International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons shows there is no middle ground in the struggle for a world free of nuclear weapons
By Laura Varella and Emma Bjertén
29 September 2023
On 26 September 2023, the UN General Assembly held a high-level event to commemorate the annual International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. This year marked the tenth anniversary of the adoption of resolution 68/32, which established the commemoration of this date with the goal to enhance awareness “about the threat posed to humanity by nuclear weapons and the necessity for their total elimination.”
A decade of stalemate
A decade after the adoption of the resolution, the objective of a world free of nuclear weapons is still far from being achieved. As stated by Costa Rica, “Instead of moving forward, we have miserably regressed in achieving this goal.” A new arms race is underway, one that includes more advanced and dangerous weapons with unpredictable global consequences, as warned by Kazakhstan, Trinidad and Tobago, the Holy See, and others. Several states expressed concern about the number of nuclear warheads currently in existence, with the UN Secretary-General highlighting that this number could rise for the first time in decades. Many delegations also condemned the resurgence of nuclear rhetoric and threats, with Sri Lanka and Mexico noting that the year 2023 has become the closest to nuclear war that the world has ever been.
In addition to these worrying trends, the last ten years have seen the deliberate dismantling of the global disarmament and non-proliferation architecture. The majority of delegations expressed concern about the lack of implementation by nuclear-armed states of their disarmament obligations, with several highlighting the consecutive failure of the two last Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conferences in achieving consensus on an outcome document. The UN Secretary-General said that “hard-won norms to prevent their use, spread and testing are being undermined,” while South Africa warned that some states are trying to reinterpret their nuclear disarmament commitments by introducing conditionalities for fulfilling them. As Malaysia said, “Prevailing geopolitical exigencies should spur us to set high ambitions for nuclear disarmament, rather than indefinitely defer the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world.”
Wasted resources
The Arab Group, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the UN Secretary-General, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Ghana, Guatemala, Lesotho, Peru, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, and others expressed concern about the modernisation of nuclear arsenals. The UN Secretary-General and Costa Rica drew attention to the link between nuclear weapons and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. Costa Rica and Lesotho also highlighted that nuclear weapons are more vulnerable to cyber-attacks.
Several delegations condemned the vast amount of resources spent on nuclear weapons. Ghana, citing a report by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), stressed that in 2022 alone, nine countries spent US$ 82.9 billion on their nuclear weapon programmes. The Marshallese Educational Initiative (MEI) reminded how nuclear-armed states, since the first bomb of the Trinity test, have spent trillions of dollars maintaining and expanding their arsenals. It suggested that funding instead should go to victim assistance and environmental remediation from nuclear weapon testing and use. Similarly, CARICOM, Angola, Burkina Faso, Cuba, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, the Holy See, Nigeria, and South Africa highlighted that these resources could be spent on socioeconomic development and other areas of human and environmental need. Trinidad and Tobago lamented “the fact that at a time when the international community should prioritize addressing critical social, environmental and developmental issues, we instead find ourselves diverted to a matter on which the moral conscience of humanity has already agreed.”
Lack of engagement by nuclear-armed states and their allies
Following the tendency from previous years, only three nuclear-armed states participated in the meeting: China, India, and Pakistan. In contrast to the 13th Article XIV Conference on Facilitating Entry into Force of the CTBT that took place the previous week and attracted diverse participation, no members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) delivered statements to commemorate the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.
India explicitly referred to itself as a “responsible nuclear weapon state,” as if the events in recent years have not offered enough evidence that such a concept does not exist. China took a similar approach, arguing that it never engages in arms race, does not deploy nuclear weapons abroad or provide any “nuclear umbrella”, and always keeps its capacity at a limited level for “safeguarding national security”. While urging countries with the largest arsenals to fulfil their primary responsibility of nuclear disarmament and reduce their arsenal to create necessary conditions for complete disarmament, China asserted that it upholds a national “defence” policy and a nuclear strategy of self-defence. China and India emphasised their commitment to no-first use and non-use against non-nuclear-armed states.
Similarly, Pakistan said that “meaningful progress on nuclear disarmament can only be achieved by the reduction of great power tensions, strict adherence to the UN Charter, universal implementation of Security Council Resolutions, elimination of the root causes of conflicts, and the equitable control of all armaments.” Pakistan also said that its security policy continues to be defined by “restraint and responsibility” and “avoidance of a mutually debilitating arms race in our region”.
The fallacy of nuclear deterrence
In contrast with the statements from the three nuclear-armed states, several delegations, including Colombia, Malaysia, Philippines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Viet Nam, rejected the continued prominence accorded to nuclear weapons in military doctrines. Additionally, the vast majority of states present in the meeting categorically rejected the idea that nuclear weapons bring security. As stated by Malta, “The stockpiling, testing, and production of weapons of mass destruction perpetuate war and militarism. It is not a strategy for keeping peace.”
Viet Nam said that “the doctrine of nuclear deterrence is a flawed approach to global peace and a major hindrance to our disarmament goals.” Similarly, South Africa said that “giving credence to the nuclear deterrence doctrine and the value of nuclear weapons for security, is an argument in favour of proliferation of nuclear weapons.” Sri Lanka stressed that the arguments that don’t support the notion of nuclear deterrence are well documented, while the Central American Integration System (SICA) said that awareness about the “economic and social costs associated with the perpetuation of obsolete security schemes based on nuclear deterrence” should be a top priority.
