NPT News in Review, Vol. 18, No. 1

Editorial: Stopping the Chain Reaction
30 July 2023

Ray Acheson

The first NPT Preparatory Committee for this review cycle is meeting once again at a time of global strain. This meeting provides an opportunity for all concerned states to discuss and negotiate a way through the nuclear quagmire. In times of grave peril, as we are facing now, dialogue is essential to preventing catastrophe. While the first Preparatory Committee is not usually a space for making binding commitments, it is an opportunity for governments to chart a path forward. Waiting until the Review Conference to make progress in nuclear disarmament and reducing nuclear dangers is not an option.

Problems in the previous cycle

The last cycle was muddied with pandemic-related delays and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Tenth NPT Review Conference finally met in August 2022, but did not adopt a substantive outcome. On the final day of the meeting, the Russian delegation blocked the adoption of the conclusions and recommendations of the final document. It gave many explanations for this choice, number one among them that it believed other states, opposed to its war against Ukraine, had taken the Review Conference “politically hostage”. It accused those states of ensuring that their priorities and perspectives were reflected in the outcome while working to ensure that the views of their opponents were not reflected.

The Review Conference was “taken hostage”. But Russia was not a victim of this behaviour—it was one of the perpetrators, along with the other nuclear-armed states and their nuclear-supportive allies. Similarly, the accusations by some delegations that Russia was solely to blame for the failure of this Conference to reach consensus on an outcome does not hold up to the reality of what transpired during the Review Conference. Throughout the meeting, states that believe nuclear weapons afford them security—and yet that no one else should have them—insisted on watering down draft commitments to disarmament and to reducing nuclear dangers, threats, and risks.

Political and structural challenges with the NPT

The failure of NPT Review Conferences to achieve meaningful outcomes is a recurring phenomenon. The NPT review process has not agreed to any new commitments since 2010, nor has it implemented past agreements. At some point, states parties need to acknowledge that this issue is both political and structural.

Politically, the problem lies not with one state or group of states but with all the governments that prioritise their perception of power through violence over collective peace and security. The governments that possess and support nuclear weapons are all collectively putting the planet in grave peril by refusing to comply with their legal obligation, under Article VI of the NPT, to eliminate nuclear weapons. And while they refuse to disarm, the nuclear-armed states are actively (re)arming.

Some have increased the size of their stockpiles; all are modernising their nuclear bombs and delivery systems. Russia’s war in Ukraine, repeated threats to use nuclear weapons, and decision to station nuclear weapons in Belarus; the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)’s expansion and retrenched nuclearism; China’s build-up of its nuclear arsenal; the United States’ growth of its nuclear weapon facilities; the Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) military alliance and sharing of nuclear-powered submarines have all increased tensions, military spending, and the risks of nuclear proliferation and nuclear war.

Structurally, the problem is that these states—or even just one of these states—can block the rest of the world from undertaking action for disarmament. The abuse of consensus has consistently meant that the tyranny of the minority holds court in the NPT. Too often, states parties spend weeks negotiating text in good faith, only to have all this work thrown out at the last minute by the veto of one or two states—sometimes by states that are not even party to the Treaty, working through proxies. This is unacceptable for any credible instrument of international law.

The recent report from the UN High-Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism (HLAB) argued that a frequent obstacle to progress in multilateral fora is “the overreliance on decisions by consensus, which has been interpreted in many settings to mean unanimity without objection.” It describes consensus as a “highly inefficient and unfair approach” that allows a small number of states to block multilateral action. The Board argued that, “This does not mean there is no place for consensus…. But where consensus prevents equitable and effective decision-making on issues of global concern, alternatives must be found.” To this end, the Board recommended that states “identify key processes to be shifted to qualified majority, double majority, or non-unanimous definitions of consensus voting systems. While making every effort to achieve unanimous decisions in all multilateral forums, our response to issues of global concern cannot be decided by a small number who benefit from the status quo.”

This recommendation must be taken up by NPT states parties. The Working Group on strengthening the NPT review cycle—which met last week but excluded civil society, other than a segment for presentations—should urge the abolition of consensus. The adoption of final documents that reflect the views of most states parties must not be able to be nullified by a handful of states. International law, and the actions to which governments commit to implement the law, must be upheld regardless of political circumstance or economic preference. Lives are at stake, as is the integrity of the entire multilateral system.

Great expectations

This first Preparatory Committee for the new NPT review cycle should set the clear expectation that the current state of affairs is untenable. An immediate and timebound process for the complete elimination of all nuclear weapon programmes is the only acceptable outcome.

Nuclear weapons have threatened the world since their creation in 1945. As a new study shows, the radioactive fallout from the first detonation of a nuclear device by the United States in so-called New Mexico spread to 46 US states, Canada, and Mexico. Since then, through global nuclear testing, proliferation of nuclear arsenals, and threats and conflicts among nuclear-armed states has not stopped. As Oppenheimer reflects to Einstein in the new film about the white men who built the bomb, their actions set off a chain reaction that might destroy the world.

This is a critical moment for nuclear disarmament and for our collective survival. NPT states parties must meet the gravity of the moment with urgency and courage to fulfill their obligations and the Treaty’s objectives. As Ireland said in its working paper to the 2019 NPT Preparatory Committee, “The NPT is not a charter for the indefinite retention of nuclear weapons.” Instead, NPT states parties must fulfil the spirit and letter of the Treaty, which is a charter for nuclear disarmament.

[PDF] ()