Hira Bahadur Thapa

The politics of nuclear weapons is related to the principle of deterrence although the value of this concept is debatable. The adherents of the principle of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) believe in its significance. They argue that possession of nuclear weapons reduces the risk of war as the attacker runs the risk of nuclear retaliation. There is no winner in a war fought between two nuclear powers.
Some believe that the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945 respectively after the US forced Japan to surrender during World War II. Consequently, Japan’s surrender ended the armed conflict which cost millions of lives. There is no denying that the above horrendous event led to the founding of the United Nations, the primary purpose of which is to save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war as enshrined in the international organisation’s Charter Principles.

Potential threat
Fortunately, nuclear weapons have not been used since then. However, nuclear-armed rivals have sometimes come dangerously close to using them when locked in armed conflict. The Cuban missile crisis of 1962 involving the US and Russia, two major nuclear powers and the 1999 Kargil War between India and Pakistan should remind us that the existence of nuclear weapons continues to threaten global peace and security. Until these weapons are eliminated, we cannot get rid of potential threat to human lives.
The number of nuclear-armed countries has now reached nine. Deterrence is the main argument for having a nuclear arsenal at all. The absence of World War III, which was widely feared during the heyday of Cold War when the world’s two largest possessors of nuclear weapons (the US and Russia) had the most adversial relationship. They should not lure countries to espouse the MAD principle. Even today US-Russia bilateral relations are fraught with growing suspicion though they have agreed to extend the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) for five years, much to the relief of peace-loving people.
Despite the extension of the treaty that commits both the US and Russia to possess not more than 1,550 strategic weapons each, nuclear weapons reduction negotiations are no more the order of the day. A glaring example of lack of willingness to pursue reduction, let alone elimination of nuclear weapons, among the nuclear-armed countries, is demonstrated in their refusal to accede to the 2017 Treaty on the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons. This treaty has come into effect from January last.
Regarding the New START treaty, more needs to be done. It is not enough that the extension has been agreed because during the time the treaty was concluded about a decade earlier, a lot has changed vis-à-vis the modernisation of existing nuclear weapons and development of new ones both by the United States and Russia. Both these nuclear powers need to sit for serious negotiations to curtail their arsenals not covered hitherto by the existing arms control agreement.
Currently, the nuclear omens are bad as prospects for follow-on agreement between the US and Russia in the wake of New START’s extension are dismal. With no further progress in the reduction of nuclear weapons stored in the American and Russian nuclear arsenals, expecting meaningful nuclear negotiations with North Korea, a recalcitrant nuclear power, sounds hollow.
The Iran nuclear deal is not showing any chances of being renegotiated despite Biden administration’s pledge to do so because bilateral issues between the US and Iran remain deadlocked. Iran looks suspicious of American intention until sanctions remain in place and the US is not seen eager to concede to Iran unless the latter reverses its violations of 2015 nuclear deal. At the moment there is crisis of confidence. Against the background of erosion of trust between the US and Russia occupying 90 per cent of the world’s nuclear warheads, it will be a challenging task to restrain the countries like China, India and Pakistan from expanding and modernising their nuclear forces.
Except for the limited extension of the US-Russia New START treaty, there is no progress in global nuclear disarmament, which is the ultimate objective of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of the Nuclear Weapons (NPT). This treaty is the cornerstone of nuclear order as it prohibits the acquisition, production and development of nuclear weapons. Some nations have criticised it arguing that NPT promotes nuclear apartheid because it restricts those with no nuclear weapons but approves the possession of the same by the nuclear-armed nations. India and Pakistan never signed the treaty and went nuclear in 1998 in defiance of world opinion.

Confrontation
Nonetheless, the NPT’s role in stemming nuclear proliferation cannot be underestimated. Had there been no treaty like this, the only existing legal foundation for promoting nuclear non-proliferation, the nuclear weapons states’ number would have been much higher than now. In a competitive world characterised by great power confrontation, the need for nuclear diplomacy is more than ever, otherwise, unraveling Iran nuclear agreement may very much likely provoke Saudi Arabia, whose assertive crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman has made no secrets about his country’s desire to go nuclear if need be.
In East Asia, the situation is no less disturbing. Should the US allies, including Japan and South Korea, feel that America is not providing the shield of nuclear umbrella, they might be difficult to be dissuaded from acquiring nuclear capability. Unsurprisingly, Japan’s armament would provoke China to further engage in expansion of its nuclear arsenal. At a time when the new US president claims that America is back to assume global leadership, it is only appropriate that it leads in the nuclear field as well. It should prioritise nuclear arms control measures pursuing nuclear diplomacy with all sincerity.

(Thapa was Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister from 2008-09. thapahira17@gmail.com)