (IPS)

The constant drumbeat of nuclear threats seems never ending—emanating primarily from the Russians, Israeli right-wing politicians and North Koreans.

The threats also prompt one lingering question: Can there be a World War III without the use of nuclear weapons?

In a report August 27, Reuters quoted a senior Russian official as saying the West was playing with fire by considering allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russia with Western missiles—and cautioned the United States that World War III would not be confined to Europe. 

Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s longstanding foreign minister and former UN ambassador, said the West was seeking to escalate the Ukraine war and was “asking for trouble” by considering Ukrainian requests to loosen curbs on using foreign-supplied weapons.

Putting it in the right context, the Washington-based Arms Control Association (ACA) pointed out last week, “the global nuclear security environment could hardly be more precarious.”

Carol Giacomo, chief editor of Arms Control Today, the ACA’s flagship publication, said that weeks before the US elects a new president, the global nuclear security environment could hardly be more precarious.

“Russia continues to raise the specter of escalating its war on Ukraine to nuclear use; Iran and North Korea persist in advancing their nuclear programs; China is moving to steadily expand its nuclear arsenal; the United States and Russia have costly modernization programs underway; and the war in Gaza threatens to explode into a region-wide catastrophe entangling Iran and nuclear-armed Israel, among other countries,” she pointed out.

Meanwhile, Russia and China are refusing to enter arms control talks with the United States, new countries are raising the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons and decades of arms control treaties are unraveling.

The situation has also prompted Rafael Mariano Grossi, director-general of the International Atomic Agency (IAEA), to warn, in an interview with The Financial Times on August 26, that the global nonproliferation regime is under greater pressure than at any time since the end of the Cold War.

The U.S. presidential election campaign has not engaged publicly on most of these issues in any serious way despite the fact that whichever candidate wins will, once inaugurated, immediately inherit the sole authority to launch U.S. nuclear weapons, wrote Giacomo, a former member of The New York Times editorial board (2007-2020).

Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, Graduate Program Director, MPPGA at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS the dangers posed by nuclear arms, and the very powerful institutions and governments that possess these weapons of mass destruction, have never been greater.

“In the last 16 months, we have seen government officials from Russia (Dmitry Medvedev) and Israel (Amihai Eliyahu) threatening to use, or calling for the use of, nuclear weapons against Ukraine and Gaza respectively” he noted.

The rulers of these countries have already shown the willingness to kill tens of thousands of civilians. “Going further back, we can remember U.S. President Donald Trump threatening to “totally destroy” North Korea. Coming from a person like Trump and a country like the United States that is the only one to use nuclear weapons in war, there is good reason to take such a threat with utmost seriousness”.

Such great dangers, he argued, can be ameliorated only with great visions, by people demanding that no one should be killed in their name, especially using nuclear weapons but not only using nuclear weapons.

This would require people to make common cause with people all over the world, and refuse to be divided by the “narrow nationalisms” that Albert Einstein identified as an “outmoded concept,” as far back as 1947.

Norman Solomon, executive director, Institute for Public Accuracy and national director, RootsAction.org told IPS the momentum of the nuclear arms race is moving almost entirely in the wrong direction. The world and humanity as a whole are increasingly in dire circumstances, made even more dire by the refusal of the leaders of nuclear states to acknowledge the heightened jeopardy of thermonuclear annihilation for nearly all of the Earth’s inhabitants.

As the nuclear superpowers, the United States and Russia, he said, have propelled the drive to keep developing nuclear weaponry. There are always rationalizations, but the result is proliferation of nuclear weapons.

“Nations with smaller nuclear arsenals and those with nuclear-arms aspirations are keenly aware of what the most powerful nuclear states are doing. Preaching about nonproliferation while proliferating is hardly a convincing role model to halt the spread of nuclear weapons to more and more countries,” Solomon pointed out.

“Notably, amid the vast amount of media coverage and diplomatic verbiage about Israel, rarely do we read or hear mention of the fact that Israel — uniquely in the Middle East — possesses nuclear weapons. Given Israel’s impunity to attack other countries in the region, it would be a mistake to have any confidence in Israeli self-restraint with military matters.”

The return of a cold war between the U.S. and Russia, said Solomon, is fueling the nuclear arms race to a dangerous extreme. Arms control has become a thing of the past, as one treaty after another in this century has been abrogated by the U.S. government. The Open Skies and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaties were canceled by President Trump.

Earlier, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty was canceled by President George W. Bush. The absence of those pacts makes a nuclear war with Russia more likely. But President Biden has not tried to revive those agreements snuffed out by his Republican predecessors, he argued.

“If sanity is going to prevail, a drastic change in attitudes and policies will be needed. The current course is headed toward unfathomable catastrophe for the human race”, said Solomon, author, “War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine.”

Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, told IPS: “Looking around today’s world, we see a growing mob of nationalist authoritarian governments and leaders—including in nuclear-armed Russia, Israel, India, China, North Korea and increasingly, the United States. All of them are busily preparing for war in the name of peace.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Reflecting the urgency of this moment, in June, the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), the official nonpartisan association of more than 1,400 American cities with populations over 30,000, adopted a sweeping resolution, titled “The Imperative of Dialogue in a Time of Acute Nuclear Dangers.”

The resolution rightly “condemns Russia’s illegal war of aggression on Ukraine and its repeated nuclear threats and calls on the Russian government to withdraw all forces from Ukraine.” But it also calls on the President and Congress “to maximize diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine as soon as possible.”

The resolution, Cabasso said, “calls on the U.S. government to work to re-establish high-level U.S.-Russian risk reduction and arms control talks to rebuild trust and work toward replacement of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the only remaining bilateral nuclear arms control treaty, set to expire in 2026.”

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
  

Central Downtown Astana with Bayterek tower. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
TOKYO/ASTANA, Aug 19 2024 (IPS)

In a world increasingly shadowed by the threat of nuclear conflict, Kazakhstan is stepping up its efforts in the global disarmament movement. On August 27-28, 2024, in collaboration with the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), Kazakhstan will host a critical workshop in Astana. This gathering, the first of its kind in five years, is set to reinvigorate the five existing Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs) and enhance cooperation and consultation among them.

This initiative aligns with UN Secretary-General António Guterres’s Agenda for Disarmament, particularly Action 5, which emphasizes the strengthening of NWFZs through enhanced collaboration between zones, urging nuclear-armed states to respect relevant treaties, and supporting the establishment of new zones, such as in the Middle East. This effort reflects the global community’s ongoing push to reduce the nuclear threat and foster regional and global peace.

Kazakhstan’s Historical Commitment to Disarmament

Kazakhstan’s vision for a nuclear-free world is deeply rooted in its leadership in global disarmament efforts. This vision is not just aspirational; it is grounded in the country’s lived experience of the devastating impact of nuclear weapons. The Semipalatinsk Test Site in northeastern Kazakhstan, often referred to as “the Polygon,” was the site of 456 nuclear tests conducted by the Soviet Union between 1949 and 1989. These tests exposed over 1.5 million people to radiation, resulting in severe health consequences, including cancer and birth defects, as well as environmental degradation.

Kazakhstan’s dedication to disarmament is further highlighted by its initiative to establish August 29 as the International Day against Nuclear Tests, recognized by the United Nations. This date commemorates both the first Soviet nuclear test at Semipalatinsk in 1949 and the closure of the site in 1991, serving as a reminder of the horrors of nuclear testing and a call to action for the global community.

