Hira Bahadur Thapa

As a good sign of progress towards nuclear disarmament, an international agreement known as Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has come into effect from this month having obtained the 50th ratification from one of the signatory countries in October 2020. The road to this journey since 2017 has not been smooth as is natural with the abolition of deadliest weapons, whose first and last use in 1945 devastated the two beautiful Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The horrific memories of that fateful event are afresh among the Japanese citizens, who have survived the annihilation.

Significance
Signed by as many as 86 countries, the treaty is more significant than the 1968 Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons because it bans the development, testing, or use or threat of nuclear weapons. Though the 1968 Treaty was a milestone in the field of promoting nuclear nonproliferation regime by denying the non-nuclear armed countries the right to acquire, develop, and possess nuclear weapons, it has been accused of abetting nuclear apartheid. That treaty despite being a key piece of nuclear law has failed to curb the possession of nuclear weapons by the nuclear-armed sates.
The non-nuclear armed states were joined by the survivors of 1945 nuclear catastrophe, non-governmental organisations, and more importantly, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the winner of 2017 Nobel Peace prize, in spearheading the movement to persuade the UN members to negotiate the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

US opposition
Little wonder that the US, one of the largest possessors of nuclear arsenals, has from the beginning been hostile to this endeavor, which in its opinion curtails its nuclear capabilities, should it be a signatory. Notwithstanding its opposition as well as from the leadership from other nuclear powers, both internationally-acknowledged (China, France, Russia, UK and US) and the de facto ones (India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel), the new nuclear treaty is set to become effective with necessary ratification. All nine of them unsurprisingly boycotted the negotiations leading to this treaty. None of them has signed it too.
There is a wide chasm between the nuclear-armed and non-nuclear-armed states vis-à-vis the possession of nuclear weapons. Viewed from this angle, the position of new US administration is unlikely to be different from what President Trump has been embracing. Like his predecessors, President-elect Biden is a proponent of nuclear deterrence. He referred to it as “the bedrock of US national defense”. Further elaboration of his nuclear policy is found in statement of his campaign website in which he affirms the deterring value of nuclear weapons.
The principle of nuclear deterrence is however, criticised on the ground that history does not vindicate its value as espoused by the nuclear weapons states. Recent examples of the Sino-India military standoff since May last worsened in the scuffle causing deaths of soldiers from both sides do not substantiate the arguments of proponents of nuclear deterrence, which in other words is referred to as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Additionally, China and Russia after being nuclear powers have clashed with each other in the 1960s and so are nuclear-armed India and Pakistan were engaged in direct conflict over disputed territory in the 1990s.
The experts as well as the historians of nuclear weapons have argued that during the early Cold War, nuclear weapons contributed to an escalation of tensions between the nuclear-armed states, let alone maintain international peace. Hardly have been highlighted the threats to humanity and environment caused by nuclear weapons. A series of events related to atomic testing in remote areas inhabited by the marginalised communities exhibits the unpalatable injustice meted out to them by the nuclear weapons states in order to enlarge and refine their stockpiles of nuclear bombs and accompanying delivery systems.
The US bombings of Japan during the World War II resulted in the deaths of an estimated 2, 30,000 people from radiation sickness, burns, and injuries. The radiation also increased the risk of illnesses over the long term. The nuclear tests conducted by the US in the Marshall Islands, by France in Algeria and French Polynesia, by the former Soviet Union in Kazakhstan, by the UK in Australia, by China in Xinjiang attest to the accusations that marginalised populations are targeted. Amidst such gloom and desperation some glimmers of hope arise not only that a new treaty prohibiting the development, testing, or use or threat of nuclear weapons has come into force, but also that the Biden administration has signaled to resume global leadership in nuclear arms control.

Opportunity
The New START treaty due to expire unless extended concluded between world’s largest nuclear arsenals is being discussed between the signers focusing on issues that may result in a limited extension maybe one year, which may give the parties an opportunity to further negotiate terms for longer extension. The new US administration has given the indication that there might be fruitful discussion between America and Russia for saving the milestone nuclear treaty from expiration.
The new treaty to prohibit the production, development and deployment of nuclear arms, which has been already effective, is supposed to delegitimise nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the nuclear weapons states both declared and de facto will feel added moral pressure to support the cause of stigmatization of nuclear weapons. The campaign to abolish nuclear weapons receives a boost in the wake of coming into effect of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

(Thapa was Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister from 2008 to 2009.thapahira17@gmail.com)