Astana’s futuristic skyline and Japan’s urban landscape converge with symbols of clean energy, connectivity and peace, reflecting a partnership shaped by smart-city cooperation, energy security, and shared memories of nuclear suffering.　Credit: INPS Japan

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
TOKYO, Japan, May 25 2026 (IPS)

The relationship between Japan and Kazakhstan is often described in terms of diplomacy, investment and regional cooperation. But at a time of growing geopolitical uncertainty, it deserves to be understood in broader terms: as a partnership linking cities, resources, technology and peace.

Kisho Kurokawa

For Japan, however, Astana is not simply a distant capital. Its master plan was shaped in part by the late Kisho Kurokawa, one of Japan’s leading architects, who sought to combine Kazakhstan’s nomadic heritage, harsh natural environment and state-building ambitions with forward-looking urban design. That historical connection is now taking on new meaning as Japan and Kazakhstan expand cooperation in smart cities, green technologies, energy security and nuclear disarmament.

On May 22, Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev met Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike in Astana to discuss cooperation in smart city development, digital technologies, finance, education, emergency response and sustainable urban management. Tokyo, one of the world’s most densely populated metropolitan areas, has developed advanced systems in public safety, disaster preparedness, transportation and administrative services. For rapidly growing Astana, Tokyo’s experience provides a valuable reference point.

Akorda

Yet the deepening Japan-Kazakhstan relationship cannot be explained by urban cooperation alone. Behind it lies a more urgent geopolitical reality: instability in the Middle East and the resulting anxiety over energy security.

Japan has long depended heavily on the Middle East for crude oil. Tensions around Iran and the Strait of Hormuz pose risks that directly affect Japan’s economy and daily life. For Tokyo, diversifying energy sources, critical mineral supplies and transport routes is no longer simply a matter of trade policy. It has become a central element of economic security.

Middle Corridor. Photo credit: TITR

For Japan, rare earths, lithium and other critical minerals are essential to batteries, electronics, renewable energy systems and next-generation industries. Diversifying both sources of supply and transport routes is therefore an energy policy, an industrial policy and a security policy at once. Astana is increasingly becoming an important platform for Japan’s engagement with Central Asia.

Semipalatinsk Former Nuclear Weapon Test site. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

Urban development, environmental technologies, resource cooperation and logistics infrastructure are no longer separate policy fields. They are becoming part of a wider strategic framework in which Japan and Kazakhstan can complement each other: one with advanced technology and urban management experience, the other with resources, geography and a young capital still in the process of defining its future.

But there is a deeper layer to this relationship that should not be overlooked: the memory of nuclear suffering.

Japan is the only country to have suffered atomic bombings in war, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Kazakhstan endured severe radiation damage from repeated Soviet nuclear tests at the Semipalatinsk test site, where more than 450 nuclear tests were conducted between 1949 and 1989, leaving long-term consequences for local communities and public health.

In 1991, Kazakhstan closed the Semipalatinsk test site. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it gave up one of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals remaining on its territory and chose the path of a non-nuclear-weapon state. That decision has become a defining feature of Kazakhstan’s foreign policy.

Japan and Kazakhstan both know, not as an abstract matter of security theory but through historical experience, what nuclear weapons can inflict on human beings, communities, the environment and future generations. This shared memory gives the bilateral relationship a distinct ethical foundation.

That memory has also shaped sustained cooperation among governments, civil society and international organizations. INPS Japan has reported on nuclear disarmament-related conferences and events involving Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Center for International Security and Policy, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and Soka Gakkai International.

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

One notable example was the anti-nuclear exhibition “Everything You Treasure — For a World Free From Nuclear Weapons,” jointly organized in Astana by SGI, ICAN and Kazakhstan’s Center for International Security and Policy. Held in September 2022 at Keruen Mall in central Astana, the exhibition used photographs, illustrations and graphics to educate young people about the dangers of nuclear weapons, from the atomic bombing of Hiroshima to the continuing humanitarian consequences of nuclear arms.

A documentary produced by CISP, a Kazakh NGO, with support from SGI.

Such initiatives are important because nuclear disarmament cannot be left to diplomats alone. If the memory of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Semipalatinsk is to shape policy, it must also be passed to younger generations. Exhibitions, survivor testimony, documentaries and civil society campaigns help ensure that nuclear weapons are discussed not only as instruments of deterrence, but also as weapons with catastrophic human, environmental and intergenerational consequences.

In 2023, a regional conference in Astana addressed the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, testimony from nuclear test victims, and victim assistance and environmental remediation under the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Unlike debates that frame nuclear weapons mainly in terms of deterrence or national prestige, such forums place affected people, their families, communities and environment at the center.

