New York City: Although the world is largely engulfed by the coronavirus pandemic, climate change and regional conflicts, it would be wrong to assume that the threat of nuclear war had vanished. In fact, the potential for nuclear annihilation is alarmingly high.
Earlier in the year, the pandemic claimed another casualty – the 10th Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which was due to take place on January 4.
The adjournment of the meeting until August was largely unrestricted at the time because, it appears, the perceived threat posed by nuclear weapons had lost its urgency in recent decades.
However, the development came as tensions escalated between the US and China over Ukraine as well as Taiwan between Western countries and Russia.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, which forms the foundation of the non-proliferation regime, was signed in 1968 and came into force in 1970. It is the single most important means that 191 state-parties have to stop further spread and lead the world towards complete disarmament.
The deal that underpins the NPT is very simple: nuclear states under the treaty commit to reducing with the ultimate goal of eliminating their nuclear arsenal, and non-nuclear states commit to their commitments enshrined in the treaty to not acquire nuclear weapons. do follow.
Not everyone has followed this. India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are not signatories, while Iran, although an NPT signatory, is nonetheless enriching uranium and locked in a fight with the West over its nuclear program.
This is the second time that the 10th RevCon has been rescheduled due to the pandemic. The 2020 summit, which coincided with the 50th anniversary of the NPT, was also delayed, dashing hopes of getting the non-proliferation regime back on track and reviving the arms control and disarmament process.
Iran, though an NPT signatory, is still enriching uranium and is locked in a fight with the West over its nuclear program. (AFP/FILE PHOTO)
The three pillars of the NPT – non-proliferation, disarmament and the peaceful use of nuclear technologies – have seen varying degrees of success.
While non-nuclear states put an end to the bargain and abide by the treaty, with few exceptions, nuclear states have been less loyal. They have not fulfilled their obligations set forth by Article 6 of the NPT, to rid the world of nuclear weapons. This has created tension and put pressure on the entire non-proliferation system.
Seeking an alternative, non-nuclear states pushed for a process at the United Nations General Assembly, which culminated in the adoption of a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons on July 7, 2017, which entered into force on January 22, 2021.
However, the postponement of the conference could not have come at a worse time, as there is growing concern over the deteriorating arms control architecture.
Experts agree that the threat of nuclear war is greater than ever. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has set its doomsday clock from 100 seconds to midnight—the clock closest to symbolic doom in its more than 70 years of existence.
QuickFact
* With 191 signatories, the NPT is the world’s most widely ratified nuclear arms control agreement.
* The NPT review conference was scheduled to begin on January 4 at the United Nations Headquarters.
* Review conference, scheduled to take place every 5 years, to take stock of compliance and commit to further steps.
* The postponed 10th Review Conference was initially scheduled to begin in April 2020.
A speech by former US Senator Sam Nunn, an authority on nuclear weapons, described the threat in clear terms on the 50th anniversary of the NPT in 2020.
“We are moving into an era of heightened nuclear risk,” he said, adding that “the stalled progress on North Korea, the uncertain future of the Iran deal and their nuclear program, as a result of their continued failure to introduce comprehensive test-bans,” is in force. , and understandable frustration by non-nuclear states about the slow pace of nuclear disarmament.”
Today, despite the outbreak of the pandemic, nuclear states continue to modernize and upgrade their arsenals. According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the world’s nine nuclear states spent $72.6 billion on modernizing their arsenals in 2020 – $1.4 billion on 2019 spending. In doing so, many of these states have violated the NPT.
The Stockholm International Peace Institute has estimated that the world’s nuclear states collectively possessed approximately 13,080 nuclear warheads as of January 2021. This figure represents a small decrease in the 2020 estimate of 13,400.
However, it has increased from 3,720 in 2020 to 3,825 in 2021 due to an increase in the number of nuclear weapons deployed with operational forces. Of these, about 2,000 were placed “in a state of high operational alert,” the institute said. Its 2021 report.
All this has happened in the absence of a credible arms control process, because of escalating tensions between the US and Russia over Ukraine, and between the US and China over Taiwan, Hong Kong and the Indo-Pacific.
Although they were disappointed with the postponement of the conference, the non-nuclear states rejoiced on 3 January when the US, Russia, China, France and the UK, a group of powers known as the P5, issued a joint statement. Tax claimed that they “see as our key responsibilities to avoid war between nuclear-weapon states and reduce strategic risks.”
“We affirm that a nuclear war cannot and should never be fought. Since nuclear use will have far-reaching consequences, we also affirm that nuclear weapons – as long as they exist – are for defensive purposes. We will stop the invasion and stop the war. We firmly believe that further proliferation of such weapons must be stopped.”
More than a million people gathered at Kim Il Sung Square in Pyongyang on 11 January 2003, with political leaders applauding North Korea’s dramatic decision to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). (AFP/FILE PHOTO)
They also committed to “maintain and further strengthen our national measures to prevent the unauthorized or unintended use of nuclear weapons”.
Perhaps most importantly, they “reaffirmed their commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations, including our Article VI obligations, to end the nuclear arms race as quickly as possible and to take effective measures related to nuclear disarmament.” To pursue negotiations on, and on a treaty on, general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was “encouraged” by commitments by nuclear states to “further measures to prevent nuclear war”, with the additional caveat that “the only way to eliminate all nuclear risks is to eliminate all nuclear weapons”. Have to do. Weapons, weapons.”
Non-proliferation groups and experts also praised the joint statement, but wanted to see the nuclear powers take real, concrete action.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at the 2010 United Nations High-Level Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons at her New York headquarters. (AFP/FILE PHOTO)
From the point of view of the Arab countries, an important element was missing from the Joint Statement, which failed to mention the 1995 NPT resolution tabled by the US, UK and Russia, which agreed in support of the Middle East region doctrine. All weapons of mass destruction.
It was hoped that the 10th Revcon would provide an opportunity to acknowledge the progress made in this regard. The first conference on establishing a Middle East region free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction took place in 2019 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, chaired by Jordan, and then by Kuwait in 2021.
The only state in the Middle East thought to have a nuclear weapon, neither did the US attend any session, despite being one of the main sponsors of the 1995 resolution.
So supporters of arms control have little choice but to wait until August to see if the P5 will back up its words with action and deliver a “meaningful outcome” that will uphold the integrity of the NPT.
,