The Role of NWFZs in Global Security

NWFZs are critical components of the global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament architecture. There are five established NWFZs, created through treaties: Treaty of Tlatelolco (Latin America and the Caribbean), Treaty of Rarotonga (South Pacific), Treaty of Bangkok (Southeast Asia), Treaty of Pelindaba (Africa), Treaty of Semey (Central Asia) In addition, Mongolia’s unique status as a self-declared nuclear-weapon-free state, recognized through a United Nations General Assembly resolution, exemplifies a national commitment to nuclear non-proliferation.

These zones prohibit the presence of nuclear weapons within their territories, reinforced by international verification and control systems. NWFZs play a crucial role in maintaining regional stability, reducing the risk of nuclear conflict, and promoting global disarmament.

Astana Workshop: A Critical Gathering for Disarmament

The upcoming workshop in Astana is a critical opportunity for states-parties to the five NWFZ treaties, alongside representatives from international organizations, to engage in vital discussions aimed at overcoming the challenges facing these zones. This gathering is particularly timely, given the escalating geopolitical tensions in regions where nuclear capabilities remain central to national security.

A key focus of the workshop will be on enhancing cooperation among the NWFZs, as outlined in the Secretary-General’s Agenda for Disarmament. This includes facilitating consultation between the zones and encouraging nuclear-armed states to adhere to the protocols of these treaties. The workshop builds on the 2019 seminar titled “Cooperation Among Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones and Mongolia,” co-organized by UNODA and Kazakhstan in Nur-Sultan(Astana), which produced key recommendations aimed at revitalizing cooperation among NWFZs.

Participants will discuss strategies to advance the objectives of NWFZs, with an emphasis on strengthening security benefits for member states and fostering more robust consultation mechanisms. The workshop will also address the challenges posed by the reluctance of certain nuclear-armed states, particularly the United States, to ratify protocols related to several NWFZ treaties. Despite being a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the U.S. has yet to ratify protocols to treaties covering the South Pacific (Treaty of Rarotonga), Africa (Treaty of Pelindaba), and Central Asia. This reluctance has impeded the full realization of the security benefits these zones could offer.

Kazakhstan’s Leadership in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)

Kazakhstan’s role in nuclear disarmament extends beyond NWFZs to include leadership in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). In March 2025, Kazakhstan will host the 3rd Meeting of State Parties to the TPNW at the United Nations, further solidifying its position as a champion of nuclear disarmament.

Kazakhstan has been a vocal advocate of the TPNW and has actively pushed for the creation of an international fund to support victims of nuclear testing and remediate environments affected by nuclear activities, in line with Articles 6 and 7 of the treaty.

The Vienna Action Plan, developed during the First Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW（１MSP）, outlines actions for implementing these articles, including exploring the feasibility of an international trust fund and encouraging affected states parties to assess the impacts of nuclear weapons use and testing and to develop national plans for implementation.

At the Second Meeting of States Parties (2MSP), co-chaired by Kazakhstan and Kiribati, progress was made, but challenges remain. The informal working group on victim assistance, environmental remediation, and international cooperation presented a report, and its mandate was renewed, with the goal of submitting recommendations for the establishment of an international trust fund at the 3rd Meeting of States Parties (3MSP). Kazakhstan’s leadership in this area underscores its commitment to addressing the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons, drawing from its own experience with the devastating consequences of nuclear testing at Semipalatinsk.

Civil Society’s Crucial Role

As a part of the two day event, Soka Gakkai International (SGI) from Japan and the Center for International Security and Policy (CISP) will hold a side event in the evening of September 28 to screen the documentary “I Want to Live On: The Untold Stories of the Polygon,” highlighting the survivors of nuclear testing at Semipalatinsk. This documentary, produced by CISP with SGI’s support, was first shown at the UN during the second meeting of state parties to the TPNW in 2023. This side event is part of a broader initiative by SGI and Kazakhstan, which have co-organized several events focusing on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons at UN, Vienna, and Astana in recent years.

Also coinciding with the Astana workshop, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) will hold a conference convening civil society organizations and activists including Hibakusha from some countries. This confluence of governmental and civil society efforts in Astana marks a significant moment in the global disarmament movement. While diplomats and state representatives discuss policy and cooperation during the official workshop, the parallel activities organized by civil society will amplify the humanitarian message and emphasize the urgent need for a world free of nuclear weapons.

As global tensions rise, the Astana workshop represents a beacon of hope, a critical moment in the global journey toward disarmament. Through cooperation, dialogue, and a shared commitment to peace, the dream of a world free of nuclear weapons remains within reach. Kazakhstan, with the support of the international community, is at the forefront of this vital effort.

INPS Japan/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." Credit: UNODA/Diane Barnes

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 1 2024 (IPS)

The upcoming 79th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which took place on August 6 and 9, 1945, remains a grim reminder of the destructive consequences of nuclear weapons.

The US bombings killed an estimated 90,000 to 210,000, with roughly half of the deaths occurring on the first day in Hiroshima.

But despite an intense global campaign for nuclear disarmament, the world has witnessed an increase in the number of nuclear powers from five—the US, UK, France, China and Russia—to nine, including India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.

Is the continued worldwide anti-nuclear campaign an exercise in futility? And will the rising trend continue—with countries such as Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and South Korea—as potential nuclear powers of the future?

South Africa is the only country that has voluntarily given up nuclear weapons after developing them. In the 1980s, South Africa produced six nuclear weapons, but dismantled them between 1989 and 1993. A number of factors may have influenced South Africa’s decision, including national security, international relations, and a desire to avoid becoming a pariah state.

But there is an equally valid argument that there have been no nuclear wars—only threats—largely because of the success of the world-wide anti-nuclear campaign, the role of the United Nations and the collective action by most of the 193 member states in adopting several anti-nuclear treaties.

According to the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), the United Nations has sought to eliminate weapons  of mass destruction (WMDs) ever since the establishment of the world body. The first resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1946 established a commission to deal with problems related to the discovery of atomic energy, among others.

The commission was to make proposals for, inter alia, the control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes.

Several multilateral treaties have since been established with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation and testing, while promoting progress in nuclear disarmament.

These include the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, also known as the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which was signed in 1996 but has yet to enter into force, and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland, California, which monitors and analyzes US nuclear weapons programs and policies, told IPS: “As we approach the 79^th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world is facing a greater danger of nuclear war than at any time since 1945.”

“The terrifying doctrine of “nuclear deterrence,” which should long ago have been delegitimized and relegated to the dustbin of history and replaced with multilateral, non-militarized common security, has metastasized into a pathological ideology brandished by nuclear-armed states and their allies to justify the perpetual possession and threatened use—including first use—of nuclear weapons,” she pointed out.

“It is more important than ever that we heed the warnings of the aging hibakusha (A-bomb survivors): What happened to us must never be allowed to happen to anyone again; nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist; no more Hiroshimas, no more Nagasakis!”

This demands an irreversible process of nuclear disarmament. But to the contrary, all nuclear armed states are qualitatively and, in some cases, quantitatively upgrading their nuclear arsenals and a new multipolar arms race is underway, she noted.

“To achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons and a global society that is more fair, peaceful, and ecologically sustainable, we will need to move from the irrational fear-based ideology of deterrence to the rational fear of an eventual nuclear weapon use, whether by accident, miscalculation, or design.”

