{"id":324437,"date":"2021-09-24T13:44:55","date_gmt":"2021-09-24T13:44:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/radiofree.asia\/?guid=2a4ef77b03b1f845671ce35ca4c4d674"},"modified":"2021-09-24T13:44:55","modified_gmt":"2021-09-24T13:44:55","slug":"support-for-nuclear-ban-treaty-is-rising-nuclear-nations-are-on-the-defensive","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2021\/09\/24\/support-for-nuclear-ban-treaty-is-rising-nuclear-nations-are-on-the-defensive\/","title":{"rendered":"Support for Nuclear Ban Treaty Is Rising. Nuclear Nations Are on the Defensive."},"content":{"rendered":"\"Anti-nuclear<\/a>

Nuclear tensions and nuclear spending<\/a> are on the rise, but the elevated danger of nuclear weapons is overshadowed as other urgent global threats from the COVID pandemic, climate and environmental emergencies, and other urgent crises dominate news headlines. The United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons<\/a> (TPNW), which entered into force in January, receives scant media attention, even as the United Nations prepares to mark September 26 as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Unlike other nuclear treaties and agreements, the TPNW, or nuclear ban treaty as it is also known, prohibits all activity including development, testing, production, acquisition, possession, stockpiling, and the use or threat to use nuclear weapons. The treaty also has provisions to assist victims of nuclear weapons use or testing, and for environmental remediation.<\/p>\n

As the number of countries adopting and ratifying the TPNW grows, the division between treaty supporters and opponents remains stark. Proponents say the treaty represents a new norm in which nuclear weapons are not only immoral, but also illegal. Opponents see the treaty as too drastic, ineffective and as undermining nuclear deterrence policies.<\/p>\n

TPNW advocates argue that leaving questions of nuclear security and disarmament to the exclusive purview of diplomats and so-called experts underplays the humanitarian and environmental risks and consequences of nuclear weapons. As the nuclear ban treaty entered into force on January 22, Peter Maurer, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said<\/a>,<\/u> \u201cThis Treaty \u2026 sends a clear signal that nuclear weapons are unacceptable from a moral, humanitarian, and now legal point of view. It sets in motion even higher legal barriers and an even greater stigmatization of nuclear warheads than already exists.\u201d<\/p>\n

In October 2020, after Honduras became the 50th nation to ratify the TPNW, triggering the process for the treaty to enter into force, Derek Johnson, CEO of Global Zero, an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, said<\/a>, \u201cThe Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has helped catalyze global attention to the dangers of nuclear weapons and the actions by nuclear-armed states to preserve the status quo. Its entry into force reflects the United States\u2019 retreat from leadership on disarmament and global security, and marks a new chapter in the effort to eradicate these dangerous weapons before they can be used again.\u201d<\/p>\n

Of the 122 countries which voted in 2017 to adopt the ban treaty, 56 are now state parties<\/a>, having ratified the treaty. These include three of the world\u2019s most populous nations: Mexico, Nigeria and Bangladesh. Chile became the most recent country to ratify the treaty<\/a> on September 23. The TPNW has been ratified around the world from tiny island nations Tuvalu, Nauru and Malta to enormous countries like Kazakhstan, South Africa and Venezuela. Jamaica, Botswana, Bolivia, Palestine and the Philippines are also state parties, and both Indonesia<\/a> and Brazil<\/a> are expected to ratify in the coming months.<\/p>\n

In contrast, the governments of all nine nuclear-armed states<\/a> oppose the treaty, as do five nations hosting U.S. nuclear weapons<\/a> (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey) and \u201cnuclear-endorsing\u201d nations that include Australia, Japan, South Korea and all of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members.<\/p>\n

In a 2018 declaration<\/a>, NATO said the TPNW is \u201cat odds with the existing non-proliferation and disarmament architecture, risks undermining the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons), is inconsistent with [NATO\u2019s] nuclear deterrence policy and will not enhance any country\u2019s security.\u201d<\/p>\n

Alicia Sanders-Zakre, policy and research coordinator with the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), disputes NATO\u2019s assertion<\/a>, arguing that the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons is fully compatible and complementary to existing nonproliferation and disarmament commitments.<\/p>\n

In an email to Truthout<\/em>, Sanders-Zakre pointed out that public opinion polls in at least six NATO member states reflect high levels of support<\/a> for joining the treaty. As a tool designed to eliminate nuclear weapons, she added, the treaty increases the stigma against those weapons of mass destruction (WMD).<\/p>\n

\u201cAs this stigma grows internationally and domestically \u2026 NATO political leaders will no longer be able to support the continued existence of [WMD] \u2026 it is only a matter of time before political leaders will represent the will of their people to join the TPNW.\u201d<\/p>\n

NATO did not respond to multiple requests for comment.<\/p>\n

Deterrence Against Whom? <\/h2>\n

Illustrating the complexity of differing positions on the treaty are the 43 nations under the UN Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Asia and the Pacific<\/a> (UNRCPD). More than one-third of the 43 countries have ratified the TPNW, but the bloc also includes four nuclear-armed states: China, North Korea, India and Pakistan.<\/p>\n

Yuriy Kryvonos, director of UNRCPD, said nuclear-armed states often claim their arsenals serve as a deterrence tool. \u201cAgainst whom [does] this deterrence tool exist? Against other nuclear-armed states.\u201d The argument, he said, is \u201cnonsense\u201d because a nuclear war cannot be won; claiming protection from nuclear weapons is an illusion. Arguments that the TPNW undermines the NPT, Kryvonos insisted, do not hold water.<\/p>\n