Context

September 26 is the International Day for the Total Elimination of nuclear weapons, coinciding with a session on the Treaty on the Prohibition of nuclear weapons (TPNW) during this year’s UN General Assembly. This session offers a chance to evaluate the landscape amid ongoing divisions over the war in Ukraine, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and climate change. The discussion of nuclear weapons intersects with these issues, making the responses of countries like India—who have not joined the TPNW—crucial. Support for the treaty could further its goal of total nuclear disarmament, while opposition could entrench nuclear weapons and heighten the risk of their use.

Overview

• The Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, signed in Moscow on August 5, 1963, by the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, prohibits all nuclear weapon tests except for those carried out underground.
• The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT), NPT permits only the five nations that manufactured and detonated a nuclear weapon before January 1, 1967, to retain their arsenals after signing the treaty. India opposes this discriminatory disarmament policy, advocating for a complete ban on nuclear weapons, which is why it has not signed the NPT.

What the Ban Treaty Says

•  The Treaty on the Prohibition of nuclear weapons (TPNW), which took effect in 2021, has deepened the divide between nuclear-armed states and their allies and those that abstain from nuclear weapons. The TPNW imposes comprehensive prohibitions…
  • signatories cannot develop, test, produce, stockpile, transfer, use, deploy, maintain, or even threaten to use nuclear explosive devices.
  • This sets it apart from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT), which only addresses proliferation and vaguely mentions disarmament while remaining silent on the use of nuclear weapons, including in the context of deterrence.
• The TPNW emerged from the Humanitarian Initiative, a coalition of UN agencies and NGOs aiming to raise awareness about the enduring and harmful effects of nuclear weapons on people, health, and the environment.
  • In 2017, the UN General Assembly was tasked with organizing a conference to negotiate a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.” As a result, the TPNW became the first treaty to legally ban all nuclear weapons and their use.
  • However, it was adopted without the involvement of nuclear-armed states and their allies, who consistently opposed the treaty during its negotiations and its ratification, thus positioning themselves as “persistent objectors” that do not acknowledge the treaty’s contributions to customary international law.
• Despite resistance, the stance of allies of nuclear states may not be inflexible. Recent nuclear developments, including Russia’s aggressive posturing, China’s growing arsenal, Iran’s ongoing uranium enrichment, and North Korea’s missile tests, have reignited discussions about nuclear risks. A group of former leaders and officials from NATO countries published an open letter urging their nations to join the TPNW, advocating for the legal status of nuclear weapons to be aligned with that of chemical and biological weapons. This group includes two former NATO Secretaries-General and a former UN Secretary-General, indicating significant support for the treaty.
• As of July 2024, the TPNW had 70 states parties, with an additional 27 countries having signed but not yet ratified it. This support from 97 states represents nearly half of the countries involved in the legal framework governing weapons of mass destruction.
  • Their actions could spark a reevaluation of longstanding beliefs about nuclear deterrence, especially in light of the events since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
  • Despite the proclaimed “friendship without limits” between China and Russia, Chinese President Xi Jinping publicly opposed Putin’s nuclear threats. Meanwhile, the U.S. indicated that it would respond to nuclear provocations with appropriate measures, without explicitly stating that such responses would be nuclear. Washington also did not adjust its nuclear readiness in response to these threats. This suggests that nuclear threats can be addressed without resorting to nuclear responses, challenging one of the key justifications for maintaining nuclear arsenals.

Treading a Fine Line

• Choosing not to sign a treaty is not equivalent to actively undermining it. India has refrained from joining the NPT, viewing it as discriminatory and contrary to its interests while believing it fails to promote genuine disarmament.
• Nonetheless, India has arguably benefited from the NPT’s role in limiting the spread of nuclear weapons and has never sought to undermine it, despite its rhetoric and abstention. Other nuclear-armed states could similarly navigate a careful path of distancing themselves from the TPNW without directly opposing it.
• While the TPNW has weaknesses, notably the absence of a strong enforcement mechanism, its potential to delegitimize nuclear possession and deterrence should not be overlooked.
• If the treaty ultimately manages to position nuclear weapons alongside chemical and biological weapons as pariahs, it would enhance global safety. However, this shift won’t occur during the upcoming General Assembly session or in the near future.
• The norm against nuclear use has developed over decades, and nuclear testing is increasingly being delegitimized through the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, even if it remains unratified. The Ban Treaty could similarly initiate a candid discussion about the role and effectiveness of nuclear weapons.

Way ahead on Treaty on the Prohibition of nuclear weapons (TPNW)

• Encouraging Ratification: Focus on persuading more countries to ratify the TPNW, particularly engaging those that have signed but not yet ratified, to enhance the treaty’s legitimacy.
• Building Normative Support: Ongoing advocacy is vital to establish a norm against nuclear weapons, portraying them as unacceptable and prompting discussions that question current nuclear deterrence strategies.
• Engaging Nuclear-Armed States: Although nuclear-armed states have largely stayed outside the TPNW, fostering dialogue with them is essential. Encouraging engagement with the treaty’s principles can facilitate meaningful disarmament discussions.
• Monitoring Compliance: Implementing mechanisms for compliance monitoring and reporting can ensure that signatories adhere to the treaty, thereby strengthening its enforcement.
• Promoting Education and Advocacy: Raising public awareness and education about the risks of nuclear weapons and the objectives of the TPNW can foster grassroots support for disarmament initiatives.

Conclusion

The TPNW presents a crucial opportunity for advancing nuclear disarmament. By encouraging ratification, fostering dialogue with nuclear-armed states, and promoting public awareness, the treaty can gain momentum. This collective effort is essential for reshaping global attitudes toward nuclear weapons and enhancing international security.

Source: The Hindu