“We will also need to stimulate a rational hope that security can be redefined in humanitarian and ecologically sustainable terms that will lead to the elimination of nuclear weapons and dramatic demilitarization, freeing up tremendous resources desperately needed to address universal human needs and protect the environment.”

In this time of multiple global crises, “our work for the elimination of nuclear weapons must take place in a much broader framework, taking into account the interface between nuclear and conventional weapons and militarism in general, the humanitarian and long-term environmental consequences of nuclear war, and the fundamental incompatibility of nuclear weapons with democracy, the rule of law, and human wellbeing,” declared Cabasso.

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 the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS, “The glass is half-full or half-empty depending on how one looks at it.”

“The fact that we have avoided nuclear war since 1945 is also partly due to the persistence of the anti-nuclear movement. Historians like Lawrence Wittner have pointed to the many instances when governments have chosen nuclear restraint instead of unrestrained expansion.”

While South Africa is the only country that dismantled its entire nuclear weapons program, many countries—Sweden, for example—have chosen not to develop nuclear weapons even though they had the technical capacity to do so. They did so in part because of strong public opposition to nuclear weapons, which in turn is due to social movements supporting nuclear disarmament, he pointed out.

Thus, organizing for nuclear disarmament is not futile. Especially as we move into another era of conflicts between major powers, such movements will be critical to our survival, declared Ramana.

According to the UN, a group of elderly hibakusha, called Nihon Hidankyo, have dedicated their lives to achieving a non-proliferation treaty, which they hope will ultimately lead to a total ban on nuclear weapons.

“On an overcrowded train on the Hakushima line, I fainted for a while, holding in my arms my eldest daughter of one year and six months. I regained my senses at her cries and found no one else was on the train,” a 34-year-old woman testifies in the booklet. She was located just two kilometres from the Hiroshima epicenter.

Fleeing to her relatives in Hesaka, at age 24, another woman remembers that “people, with the skin dangling down, were stumbling along. They fell down with a thud and died one after another,” adding, “still now I often have nightmares about this, and people say, ‘it’s neurosis’.”

One man who entered Hiroshima after the bomb recalled in the exhibition “that dreadful scene—I cannot forget even after many decades.”

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

A woman who was 25 years old at the time said, “When I went outside, it was dark as night. Then it got brighter and brighter, and I could see burnt people crying and running about in utter confusion. It was hell…I found my neighbor trapped under a fallen concrete wall… Only half of his face was showing. He was burned alive”.

The steadfast conviction of the Hidankyo remains: “Nuclear weapons are absolute evil that cannot coexist with humans. There is no choice but to abolish them.”

Addressing the UN Security Council last March, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that with geopolitical tensions escalating the risk of nuclear warfare to its highest point in decades, reducing and abolishing nuclear weapons is the only viable path to saving humanity.

“There is one path—and one path only—that will vanquish this senseless and suicidal shadow once and for all.  We need disarmament now,” he said, urging nuclear-weapon States to re-engage to prevent any use of a nuclear weapon, re-affirm moratoria on nuclear testing and “urgently agree that none of them will be the first to use nuclear weapons.”

He called for reductions in the number of nuclear weapons led by the holders of the largest arsenals—the United States and the Russian Federation—to “find a way back to the negotiating table” to fully implement the New Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, or START Treaty, and agree on its successor.

“When each country pursues its own security without regard for others, we create global insecurity that threatens us all,” he observed.  Almost eight decades after the incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons still represent a clear danger to global peace and security, growing in power, range and stealth.”

“States possessing them are absent from the negotiating table, and some statements have raised the prospect of unleashing nuclear hell—threats that we must all denounce with clarity and force,” he said.  Moreover, emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and cyber and outer space domains have created new risks.”

From Pope Francis, who calls the possession of nuclear arms “immoral”, to the hibakusha, the brave survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to Hollywood, where Oppenheimer brought the harsh reality of nuclear doomsday to vivid life for millions around the world, people are calling for an end to the nuclear madness.  “Humanity cannot survive a sequel to Oppenheimer,” he warned.

When Nagasaki marked the 78th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of the city last year, the mayor Shiro Suzuki, urged world powers to abolish nuclear weapons, saying nuclear deterrence also increases risks of nuclear war, according to an Associated Press (AP) report.

He called on the Group of Seven (G7) industrial powers to adopt a separate document on nuclear disarmament that called for using nuclear weapons as deterrence.

“Now is the time to show courage and make the decision to break free from dependence on nuclear deterrence,” Suzuki said in his peace declaration. “As long as states are dependent on nuclear deterrence, we cannot realize a world without nuclear weapons.”

Russia’s nuclear threat has encouraged other nuclear states to accelerate their dependence on nuclear weapons or enhance capabilities, further increasing the risk of nuclear war, and that Russia is not the only one representing the risk of nuclear deterrence, Suzuki said.

Suzuki, whose parents were hibakusha, or survivors of the Nagasaki attack, said knowing the reality of the atomic bombings is the starting point for achieving a world without nuclear weapons. He said the survivors’ testimonies are a true deterrent against nuclear weapons use, the AP report said.

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A message projected onto the United Nations headquarters in New York in 2022 calls on North Korea to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Credit: The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 26 2024 (IPS)

When Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signed a pact last month to revive a Cold War-era mutual defense pledge between two of the world’s nuclear powers, it also had the implicit support a third nuclear power standing in the shadows: China.

The new nuclear alliance, which has triggered fears in Japan and South Korea, ensures the possible sharing of Russia’s knowledge of satellites and missile technologies with North Korea. 

The new pact, has also resulted in a sharp divide between Russia, China and North Korea on the one hand and the US, Japan and South Korea on the other.

But one lingering question remains: Will these new developments force—at least in the not-too-distant future—South Korea to go nuclear, joining the world’s nine nuclear powers: the U.S., UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.

The New York Times quoted Cheong Seong-chang, the director of the Center for Korean Peninsula Strategy at the Sejong Institute, as saying: “It is time for South Korea to have a fundamental review of its current security policy, which depends almost totally on the US nuclear umbrella to counter the North Korean nuclear threat.”

And quoting North Korea’s official Central News Agency, the Times said Putin and Kim agreed that if one country found itself in a state of war, then the other would provide “military and other assistance with all means in its possession without delay.”

Addressing the UN General Assembly, Ambassador Kim Song of North Korea said nuclear weapons are stockpiled in many countries, including the U.S., yet Pyongyang is the only one facing sanctions: Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

Alice Slater, who serves on the boards of World BEYOND War and the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, told IPS the fact that Russia is allying with North Korea and China at this time is a result of the failure of U.S. diplomacy, and the drive by the U.S. military-industrial-congressional-media-academic-think tank complex (MICIMATT) to expand the U.S. empire beyond its 800 U.S. military bases in 87 nations.

The U.S., she said, is now surrounding China with new bases recently established in the Pacific and forming AUKUS, a new military alliance with Australia, the UK and the U.S.

“The U.S. has been breaking its agreement made with China in 1972, as we now are arming Taiwan despite promises made by Nixon and Kissinger to recognize China and remain neutral on the question of the future of Taiwan, to where the anti-communist forces retreated after the Chinese Revolution,” said Slater, who is also a UN NGO Representative for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

According to a report in the Associated Press (AP) wire on July 12, the U.S. and South Korea have signed joint nuclear deterrence guidelines for the first time, “a basic yet important step in their efforts to improve their ability to respond to North Korea’s evolving nuclear threats.”

