Weekend Argus (Saturday Edition)
Blast nuke weapons into illegality
THE entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (the Ban Treaty) was a big milestone for nuclear disarmament.
Activists rejoiced when Cambodia became the 52nd state to ratify the Ban Treaty on January 22 last year, officially making it international law. Of its 86 signatory states, 59 have ratified the treaty.
A year after the momentous occasion, it is worth reflecting on the progress and challenges remaining for the Ban Treaty and nuclear disarmament more broadly.
Apart from making nuclear weapons illegal, the Ban Treaty provides an outline for “the verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons programmes”.
In addition, state parties are responsible for assisting victims of the use and testing of nuclear weapons, and dealing with resulting environmental fallout. While these are welcome developments, the threat of nuclear weapons looms large.
Mounting pressure to disarm Momentum continued to build after Cambodia’s ratification.
A further seven states ratified the Ban Treaty last year, and several additional signatory states are expected to complete the ratification process this year.
The continued drive for ratification and signature is important if the world’s non-nuclear weapons states hope to put pressure on the nine nuclear weapons states (NWS) – China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the UK, and the US – to fully disarm.
There are more than 13 000 nuclear warheads in existence, most of which (90%) are dispersed between Russia and the US. None of the nuclear weapons states have signed the Ban
Treaty, but five of them – China, France, Russia, the UK and the US – have signed the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
While the goal of the Ban Treaty is to ensure that nuclear weapons are illegal for all states, the nonproliferation treaty acknowledges the existence of nuclear weapons states and aims to prevent their spread beyond the recognised few.
According to the non-proliferation treaty, countries that conducted nuclear weapons tests before 1967 are classified as nuclear weapons states. China, France, Russia, the UK and the US, also known as the Permanent 5 (P5), fall into this category.
The Ban Treaty supplements the non-proliferation treaty and acts as a mode of reinforcement for nuclear weapons states to work to end the nuclear arms race and commit themselves to complete disarmament. However, this has seemingly been forgotten.
The Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (Article VI) does not provide a set timeline for nuclear
weapons states to fully disarm. Without a hard deadline, the states cannot be held fully accountable.
Some nuclear weapons states are also sceptical of joining the non-proliferation treaty. India, for example, shows no interest in joining it, on the grounds that it tested its nuclear weapons after 1967.
The treaty also has an infamous withdrawal clause, which was used by North Korea in 2003. With the looming possibility of states withdrawing from the non-proliferation treaty, what guarantee does the world have of nuclear weapons states honouring their obligations to disarm?
Threat of nuclear arms race
The P5, on January 3 this year, issued a joint statement on the threat of a Cold War-like nuclear arms race
and expressed its “desire to work with all states to create a security environment more conducive to progress on disarmament with the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons”.
While supporters of disarmament got their hopes up after the statement, these were crushed the next day when China announced that it would proceed with the modernisation of its nuclear arsenal.
It was recently made public that the Biden administration was considering “killing off several nuclear weapons programmes that were greenlit by the Trump White House”.
While this news is welcomed, US officials close to the matter have revealed that the country “is not expected to make major changes to nuclear policy”. In fact, the Biden administration is planning to allocate more than $634 billion (about R10 trillion) to “operating, sustaining and modernising” the US nuclear arsenal between now and 2030.
Apart from the risk of additional weapons being added to the world’s stocks, there is also a danger of the number of nuclear weapons states expanding as Iran continues to make nuclear advances. In June last year, experts warned that the country could be weeks away from enriching weapons-grade uranium.
Nuclear weapons-free zone
With 52 signatory states and 42 ratifications of the Treaty of Pelindaba, Africa has established itself as the largest nuclear weapons-free zone in the world.
This commitment gives the continent substantial weight in the fight for a nuclear weapons-free world.
However, the levels of support for the Treaty of Pelindaba are not reflected in African states’ commitment to the Ban Treaty. Twenty-nine African states have signed the treaty, while only nine have ratified it. This could be attributed to the fact that significant work needs to be done to get all AU-member states to sign and ratify the Treaty of Pelindaba.
The momentum that saw the Pelindaba Treaty become a global example of dedication to the ideal of a world free of nuclear weapons should drive the same parties to this treaty to join the Ban Treaty.
With the backing of the largest nuclear weapons-free zone behind it, support for the Ban Treaty can grow. This would bring humanity closer towards the ideal of a world free of nuclear weapons. But until nuclear weapons states take the decision to join the Ban Treaty, these weapons could be with us for a long time yet.