NO BIG BANG SOLUTION TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

Avast majority of countries want to eliminate the threat of nuclear catastrophe. But achieving a world free of nuclear weapons is easier said than done, and there is a risk that some attempts to do so could prove self-defeating. Since the end of the Cold War, nuclear stockpiles around the world have been significantly reduced.

But in recent years, progress toward nuclear disarmament has stalled. Russia is modernising its strategic nuclear forces. That explains why efforts to reduce nuclear arsenals in Western Europe have come to a halt. The US, for its part, is also reviewing its options for modernising its nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile, Pakistan has continued to produce the fissile materials used in nuclear weapons. Efforts to make West Asia a nuclear-free zone have gone nowhere, largely because of Israel.

Against this backdrop, a large bloc of countries has proposed a far-reaching treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, a draft of which was endorsed by 122 United Nations member states in early July. Unfortunately, what started as a worthwhile humanitarian effort has culminated in a severely flawed proposal.

Three issues stand out. First, since no nuclear states support a nuclear ban treaty, this proposal would not rid the world of a single nuclear warhead. Worse, the new treaty could undermine the NPT, which, despite its flaws, has wider backing. Finally, by treating the concept of extended nuclear deterrence as illegal, or at least immoral, the draft treaty could actually threaten security in Europe and East Asia.

The threat of a nuclear counterstrike is what keeps countries from using nuclear weapons in the first place. And so-called extended deterrence through alliances is what pro- tects non-nuclear states from being blackmailed by nuclear states. Without extended deterrence, non-nuclear countries could see fit to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. Without such protection, Japan would be vulnerable to Chinese nuclear blackmail and North Korean missile attacks. Likewise, a majority of European countries have no wish to reside in the shadow of Russian nuclear warheads with nothing to protect them.

A more realistic approach would be to pursue further nuclear-weapons reductions in both the US and Russia, where serious risks still need to be addressed. To that end, it is vital that neither country modernises its nuclear arsenal in a way that is seen as expanding its nuclear capabilities. Instead, they must pave the way for further reductions.

In West Asia, ending current conflicts and developing conflict-resolution mechanisms could help drive progress toward nuclear-free status over time. In this regard, the nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany) is an important first step. As for South Asia, one hopes that a détente between India and Pakistan will facilitate better nuclear-arms control, even if the shadow of China – which sees its bomb as part of its place in the world – will still hang over India.

In the end, full-scale nuclear disarmament probably cannot be achieved with a single big bang. The world would be better served by an incremental approach based on the NPT, strategic reductions by major powers, and conflict resolution in key regions.

In the best-case scenario, the proposed nuclear-ban treaty will be just a sideshow. But there is reason to fear that it will complicate ongoing efforts to reduce nuclear arsenals further, deepen the divide between nuclearand non-nuclear states, and, in the worst-case scenario, even increase the risk of a nuclear conflict in key regions. Carl Bildt is a former prime minister and foreign minister of Sweden The views expressed are personal Project Syndicate, 2017