A documentary on Kazakhstan’s nuclear test victims, I Want to Live On: The Untold Stories of the Polygon, produced by Kazakhstan’s CISP with support from SGI, has also helped bring the testimonies of second- and third-generation victims in the Semey region to international audiences. Together with workshops involving the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs and discussions on cooperation among nuclear-weapon-free zones, these efforts keep the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons at the center of global disarmament debates.

Akorda.kz

That message should be taken seriously. Japan and Kazakhstan do not occupy identical security positions. Japan continues to rely on the United States’ nuclear deterrence as part of its security policy, while Kazakhstan, having renounced nuclear weapons, is a member of the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. Yet both countries share common ground in seeking to transform the memory of nuclear harm into action for international peace.

Japan and Kazakhstan Draw Closer as Iran Crisis Reshapes Energy and Security Priorities. Credit: INPS Japan

At a time when crises in the Middle East are shaking the global energy order and nuclear risks are again moving to the forefront of international politics, the Japan-Kazakhstan relationship is no longer merely a story of friendship. It reflects Japan’s own choices in an age of uncertainty: whether to approach Central Asia only as a source of resources, or as a region with which it can build a broader partnership linking cities, technology, energy security and peace.

Astana, the futuristic capital shaped in part by a Japanese architect, has become more than a symbol of Kazakhstan’s ambitions. It is also a reminder that the future of international cooperation will depend not only on markets and infrastructure, but on memory, responsibility and the courage to imagine security beyond fear.

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Attendees at the NPT Review Conference side event titled 'Preventing Nuclear Use and Escalation: Lessons from Nuclear Close Calls. ' Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, May 8 2026 (IPS)

The consequences of nuclear warfare would transcend borders and the impact would be felt across generations. Yet knowing this, member states, including nuclear-armed states, are increasingly flouting the nuclear taboo, while also relying heavily on deterrence to prevent fallout.

Throughout the Cold War period, there were stories of nuclear “close calls”—moments where the world could have been plunged into nuclear warfare were it not for human intervention or sheer luck. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and the Petrov incident of 1983 may be more well-known examples from history, but others may also reveal what lessons should be taken from these ‘close calls.’

At the sidelines of the 2026 NPT Review Conference, academics, government and civil society convened to discuss just that. On May 1, at an event convened by Soka Gakkai International (SGI) and the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS), people came together to deliberate over past and present efforts to prevent nuclear escalation. The panelists argued that these stories demonstrate how nuclear deterrence may not be an effective security strategy towards disarmament or even nonproliferation.

Chie Sunada, Director of Disarmament and Human Rights, SGI Peace Center, speaks in a panel on nuclear escalation risks. Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS

“The history of close calls—Cuba, Petrov, Black Brant—and many other less well-known events does not tell us that deterrence works. It tells us that deterrence has, on a number of documented occasions, almost failed,” said George-Wilhelm Gallhofer, Director for Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Austria’s Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs. “Luck is not a security strategy. And yet, the global security order, 60 years on, still rests on it.”

Gallhoffer went on to suggest that the nuclear taboo needs to be reinforced once more by promoting honest dialogue between nuclear powers and non-nuclear states, where the non-nuclear states remind all parties of the stakes at play. Doctrines like the NPT and the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) should be regarded as security treaties, not only moral or ethical frameworks.

Elayne Whyte, a professor at Johns Hopkins and former UN Ambassador of Costa Rica, also echoed this sentiment, adding that the issue of nuclear danger is just as rooted at the societal level as it is through legal frameworks. The shared understanding of nuclear danger is not only produced through weapons systems or treaties but also through decision-makers and the values of society.

“It is [the] 21st century; we also have to acknowledge that the erosion of the nuclear taboo cannot be separated from the wider nationalist trends that rank human lives unequally and make it easier to imagine that mass destruction inflicted on others is […] tolerated,” said Whyte.

Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence threaten to further complicate nuclear escalation, wherein nuclear states, in an effort to stay ahead of the curve, adopt these technologies for their perceived potential to reduce the human margin of error. The automation of decision-making in nuclear weapons use is not entirely new, as was seen in 1979 and 1980, when the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) received several false alarms through errors in their missile warning system.

Yanliang Pan, a research associate at CNS, remarked that these cases proved that automated systems would still be susceptible to automation bias and compressed decision-making time, thus increasing the likelihood of accidents. Although humans should still have ‘meaningful’ control over decisions of nuclear use, Pan noted that these close calls occurred while humans were in control. “We should be talking about the effect of automation on the reliability of human control, rather than simply human control as an antidote to automation,” said Pan.