Meeting on the sidelines of a NATO summit in Washington, U.S. President Joe Biden and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol commended what they called “the tremendous progress” that their countries’ alliance has made a year after creating a joint Nuclear Consultative Group.

Last year, the U.S. and South Korea launched the consultative body to strengthen communication on nuclear operations and discuss how to integrate U.S. nuclear weapons and South Korean conventional weapons in various contingencies, said the AP report.

Meanwhile, Abolition 2000, the Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons, will host a seminar in Geneva on July 30, titled “Denuclearization in North-East Asia through a 3+3 Model Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone.”

Tensions, unresolved conflicts and nuclear weapons policies of nuclear armed and allied states active in North-East Asia (China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea and the USA) increase the risks of armed conflict and nuclear war in the region, says Abolition 2000.

“Unilateral disarmament by any one of these countries is highly unlikely while other countries in the region continue with robust nuclear deterrence policies. What is required is a regional approach to nuclear disarmament which maintains the security of all.”

The 3+3 model for a North-East Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone  envisages an agreement where-by the three territorial countries in the zone (Japan, North Korea and South Korea) would mutually relinquish their reliance on nuclear weapons in return for credible and enforceable security guarantees from China, Russia and the US that they would not be threatened with nuclear weapons.

This agreement would provide part of a more comprehensive peace agreement to formally end the Korean War.

The proposal is being seriously discussed amongst academics, legislators and civil society organizations in Japan, South Korea and the USA. The upcoming event aims to broaden the discussion to include delegations to the NPT Prep Com.

Denuclearization in North-East Asia through a 3+3 Model Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. Credit: Abolition 2000

Asked about the rising nuclear threats from North Korea, State Department Spokesman Matthew Miller said July 22: “We have made clear on a number of occasions that we prefer diplomacy to deal with this situation, and the North Koreans have shown that they are not in any way interested in that.”

Responding to a question on the consequences of Russia being driven closer to North Korea and China, Antony Blinken, US Secretary of State said: “I think we’ve seen two things.  We have seen that, although that was something that was in the works for a long time, and maybe some of it’s accelerated as a result of the war in Ukraine, but we’ve also seen something else that’s been quite remarkable.”

During a Fireside Chat at the Aspen Security Forum, moderated by Mary Louise Kelly of National Public Radio (NPR) on July 19, Blinken said: “I’ve been doing this for more than 30 years.  I have not seen a time when there’s been greater convergence between the United States and our European partners and our partners in Asia in terms of the approach to Russia, but also in terms of the approach to China, than we’re seeing right now.”

“We’ve built convergence across the Atlantic, we’ve built it across the Pacific, and we’ve built it between the Atlantic and the Pacific.  So, I would take our team and the countries that we’re working with than anything that Russia’s been able to put together.

“Beyond that, I think there are going to be – and we’ve already seen a lot of strains in these groupings.  It’s not particularly good for your reputation to be working closely with Russia and helping it perpetuate its war in Ukraine.

“So, I think China is very uncomfortable in the position it’s in, but for now we do have a challenge, which is China is providing not weapons, unlike North Korea and Iran, but it’s providing the inputs for Russia’s defense industrial base.”

Seventy percent of the machine tools that Russia is importing come from China, he pointed out.  And ninety percent of the microelectronics come from China.  And that’s going into the defense industrial base and turning into missiles, tanks and other weapons.

“We’ve called out China on that.  We have sanctioned Chinese companies.  But more to the point, so have many others.  And we just saw that in Europe a couple of weeks ago.  And China can’t have it both ways.  It can’t all at once be saying that it’s for peace in Ukraine when it is helping to fuel the ongoing pursuit of the war by Russia.

“I can’t say that it wants better relations with Europe when it is actually helping to fuel the greatest threat to Europe’s security since the end of the Cold War,” Blinken declared.

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report, NUCLEAR ABOLITION 2024,

Aftermath of attack in the city center of Kharkiv, Ukraine. June 2024. Credit: IOM

By Andrew Lichterman, Alyn Ware and Yosuke Watanabe
OAKLAND, California / PRAGUE, Czech Republic / YOKOHAMA, Japan, Jun 28 2024 (IPS)

Our three organizations– Western States Legal Foundation, Peace Depot, and Basel Peace Office– all dedicated to the elimination of nuclear weapons, have consistently expressed our concern about the risk of nuclear war escalating during armed conflicts and times of high tension, when nuclear-armed states often make veiled or even explicit threats to use nuclear weapons and prepare for such use.

This has happened, for example, with the governments of India and Pakistan trading nuclear threats during their 2001 stand-off, the U.S. government making veiled nuclear threats against Iraq in 1991 and 2003, and the U.S. and North Korean leaders threatening to strike each other with nuclear weapons in 2017.

We speak out now against the series of coercive nuclear threats that have been made by the Russian government since 2022 in conjunction with its invasion of Ukraine and occupation of Ukrainian territory.

From the start of the full-scale invasion and war in 2022, the government of the Russian Federation has made a series of threats to use nuclear weapons against countries that provide Ukraine with weapons and other military assistance.

Russian officials also have claimed the right to use nuclear weapons to defend territories they have occupied and illegally annexed in the course of the war. These threats have been accompanied by such posturing as the announced deployment of Russian nuclear weapons to Belarus and the highlighting of exercises of Russian nuclear forces in a military district on Ukraine’s borders.

These threats make clear once more a key role of the nuclear weapons possessed by the world’s most powerful states: to make it easier for their governments to pursue aggressive wars and to coerce countries to accept this aggression by exponentially increasing the danger to all who might oppose them.

In 1996, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal, but did not reach a conclusion, one way or the other, regarding an extreme circumstance of self-defense when the very survival of a state is at stake.

This approach was controversial at the time in the international legal community, with considerable opinion that the threat or use of nuclear arms is illegal in all circumstances. That view has only strengthened in the nearly three decades since then.

Among other developments, the UN Human Rights Committee found in 2018 that threat or use of nuclear weapons is contrary to the human right to life; the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons declared in its preamble that use of nuclear weapons is contrary to international humanitarian law (IHL) governing the conduct of warfare; and a 2011 International Red Cross and Red Cross Movement resolution stated that it is “difficult to envisage how any use of nuclear weapons could be compatible with” IHL.

Regardless of one’s view of the current state of the law, the population of the Russian Federation faces no threat to its “very survival”. Their government could end its war on Ukraine tomorrow and the Russian Federation would remain a large and powerful state with an immense resource and industrial base, its internationally recognized borders intact.

There is no rationale for the brandishing of nuclear weapons by the government of the Russian Federation other than to leverage their terrible destructive power to advance its war of aggression and conquest in Ukraine.

In January 2022, less than two months before the government of the Russian Federation launched its invasion, that government, together with those of the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and China issued a statement affirming that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Then in November 2022, at the G20 Summit in Bali, and again at the September 2023 G20 Summit in Delhi, the leaders and/or foreign ministers of China, France, India, Russia, UK, and USA declared that the “use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.” Yet, the nuclear threats continue.

Amidst a war already involving extensive air bombardment and missile warfare, together with the use of new kinds of electronic warfare that intensifies the fog of war, a nuclear crisis would pose extraordinary dangers. No one should have any illusions that such a crisis could be easily controlled.