Brazil, commenting on the setbacks from last year in the field of nuclear disarmament, such as the deployment of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-armed states, as well as nuclear-armed submarines resuming port calls with non-nuclear allies, said that these acts are usually described as “defensive” or “necessary”. “Yet we must remind ourselves, every day and particularly today, that any of these actions can lead to a nuclear catastrophe, no matter how they are justified. We run the real risk of it being described by a future historian as yet another ‘march of folly’—if there are historians and readers who survive that folly,” added Brazil.
Similarly, ICAN emphasised how “some states, against their own interests and our common interests, cling to a misguided belief in nuclear deterrence, the theory that if they threaten each other with mass destruction often enough and convincingly enough, nothing could possibly go wrong. The tariffs may well work until the day it doesn't. And the consequence of that inevitable failure will be truly catastrophic and global in the scope”.
The truth of humanitarian impact
The main challenge to the assumption that nuclear weapons provide security is their humanitarian impact, stated Colombia. It said that the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons is the most compelling reason for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament, a point also raised by South Africa.
Mexico said, “We cannot think in the abstract, like those who cling to these terrible instruments.” It stressed that nuclear weapons cause hundreds of thousands of immediate deaths, as well as irreparable damage to health and ecosystems. Similarly, Gambia stressed that “in the long-term, nuclear weapons produce ionizing radiation, which kills or sicken those exposed; contaminates the environment, and has long-term health consequences, including cancer and genetic damage.” It added that their widespread use in atmospheric testing in the past continues to cause grave long-term consequences.
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) stated how it, together with the Japanese Red Cross Society, witnessed the horror and suffering brought upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the atomic bombs were unleashed in 1945 and how they “tried, in near-impossible conditions, to assist the dying and injured.” Since then, the ICRC has been calling for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. MEI shared its experiences of the devastating humanitarian consequences from the 67 large scale atomic and thermonuclear weapons that the United States tested in the Marshall Islands. The people of the Marshall Islands witnessed how the health and environmental consequences of the detonations forced communities to move, prevented people from eating traditional food, caused women to give birth to children with congenital disorders, and led to many thyroid problems. MEI encouraged the meeting attendees to visit the impacted communities on the Marshall Islands to see the aftermath of the nuclear tests that forever changed parts of the country.
The African Group called on all states, particularly nuclear-armed states, to take into consideration the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons on human health, the environment, and vital economic resources among others. The NAM, SICA, Angola, Austria, Brazil, Ecuador, the Holy See, Lesotho, Malta, Mexico, and Nigeria also spoke about the humanitarian consequences of these weapons, with most states present in the meeting highlighting that the elimination of nuclear weapons is the only guarantee against their use.
A beacon of hope
In stark contrast to the lack of action by nuclear-armed states in implementing their disarmament obligations, there has been an encouraging development in the last decade that brings us closer to eliminating nuclear weapons: the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
There was an overwhelming expression of support for the TPNW, including from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), the League of Arab States, the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), SICA, Aotearoa New Zealand, Bangladesh, Austria, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Côte D’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, the Holy See, Honduras, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malaysia, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Mexico, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Palestine, Peru, South Africa, Tanzania, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, and Viet Nam. The UN Secretary-General said that states need to reinforce and recommit to the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime built over the decades, including the TPNW. Cambodia, Ireland, Malaysia, Palestine, and South Africa stressed that the TPNW strengthens and complements the NPT.
Kiribati highlighted its role in coordinating jointly with Kazakhstan the implementation of Articles 6 and 7 of the TPNW on providing assistance for persons, communities, and environments harmed by the use and testing of nuclear weapons. Chile also highlighted the work it has been doing during the intersessional period as the designated gender focal point.
Sri Lanka said it was proud to have acceded to the TPNW a few days before the event. Austria, Malaysia, Timor-Leste, and others welcomed the recent signature of the TPNW by the Bahamas and accession to the TPNW by Sri Lanka. Several delegations encouraged all states to sign and ratify the Treaty at an early date. Brazil said it hopes to soon be able to ratify the Treaty according to its internal constitutional procedures.
Many delegations said they are looking forward to the convening of the second Meeting of the States Parties to the TPNW from 27 November to 1 December 2023 in New York. Mexico, which will chair the meeting, invited all members of the United Nations that are not yet parties to participate as observers.
Building on the understanding that nuclear weapons are a global problem, Costa Rica said that the TPNW promotes the “democratisation of nuclear disarmament,” as it involves all states as stakeholders, whether they possess nuclear weapons or not. It argued that by forcing states to declare a concrete position regarding these weapons, the TPNW shows that there is no middle ground. “Nuclear weapons are either acceptable or they are not. A state that refrains from signing this treaty is signalling its agreement with nuclear weapons and their implications.” Let’s hope that it won’t take another decade of commemoration of the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons for states to change their position in the struggle for a world free of these weapons.