At present, academic research can uncover recurring patterns in how nuclear close calls were handled and what that can tell decision-makers about risk reduction in this space. According to Sarah Bidgood, a postdoctoral fellow at the UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, recent studies have looked into how there might not be a singular framework for crisis management that could apply across nuclear close calls. When it comes to crisis management and risk reduction, the dynamics of previous nuclear close calls do not exist in a monolith, but there are variations in the outcomes instead. The lessons that leaders take from such situations may not lead to a shift away from nuclear weapons. Instead, these events may reinforce what leaders already think about the risks and benefits of nuclear weapons. If a leader regards nuclear weapons for a perceived strategic value, then after a close call, they may be just as likely to embrace new capabilities that would allow them to threaten the use of weapons across multiple levels of conflict. Bidgood raised the question of what this scenario would mean for the future of risk reduction in the present geopolitical environment.

“We need to be quite skeptical of this conventional wisdom that we often hear in our community… which is that to get arms control and risk reduction back on track, maybe we need another event like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Because if my theory is right, what this tells us is that the next crisis could just as easily lead us farther down a very, very different path. And that’s something that I don’t think we as scholars or practitioners have really accounted for,” said Bidgood.

Such near-misses may often be thanks to individual human judgement calls rather than the positions of nuclear states. Chie Sunada, Director of Disarmament and Human Rights at the SGI Peace Center, recalled the example of an incident during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, where a near-miss also brewed in the Pacific, which would have targeted an uninvolved third party. During this time, U.S. military bases hosted nuclear missiles in Japan that were powerful enough to level cities. The base in Okinawa received what seemed like authenticated launch orders. However, the most senior field officer on site, Captain William Bassett, found discrepancies with the launch orders and the missiles’ readiness level, including that the missiles at this base were primarily targeted at China. So he ordered subordinates to stand down.

Sunada warned that the sense of urgency that informed decisions on nuclear de-escalation was missing from the current discourse and that the reality of nuclear fallout and the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be “fading into abstract history.” She urged that nuclear disarmament education would be a “vital mechanism” for maintaining “strategic restraint” by recognizing that a key element for its success is empathy for the pain of others, which is itself a form of deterrence.

“We cannot continue to outsource our survival to luck,” said Sunada. “We urge all state parties to recognize that risk reduction requires more than just adjusting military doctrines. It requires a fundamental shift in how we understand these weapons, driven by education. By cutting the chain of hatred and nurturing the heart that cherishes and is respectful to others, we achieve the ultimate disarmament and pure, proper peace education.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

That framework has since taken on even greater urgency.

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

Kazakhstan stands at the center of this calculation.

Middle Corridor. Credit: TITR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credit: akorda.kz

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

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

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

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

That is why this relationship deserves attention.

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

Credit: UN photo

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japan–Kazakhstan Joint Statement as the Anchor

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

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

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

Middle Corridor. Photo credit: TITR

Tokayev Warns of Nuclear Risks in Tokyo

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

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

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

Semipalatinsk Former Nuclear Weapon Test site/ Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

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

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

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

Three Priority Areas: Resilience, Connectivity, Human Development

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

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

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

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

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

Credit: Prime Minister’s Office of Japan

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

INPS Japan

Related articles:

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

Kazakhstan Committed to a Nuclear-Weapons-Free World

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• India carried out 1 test in 1974.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INPS Japan

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
TOKYO, Oct 10 2025 (IPS)

Toda Peace Memorial Hall. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

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

Reclaiming Women’s Voices

Semipalatinsk Former Nuclear Weapon Test site. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

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

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

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

Aigerim Seitenova Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

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

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

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

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

Patriarchy and Nuclear Power

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

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

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

From the Steppes to Global Advocacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turning Pain into Power

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

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

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

Credit: SGI

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

INPS Japan

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
TOKYO, Sep 1 2025 (IPS)

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

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

Youth Survey on Nuclear Awareness

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

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

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

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

Remembering Kazakhstan’s Nuclear Legacy

Semipalatinsk Former Nuclear Weapon Test site. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

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

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

A Japanese Perspective

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

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

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

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

The Treaty and Its Challenges

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

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

Kazakhstan’s Call for Action

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Chrystal Tabobandung, Founder of RAISE Indigenous cultural awareness.

By Minoru Harada
TOKYO, Aug 28 2025 (IPS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

Zhanna Shayakhmetova

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

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

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

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

Stronger Than Death Monument, Semey

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

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

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

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

Karipbek Kuyukov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semipalatinsk Former Nuclear Weapon Test site. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

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

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

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

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

INPS Japan

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project 2025:

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

p. 431

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Malaysia is Chair of ASEAN for 2025.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So. our relationship with them will continue to exist.

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Warning Against Nuclear Deterrence

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

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

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

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

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

Listening to Testimony

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

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

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

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

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

The Intersection with Climate Justice

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

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

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

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

Art as a Catalyst for Change

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

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

The Declaration: Choosing Hope

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palace of Peace and Reconciliation. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

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

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

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

Semipalatinsk former Nuclear test site. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report, NUCLEAR ABOLITION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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