The government of the Russian Federation should cease its threats of nuclear use, and issue assurances that it will not use nuclear weapons in the conflict with Ukraine. The United States, France, the United Kingdom, and NATO should issue such assurances as well.

Andrew Lichterman is Senior Research Analyst, Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, USA; Alyn Ware is Global Coordinator, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, Director, Basel Peace Office, Prague, Czech Republic; Yosuke Watanabe is Research Fellow, Peace Depot, Japan Coordinator, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, Yokohama, Japan.

The Western States Legal Foundation, based in Oakland, California, seeks to abolish nuclear weapons as an essential step in making possible a more secure, just, and environmentally sustainable world; Peace Depot is a non-profit, independent think tank based in Yokohama, Japan. It supports civil society’s peace movements, particularly in the area of nuclear disarmament and military base issues; Basel Peace Office is a coalition of four Swiss organizations and three international organizations advancing effective policies and proposals to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Tomohiko Aishima
TOKYO, Japan, Jun 26 2024 (IPS-Partners)

The crisis that began with the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 shows no signs of ending, and the threat of nuclear war is no longer in the realm of the unimaginable. With conflicts intensifying in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere producing appalling humanitarian crises, humanity stands on a dangerous precipice. There has been no time since the end of the Cold War when the risk of nuclear weapons use has been as high and prolonged as it is now. Even as there is renewed focus on the catastrophic consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, the discourse remains divided—whether to further escalate military confrontation or to return to multilateral negotiation and dialogue. Humanity confronts stark choices. JAPANESE

As SGI members actively engaged in civil society, we believe the following to be crucial and represent forms of action that can transform the direction of history in this crucial moment: To inform people of the inhumane realities of nuclear bombings; to inherit the vow from those who came before us to prevent such tragedies from recurring; and to inspire people deeply towards a more hopeful future.

History demonstrates that when people stand their ground and resist the overwhelming impulse to pessimism and resignation previously unthought-of developments and advances become possible. That is, the times that seem darkest and most desperate can hold opportunities to fundamentally reform human society.

Focusing on the role and leadership of youth, we will continue advocating the legacy of countless aspirations for peace on every level—toward a world free from nuclear weapons, a world without war. It is vital to amplify and spread these voices and here quality media has a critical role to play.

Drawing from our experiences of engagement at UN and grassroots levels for nuclear disarmament, we would like to highlight three points:

First, in order to inform, the devastating consequences of nuclear weapons need to be brought home to even more people. This is crucial if we are to stave off catastrophe.

The weakening and erosion of norms against the use, proliferation and testing of nuclear weapons is a matter of deep concern; no successor framework to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which expires in February 2026, is in sight. A shared recognition of the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons can serve as the basis for the kind of dialogue that is needed build trust and confidence.

There is much we can learn from the response to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the time when humanity came closest to the brink of nuclear war. The determination never to repeat that experience and to advance nuclear disarmament was a key motivation for the adoption of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968. It It is worth noting that US and the USSR announced their intention to hold the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks on the day of the signing ceremony for the NPT, negotiations that represented the first steps taken the two countries to slow the nuclear arms race and fulfill their commitment to nuclear disarmament made Article VI of the NPT.

Reflecting on that history, in January 2023 SGI President Daisaku Ikeda issued a proposal in which stressed the following:

Dr. Daisaku Ikeda. Credit: Seikyo Shimbun

The spirit and sense of purpose that prevailed at the time of the birth of the NPT is resonant with and complementary to the ideals that motivated the drafting and adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). I strongly call for all parties to explore and expand ways to link the efforts made on the basis of these two treaties, drawing forth their synergistic effects toward a world free from nuclear weapons.

Carrying forward the vision of President Ikeda, who passed away last November, members of the SGI are determined to generate momentum for a global course shift away from nuclear buildup premised on deterrence, toward nuclear disarmament that will avert catastrophe.

Second, in order to inherit, we feel the need to listen closely to the voices of global hibakusha.The average age of surviving hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has exceeded 85. Additionally, there are many global hibakusha, people around the world who have been impacted by uranium mining, nuclear testing, and nuclear weapons production processes. The realities of their have not been widely told. Their voices must be heard as they contain lessons we cannot afford to forget.

To this end, the SGI has produced a video of Hiroshima hibakusha Keiko Ogura’s in-person testimony to leaders at the G7 Hiroshima Summit (link1). This video was also screened at an NPT Preparatory Committee side event held on August 7, 2023, leaving a deep impression on participants, including many young people in attendance.

Algerim Yelgeldy, a third-generation survivor of the Semipalatinsk Nuclear Test Site, giving a testimony at a side event during the 2nd meeting of the States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. By Katsuhiro Asagiri, President of INPS Japan.

The spirit animating hibakusha in Japan and throughout the world to confront and recount their horrific experiences is the determination that no one else should endure what they have suffered. This open-hearted concern for others stands in stark contrast with the underlying logic of nuclear weapons—the readiness to annihilate others in pursuit of one’s own interests and objectives. It is this readiness that marks nuclear weapons as an absolute evil.

Finally, we seek to inspire action by promoting awareness of the interlinkages between nuclear disarmament with global issues like climate change.

Even if the global armageddon of full-scale nuclear war is avoided, scientists have reported that a limited nuclear war could cause “nuclear winter,” resulting in food shortages and famine that could potentially kill 2 billion people. Nuclear testing has inflicted immense damage on formerly colonized peoples and indigenous communities. Nuclear abolition is an intersectional issue spanning discrimination, human rights, climate justice, environment, gender, inclusion, humanitarianism and ethics, among others.

Aiming toward the UN Summit of the Future this September, this past March Japanese youth jointly organized the Future Action Festival that sought to raise awareness of these interconnections at a gathering of nearly 70,000 young participants.

Future Action Festival convened at Tokyo’s National Stadium on March 24, drawing approximately 66,000 attedees. Credit: Yukie Asagiri, INPS Japan

As part of the second People’s Decade for Nuclear Abolition campaign [link3], the SGI is striving to build renewed momentum for nuclear abolition toward 2027, focusing on peace and disarmament education.

It is increasingly crucial that people reach across their respective fields of action and policy positions to unite their voices for nuclear abolition and, to this end, we also seek to strengthen interfaith dialogue and cooperation.

Anna Ikeda of SGI delivered a joint statement endorsed by 115 inter-faith and civil society organizations (CSOs) on 29 November. Credit: SGI

We recognize the urgency of this moment and what is at stake for all of us – the beloved natural world and the beloved community of humanity. Our fates are intertwined and we cannot ignore the resounding threats that confront us. . . . This fear is not unique to this moment in time. Let us draw courage from the audacity and vision of past struggles for justice, taking comfort in the wisdom that immense challenges always feel impossible until they are done.

 

 
Tomohiko Aishima is Executive Director of Peace and Global Issues, Soka Gakkai International (SGI)

INPS Japan

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UN Secretary-General António Guterres (center right) attends a Security Council meeting on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation on March 18, 2024. With geopolitical tensions escalating the risk of nuclear warfare to its highest point in decades, reducing and abolishing nuclear weapons is the only viable path to saving humanity. The UN chief told the Security Council delegates that he was deeply concerned about the continuous erosion of the international non-proliferation architecture.Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 7 2024 (IPS)

The continued veiled threats from Russia, warning of nuclear attacks on Ukraine, have prompted some politicians in Europe to visualize a nuclear-armed European Union (EU).

