Nuclear Ban Daily, Vol. 4, No. 4
Editorial: Building a Better World
3 December 2023
By Ray Acheson
In their declaration from the Second Meeting of States Parties (2MSP), states parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) issued a bold critique of the theories, doctrines, and practices of those who support nuclear weapons. “We reject attempts to normalize nuclear rhetoric and any notion of so-called ‘responsible’ behavior as far as nuclear weapons are concerned,” they said, noting that the “threat of inflicting mass destruction runs counter to the legitimate security interests of humanity as a whole” and that this “is a dangerous, misguided and unacceptable approach to security.” Refuting arguments from deterrence advocates that nuclear weapons preserve peace and security, TPNW states parties pointed out that, on the contrary, “nuclear weapons are used as instruments of policy, linked to coercion, intimidation and heightening of tensions.”
The declaration stands strong in opposition to nuclear deterrence, nuclear sharing arrangements, threats to use nuclear weapons, and investments in modernisation and expansion. It confirms that states parties “will not stand by as spectators to increasing nuclear risks and the dangerous perpetuation of nuclear deterrence” and recommits them to delegitimising, stigmatising, and eliminating nuclear weapons to make sure they are never used, tested, or threatened to be used ever again.
These strong proclamations are backed up by the decisions taken by states parties for further work, including the establishment of an intersessional consultative process on security concerns of states. This process, for which Austria has been appointed the coordinator, will advance arguments and recommendations to promote and articulate the legitimate security concerns and the threat and risk perceptions enshrined in the TPNW that result from the existence of nuclear weapons and the concept of nuclear deterrence. It will also seek to “challenge the security paradigm based on nuclear deterrence by highlighting and promoting new scientific evidence about the humanitarian consequences and risks of nuclear weapons and juxtaposing this with the risks and assumptions that are inherent in nuclear deterrence.”
This process offers a way to sharpen arguments about how, in practical terms, the TPNW provides for security. This is important for engaging with and countering the arguments made by nuclear-armed and nuclear-supportive states about their security concerns. In introducing its proposal for this consultative process, Austria said that TPNW states parties have not yet had sufficient impact on the security discourse of states that rely on nuclear weapons and that the TPNW community should work to develop further arguments to challenge the nuclear-proponent security paradigm based on the evidence on the consequences of nuclear weapons and risk.
The agreement to initiate this work makes it clear that TPNW states parties understand the need to consult internally to change narratives about nuclear weapons that can then have practical implications for doctrines, policies, and practices of those who currently stand outside of the Treaty. As part of this work, states parties also responded positively to the Scientific Advisory Group’s proposal for a UN-mandated study on the impacts of nuclear war, which would help build global understanding on the humanitarian and environmental impacts of nuclear weapons, which can be used to help build further momentum and mobilisation for nuclear disarmament.
In addition, TPNW states parties also agreed to a structure for intersessional work between now and the third meeting of states parties to continue the working groups on universalisation of the Treaty, victim assistance and environmental remediation, and nuclear weapon elimination, as well as a gender focal point. They also adopted a reporting format and guidelines for voluntary reporting on the implementation of Articles 6 and 7 of the TPNW in relation to victim assistance, environmental remediation, and international cooperation, and they agreed to focused discussions on the feasibility of and possible guidelines for establishing an international trust fund for victim assistance and environmental remediation.
The adoption of these tangible decisions that will help propel the effective implementation of the TPNW stands in stark contrast to the challenges faced in other nuclear weapon treaty bodies. Earlier this year at the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory Committee, NPT states parties could not even reach consensus about what documents to list in their final report. The commitment to finding diplomatic solutions to disagreements among TPNW states parties could not be more different than the hostility and tensions that have been undermining the NPT for years.
Furthermore, the diversity of participation in TPNW meetings of states parties and intersessional work is unparalled in other nuclear weapon processes. The perspectives and expertise are being increasingly centred in the work on humanitarian and environmental impacts of nuclear weapons and Indigenous Peoples have been involved in shaping narratives and designing policy.
Of course, more can and must be done to ensure that those impacted the most by nuclear weapons are at the core of the work to achieve nuclear abolition. More can and must be done to ensure that marginalised knowledge is included meaningfully in deliberations and in outcomes of TPNW meetings. As was seen by comments hostile to gender diversity from the Holy See, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Kiribati in response to the gender focal point’s presentation, integrating into the TPNW’s work progressive perspectives on gender and intersectionality is crucial. These include perspectives that recognise the realities of gender diversity and the intersections that gender has with race, class, sexuality, disability, and more, and perspectives that challenge outdated, binary notions of identity and existence. This is imperative for advancing truly inclusive and transformative solution to nuclear weapons.
Including in the work of the TPNW people who have been deliberately silenced on nuclear weapons in the past, because of their sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, geography, disability, age, etc., or because they have lived experience with nuclear weapon use, testing, and production, is a key way the TPNW can broaden and deepen argument against nuclear weapons. This makes inclusivity and diversity an urgent priority for the work not just on victim assistance and environmental remediation, but also for the new consultative process on security arguments and, if it is established, the UN study on the impacts of nuclear war.
There is much more work to be done for the achievement of nuclear abolition, and the obstacles can sometimes feel unsurmountable, especially amidst rampant nuclear weapon modernisation, abrogation of arms control treaties, and threats of use. But there is another way, another world, that is actively being built by the TPNW community. The nuclear-armed states might be heading down the wrong path while their nuclear-supportive allies either actively facilitate that or stand on the sidelines saying nothing can be until they turn around. But TPNW states parties, working with activists, academics, affected communities, and others committed to peace and justice, are proving that we do not have to wait. We can lead by example; we can chart the course for and do the work to build a better future for all.
Unlike the nuclear-armed states professed commitment to nuclear disarmament, this is not rhetoric. This is reality, being shaped and created by those told for so long that we had no power, no say on these issues. We proved this to be incorrect by negotiating and adopting the TPNW, and we are doing it again now by implementing it. Despite the different approaches and priorities among some states parties, despite the clinging to old conceptions of identity by some, the commitment to nuclear abolition, to security based on disarmament and peace instead of violence and fear, binds the TPNW community together, and invites everyone to join. Abolition is a process, but it is well underway.
[PDF] ()