But Volkert Ohm, Co-Chair of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) in Germany, told IPS that the call for nuclear weapons for the EU contradicts international law.

“The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is that even in extreme circumstances of self-defense, states may only defend themselves with weapons that fulfil the conditions of international humanitarian law.”

“Nuclear weapons do not fulfill them. Nuclear radiation is inherent in any nuclear weapon; thus, “clean” nuclear weapons cannot exist. Debates and statements by politicians in the EU, and particularly in Germany, are neglecting international law on many levels,” he pointed out.

Facing the potential return of Donald Trump to the White House, the head of the EU’s biggest political grouping is calling for Europeans to prepare for war without support from the United States and to build their own nuclear umbrella, according to POLITICO, a US-based online publication.

Manfred Weber, leader of the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), has described Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin as “the two who set the framework” for 2024.

The 27 member states of the European Union (EU) are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.

But France is the only EU member that is also one of the world’s nine nuclear powers, along with the US, UK, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea.

John Burroughs, Vice President, International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms and Senior Analyst, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, told IPS that interest in some quarters in the European Union (EU) or some European entity acquiring nuclear weapons stems in part from the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine accompanied by illegal nuclear threats.

But the solution is not some form of increased European reliance on nuclear arms. Rather, it is bringing Russia’s war on Ukraine to an end soon, which would involve painful compromises on Ukraine’s part, he said.

“That would eliminate the very real potential for nuclear war arising out of the conflict, and it would open the way for getting arms control and disarmament negotiations with Russia back on track.”

This, he pointed out, is a far better path than the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the EU or another European entity. That would violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as the IALANA Germany statement points out, reinforce nuclear arms racing already underway, and tend to greenlight the spread of nuclear weapons in other regions.

“The interest in European nuclear weapons has also been spurred by concern over statements by former and possible future US President Donald Trump implying US disengagement from NATO. This concern is exaggerated.”

The US government as a whole is deeply committed to NATO, as is illustrated by the fact that Congress passed and President Biden signed a law requiring that a withdrawal from NATO be approved by Congress. It is also true that French and British nuclear arsenals are available for defense of Europe through NATO or otherwise, said Burroughs.

“While they are not as large and diverse as the US or Russian arsenals, it does not take many nuclear weapons to cause Russia or any other country to think twice about aggression. More fundamentally, as the IALANA Germany statement conveys, reliance on nuclear arms, US or European, is incompatible with a law-governed world, and increasing such reliance is going in the wrong direction,” he declared.

“We want NATO, but we also have to be strong enough to be able to defend ourselves without it or in times of Trump,” Weber said in a phone interview with POLITICO on the return leg of a train trip to Kyiv.

“Regardless of who is elected in America, Europe must be able to stand on its own in terms of foreign policy and be able to defend itself independently,” the influential German conservative said.

That brought him to the vexing question of European nuclear defenses. NATO currently relies heavily on U.S. nuclear warheads, which are deployed on six military air bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey, according to POLITICO.

“Europe must build deterrence; we must be able to deter and defend ourselves,” he said. “We all know that when push comes to shove, the nuclear option is the really decisive one.”

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Putin has significantly upped his nuclear rhetoric and regularly made veiled atomic threats toward the West.

Within the EU, the only country that would be able to play a larger role is France, which has about 300 nuclear warheads.

The other European nuclear power—but outside the EU—is Britain, with fewer than some 260 warheads. “Perhaps, just to make the options clear, we are now at a point where, after the years and decade of Brexit, we should open a constructive dialogue with our British friends,” Weber continued.

Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, told IPS that in light of the Russian Federation’s illegal war of aggression in Ukraine and its attendant drumbeat of nuclear threats, a number of former German government officials and politicians have called for the European Union to acquire its own nuclear arsenal.

For example, former Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer of the Green Party told Der Speigel last year, “As long as we have a neighbor Russia that follows Putin’s imperial ideology, we cannot do without deterring this Russia.”

Asked whether deterrence includes Germany acquiring its own nuclear weapons, he said, “That is indeed the most difficult question.” Noting that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is “also working with nuclear blackmail,” he said: “Should the Federal Republic of Germany possess nuclear weapons? No. Europe? Yes. The EU needs its own nuclear deterrent.”

As pointed out in the IALANA Germany statement, such plans 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 Fischer and others, said Cabasso.

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, she pointed out.

Germany and other EU 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, declared Cabasso.

Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS that the vast majority of the countries that are part of the European Union have signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as non-nuclear-weapon State Parties.

According to Article 2 of the NPT, each “non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly.”

Likewise, nuclear-weapon State Parties to the NPT that are either part of the EU (i.e., France) or not (e.g., the United States) are obligated under Article 1 of the NPT “not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices,” he said.

Even without going into the details of who might control these proposed “nuclear weapons for the EU”, it is clear that such an arsenal would contradict the spirit of the NPT and weaken the already weak non-proliferation and disarmament norms.

As IALANA says, EU states should distance themselves from this idea and work for a world free of nuclear weapons, declared Ramana.

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A view of the Earth and a satellite as seen from outer space. Credit: NASA via UN News

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, May 7 2024 (IPS)

When the 15-member UN Security Council failed last month to adopt its first-ever resolution on outer space—co-sponsored by the US and Japan—the Russian veto led to speculation whether this was a precursor for a future nuclear arms race in the skies above.

The vetoed resolution was expected to “affirm the obligation of all States parties to fully comply with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, including not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.”

Randy Rydell, Executive Advisor, Mayors for Peace, and a former Senior Political Affairs Officer at the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), told IPS that the Security Council’s record on disarmament issues has long suffered from the same plague that has also tormented the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva: namely the veto and the CD’s “consensus rule.”

Sadly, this vote on the outer space resolution should surprise no one, he said.

The world is facing a crisis of the “rule of law” in disarmament. Key treaties have failed to achieve universal membership, failed to be negotiated, failed to enter into force, failed to be fully incorporated into domestic laws and policies of the parties, and failed to be fully implemented, while other treaties have actually lost parties, he pointed out.

While the Outer Space Treaty will remain in force despite this unfortunate vote, Rydell argued, the specters of the existing nuclear arms race proliferating one day into space, along with unbridled competition to deploy non-nuclear space weapons, have profound implications not just for the future of disarmament but also for the peace and security of our fragile planet.

“The Charter’s norms against the threat of use of force and the obligation to resolve disputes peacefully remain the most potentially effective antidotes to the contagion unfolding before us, coupled with new steps not just “toward” but “in” disarmament”.

“I hope the General Assembly’s Summit of the Future in September will succeed in reviving a new global commitment to precisely these priorities,” declared Rydell

By a vote of 13 in favor to 1 against (Russian Federation) and 1 abstention (China), the Council rejected the draft resolution, owing to the negative vote cast by a permanent member.

Besides the US,  UK and France, all 10 non-permanent members voted for the resolution,  including Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia and Switzerland.

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, told IPS it is impossible, amidst the current geopolitical rivalries and fog of propaganda, to evaluate the ramifications of the Security Council’s failure to adopt this resolution—though it does underscore the dysfunction in the Security Council created by the P-5’s veto power.

“Russia and China have long been proponents of negotiations for a comprehensive treaty on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space, and in 2008 and 2014 submitted draft treaty texts to the moribund Conference on Disarmament,” she said.

The United States, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, rejected those drafts out of hand, said Cabasso, whose California-based WSLF is a non-profit public interest organization that seeks to abolish nuclear weapons as an essential step in securing a more just and environmentally sustainable world.

A week after its April 24 veto, Russia submitted a new draft resolution to the U.N. Security Council that goes farther than the U.S.-Japan proposal, calling not only for efforts to stop weapons from being deployed in outer space “for all time,” but for preventing “the threat or use of force in outer space.”

The resolution reportedly states this should include bans on deploying weapons “from space against Earth, and from Earth against objects in outer space.” By definition, this would include anti-satellite weapons.

With new nuclear arms races underway here on earth, with the erosion and dismantling of the Cold War nuclear arms control architecture, and with the dangers of wars among nuclear armed states growing to perhaps an all-time high, it certainly remains true, as recognized by the UN General Assembly in 1981, that “the extension of the arms race into outer space [is] a real possibility.”

“We are in a global emergency and every effort must be made to lower the temperature and create openings for diplomatic dialogue among the nuclear-armed states. To this end, the U.S. and its allies should call Russia’s bluff (if that’s what they think it is) and welcome its proposed new resolution in the Security Council,” declared Cabasso.

Speaking after the vote, the representative of the United States said that this is not the first time the Russian Federation has undermined the global non-proliferation regime, according to a report in UN News. “It has defended—and even enabled—dangerous proliferators.”

Moreover, with its abstention, the US said, China showed that it would rather “defend Russia as its junior partner” than safeguard the global non-proliferation regime, she added.

“There should be no doubt that placing a nuclear weapon into orbit would be unprecedented, unacceptable, and deeply dangerous.”

The US said Japan had gone to great lengths to forge consensus, with 65 cross-regional co-sponsors who joined in support.

Japan’s representative said he deeply regretted the Russian Federation’s decision to use the veto to break the adoption of “this historic draft resolution.”

Notwithstanding the support of 65 countries that co-sponsored the document, one permanent member decided to “silence the critical message we wanted to send to the world,” he stressed, noting that the draft resolution would have been a practical contribution to the promotion of peaceful use and the exploration of outer space.

The representative of the Russian Federation, noting that the Council is again involved in “a dirty spectacle prepared by the US and Japan, said, “This is a cynical ploy.  We are being tricked.”

Recalling that the ban on placing weapons of mass destruction in outer space is already enshrined in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, he said that Washington, D.C., Japan, and their allies are “cherry-picking” weapons of mass destruction out of all other weapons, trying to “camouflage their lack of interest” in outer space being free from any kinds of weapons.

The addition to the operative paragraph, proposed by the Russian Federation and China, does not delete from the draft resolution a call not to develop weapons of mass destruction and not to place them in outer space, he emphasized.

Meanwhile, outlining the treaty’s history, Cabasso said that in Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1967, States Parties agreed “not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.”

Yet, according to the UN Yearbook, by 1981, member states had expressed concern in the General Assembly that “rapid advances in science and technology had made the extension of the arms race into outer space a real possibility, and that new kinds of weapons were still being developed despite the existence of international agreements.”

In his May 1 testimony to the House Armed Services subcommittee, John Plumb, the first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy, claimed that “Russia is developing and—if we are unable to convince them otherwise—to ultimately fly a nuclear weapon in space which will be an indiscriminate weapon” that would not distinguish among military, civilian, or commercial satellites.

In February, President Vladimir Putin declared that Russia has no intention of deploying nuclear weapons in space. It is troubling, therefore, that on April 24, Russia vetoed the first-ever Security Council resolution on an arms race in outer space, said Cabasso.

The resolution, introduced by the United States and Japan, would have affirmed the obligation of all States Parties to fully comply with the Outer Space Treaty, including its provisions to not deploy nuclear or any other kind of weapon of mass destruction in space. China abstained.

Before the resolution was put to a vote, Russia and China had proposed an amendment that would have broadened the call on all countries—beyond banning nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons—to “prevent for all time the placement of weapons in outer space and the threat of use of force in outer space.”  The amendment was defeated, she said.

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Analysts say the film Oppenheimer would have benefitted from showing the impact on those the bombs were unleashed upon. Credit: The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 10 2024 (IPS)

The award-winning Hollywood movie Oppenheimer portrays the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, who helped create the atomic bomb, which claimed the lives of an estimated 140,000 to 226,000 people and devastated the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

The tragedy was best described as a humanitarian disaster of Biblical proportions. But the film focuses on the creation of the bombs, not the devastation it caused.

In a Time magazine piece last February, Jeffrey Kluger recounts a meeting at the White House between US President Harry S. Truman and Oppenheimer, aptly describing it as “the man who built the bombs and the man who dropped the bombs.”

Suffering from an unforgivable guilt, Oppenheimer reportedly told Truman, “Mr. President, I feel I have blood on my hands.”

But history recalls just what happened next differently, says Time.

Truman apparently said, “Never mind, it’ll come out in the wash.”

Or another story, where an unrepentant Truman hands a handkerchief to Oppenheimer and says, “Well here, would you like to wipe your hand?”

In the film, Truman merely brandishes the handkerchief.

A former Hiroshima mayor, Takashi Hiraoka, who spoke at a preview event for the film, was more critical of what was omitted from the movie.

He was quoted as saying: “From Hiroshima’s standpoint, the horror of nuclear weapons was not sufficiently depicted. The film was made in a way to validate the conclusion that the atomic bomb was used to save the lives of Americans.”

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) said the release of the Oppenheimer film, and the wave of (media) attention surrounding it, creates an opportunity to spark public attention on the risks of nuclear weapons and invite new audiences to get involved in the movement to abolish nuclear weapons.

“We can educate about the risks, and share a much-needed message of hope and resistance: Oppenheimer is about how nuclear weapons began, the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is how we end them.”

Speaking of the historical perspective, Dr Alon Ben-Meir, a retired professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU), told IPS that the Manhattan Project, which was spearheaded by Oppenheimer to develop a nuclear weapon, started while the Second World War was raging and Germany had been on the march, conquering one country after another in Europe.

However, by the time the nuclear weapon was developed, Germany had surrendered, but Japan continued to fight. Based on documented historical accounts, Japanese forces were fighting in every trench, in every front, to the last soldier, and the word’surrender’ was not in their vocabulary, he said.

General Marshall, who was Chief of Staff of the US Army, provided counsel to President Truman at the time that if the war were to continue for another one to two years, hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and perhaps more than a million Japanese would be killed.

When Truman asked what he would suggest, General Marshall and others indicated that bombing one or even two sites in Japan with a nuclear weapon could bring the war to a swift conclusion and save the lives of millions from both sides.

Truman was finally persuaded that this may be the only solution, specifically given that the Japanese were determined to fight until the bitter end, said Ben-Meir, who taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies for over 20 years.

“Once the bombs were dropped and Oppenheimer realized the extent of the damage and death that occurred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he felt personally responsible for the catastrophic impact of the bomb, stating to President Truman that he felt that he had blood on his hands because of what happened.”

Truman then told Oppenheimer that although he was behind the development of the nuclear weapon, the decision to use it was his own, and Oppenheimer bore no responsibility whatsoever.

President Truman allegedly handed Oppenheimer his handkerchief to presumably wipe his hands off the bloodstains. Nevertheless, Oppenheimer left the president’s office completely distraught, said Ben-Meir.

“The Japanese do not believe that Truman was concerned about the potential loss of Japanese lives had the war continued, but was mainly concerned about American lives. This sadly remains a point of contention but was mostly overcome due to the strong alliance that was subsequently developed between the US and Japan.”

Of course, what compounded Oppenheimer’s profound despair over what happened was that he was subsequently accused of being a member of the Communist Party and had his security clearance revoked, ending his work with the US government (he was posthumously exonerated), declared Ben-Meir.

Broadly, though, according to National Public Radio (NPR), many Japanese viewers expressed discomfort with Oppenheimer’s storytelling and felt the portrayal was incomplete.

“The film was only about the side that dropped the A-bomb,” Tsuyuko Iwanai, a Nagasaki resident, told NPR. “I wish they had included the side it was dropped on.”

Upon witnessing the first successful nuclear test, Oppenheimer reportedly quoted from the Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita: “Now I am Death: the destroyer of the worlds,” according to UNFOLD ZERO, a platform for UN focused initiatives and actions for the achievement of a nuclear weapons-free world.

“Indeed, Oppenheimer was so impacted by the potential of the nuclear bomb to destroy the world that, following the end of the Second World War, he became deeply involved in international nuclear weapons control, peace and the promotion of world governance”.

“The movie should remind us of how important and relevant these ideas are today—as wars are raging, tensions between nuclear armed States are increasing and the threat of nuclear war is as high as it has ever been,” said UNFOLD ZERO.

“The thinking, passion and commitment of Oppenheimer regarding these issues is barely touched upon in the movie, despite it being so important today for re-awakening our collective understanding of the nature of nuclear deterrence, the risks of nationalism and the importance to strengthen the rule of law, prevent nuclear war and achieve peace through global governance.”

Addressing the UN Security Council on March 18, Secretary-General António Guterres referred to the movie, which won seven Oscars at the Hollywood Academy Awards ceremony on March 10, including the four major awards for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor.

“The Doomsday Clock is ticking loudly enough for all to hear. From academics and civil society groups, calling for an end to the nuclear madness,” he said.

“To Pope Francis, who calls the possession of nuclear arms ‘immoral’. To young people across the globe worried about their future, demanding change. To the Hibakusha, the brave survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—among our greatest living examples of speaking truth to power—delivering their timeless message of peace.”

Humanity cannot survive a sequel to Oppenheimer, Guterres warned.

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Action Festival convened at Tokyo's National Stadium on March 24, drawing approximately 66,000 attendees. Credit: Yukie Asagiri, INPS Japan

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
TOKYO, Japan, Mar 27 2024 (IPS)

In a significant precursor to the United Nations Summit of the Future slated for September, the “Future Action Festival” convened at Tokyo’s National Stadium on March 24, drawing a crowd of approximately 66,000 attendees and reaching over half a million viewers via live streaming. The event, a collaborative effort by youth and citizen groups, aimed to foster a deeper understanding and proactive stance among young people on nuclear disarmament and climate change solutions.

The festival featured interactive quizzes displayed on large screens, offering attendees a collective learning experience about the complex global crises currently challenging the international community. Additionally, a panel discussion with Kaoru Nemoto, director of the United Nations Information Center, and other youth representatives delved into nuclear weapons and climate change, facilitating a deeper exploration of these pressing issues. Adding to the event’s poignancy, performances included one by the “A-bombed Piano,” a relic from Hiroshima that endured the atomic bombing, and others that highlighted the value of peace through music and dances, reinforcing the call for action and solidarity as agents of change.

A panel discussion with Kaoru Nemoto, director of the United Nations Information Center, and other youth representatives including Yuki Tokuda, co-founder of GeNuine(Extreme right) delved into nuclear weapons and climate change. Credit: Yukie Asagiri, INPS Japan

Central to the festival’s impact were the insights shared by a participant of the panel discussion like Yuki Tokuda, co-founder of GeNuine, who shared her insights from a “youth awareness survey” conducted before the event. “The survey revealed that over 80% of young respondents felt their voices were not being heard,” she explained. “This suggests a systemic issue, not merely a matter of personal perception, which is discouraging the younger generation from engaging with vital issues.”

Despite this, the massive turnout at the festival offered a glimmer of hope. “The presence of 66,000 like-minded individuals here today signals that change is possible. Together, we can reshape the system and forge a future that aligns with our aspirations,” Tokuda remarked, emphasizing the power of collective action and the importance of carrying forward the momentum generated by the festival.

Equally compelling was the narrative shared by Yuki Tominaga, who captivated the audience with her dance performance at the event. “I have always been deeply inspired by my late grandmother’s life as a storyteller sharing her experiences of the atomic bombing in Hiroshima.” Tominaga shared. “My grandmother would begin her account with her own experiences of the bombing but then expand her narrative to include her visits to places like India and Pakistan, countries with nuclear arsenals, and regions afflicted by poverty and conflict where landmines remain a deadly legacy. She emphasized that the tragedy of Hiroshima is an ongoing story, urging us to spread the message of peace to future generations.”

Yuki Tominaga, a third generation Hibakusha from Hiroshima, continues her grandmothers legacy while using her passin for dance as a medium to communicate about peace and Hiroshima bombing. Credit: Yukie Asagiri, INPS Japan

Reflecting on her grandmother’s profound impact, Tominaga continued, “I once doubted my ability to continue her legacy; her words seemed irreplaceable. But she encouraged me, saying, ‘Do what you’re able to spread peace.’ That inspired me to use my passion for dance as a medium to communicate about peace and the Hiroshima bombing. I aim to serve as a conduit between the survivors of the atomic bomb and today’s youth, making peace discussions engaging and accessible through dance.”

The “Youth Attitude Survey,” which garnered responses from 119,925 individuals across Japan, revealed a striking consensus: over 90% of young people expressed a desire to contribute to a better society. Yet, they also acknowledged feeling marginalized from the decision-making processes. The survey illuminated young people’s readiness to transform their awareness into action, despite prevailing sentiments of exclusion.

This enthusiasm and potential for change have not gone unnoticed by the international community. High-profile supporters, including Felipe Paullier, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Youth Affairs, Orlando Bloom, UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador, and Melissa Parke, Executive Director of ICAN, have all voiced their encouragement, recognizing young people’s crucial role in driving global advancements in sustainability and peace.

The upcoming UN Summit of the Future offers a pivotal platform for youth engagement, with the “Joint Statement” released by the festival’s Organizing Committee—encompassing key areas like climate crisis resolution, nuclear disarmament, youth participation in decision-making, and UN reform—serving as a testament to the collective will to influence global policies. Tshilidzi Marwala, the Rector of the United Nations University and UN Under-Secretary-General acknowledged the vital importance of young voices in shaping the summit’s agenda, urging them to be “a beacon of hope and a driving force for change.”

As the world gears up for the UN Summit of the Future, the Future Action Festival stands as a powerful reminder of the impact of youth-led initiatives and collective action in addressing the world’s most pressing challenges. Through education, advocacy, and direct engagement, the festival not only spotlighted the urgent need for action on nuclear disarmament and the climate crisis but also showcased the potential of an informed, engaged, and motivated youth to effect meaningful global change.

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau