First Committee Monitor, Vol. 20, No. 3
Editorial: The Ghosts of Nuclear Past Haunt Our Present
15 October 2022
Ray Acheson
This month marks the 60th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when “humanity stood on the precipice of nuclear annihilation as the United States and the Soviet Union came perilously close to war in the Caribbean Sea,” as the Holy See highlighted this week at the First Committee. It was due to this crisis that Latin America and the Caribbean created the world’s first nuclear weapon free zone, of which the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL) reminded the First Committee. The crisis also inspired the creation of numerous nuclear arms control and reduction agreements between the two nuclear “superpowers”.
Today, these agreements have mostly been shredded in favour of rampant nuclear weapon modernisation and spending sprees. “The aggressive nuclear rhetoric and the repeated threats that have been used bring us back to the darkest times of our history,” warned San Marino. Instead of eliminating their nuclear weapons, as they committed to do through the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty adopted in 1968, the nuclear-armed states have fortified their arsenals and their doctrines of “deterrence”. As a result, we stand again at another nuclear precipice, hoping that the whims of so-called leaders do not end life on this planet.
“We are facing the abyss, as the horror of war intensifies and the specter of the nuclear threat haunts us,” as Colombia warned. The world is “immersed in the games of power and war” amidst the “rapture of reason,” and is “short-sighted in the face of the challenges that demand our greatness.” Colombia lamented, “We entrench ourselves behind the machines of war, the artifacts of death, which we qualify as a technological advance.”
The realities of nuclear violence
Throughout the second week of the First Committee, concern about mounting nuclear threats and risks continued to dominate the general debate. As Guatemala argued, “The illegal, unjustified, and unprovoked invasion of sovereign territory of Ukraine on the part of the Russian Federation has had great consequences in terms of security on the international community.” Guatemala condemned Russia’s theats of possibly using nuclear weapons, noting that a “nuclear debacle would be tragic for humanity and for all living beings that coexist on this planet.” The Democratic Republic of the Congo pointed out that the effects of the use of nuclear weapons “cannot be limited to mere national borders” and will “have a profound impact on states far from the zones targeted, including those belonging to nuclear weapon free zones.” Furthermore, “no adequate humanitarian response could be possible after such an attack.”
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reiterated this point and further highlighted the “horrific, long-term and irreversible effects of nuclear weapons on health, the environment, the climate and food security.” In this context, the ICRC asserted that the existence of nuclear weapons “is a continued source of insecurity for current and future generations.”
In powerful remarks made during the first day of the thematic debate on nuclear weapons, Mexico asserted that the nuclear-armed states have a responsibility for the dangers that loom over humanity that is “proportionate to the infinite insanity of their doctrines of deterrence and their incessant arms race.” Mexico argued:
The nuclear powers want to tell us that they act responsibly, with the argument that current stockpiles contain fewer nuclear warheads compared to the amounts of the peak years of the Cold War. And since there are only nine countries that possess this type of weapon, should we be eternally grateful for their contribution to maintenance of global security? The reality is that the nuclear-weapon possessors announce that they will increase their arsenals; that they are improving this weaponry, and, above all, that they are more than willing to use it. More and more non-nuclear-weapon countries are also invoking the protection of nuclear weapons and justifying their existence. The development of new types of weapons and their delivery systems are also being driven by these powers and their allies.
Mexico asked, “How did we get to this situation of collective pre-suicide when never before has science given us so many reasons to wait to live longer and better?”
Overcoming deadly doctrines
Our present, present, and future are intimately bound to the decisions that have been and will be made by nuclear-armed states, and the other militarised states that insist on investing in war instead of peace. The mistakes of the past can be undone, but only through disarmament, demilitarisation, and de-escalation of the compounding crises we face. Most countries participating in the work of the First Committee articulated this position and offered suggestions to build a “new world order” that relies not on violent geopolitical games but on solidarity, care, and cooperation.
“It is high time we overcame the elusive narrative that more weapons, especially strategic weapons, make us safer,” said Brazil. “Security does not exist in a vacuum. The yearnings of a few for a purported absolute security only results in diminished security for all.” Mexico firmly denounced doctrines of nuclear deterrence, which it described as “the false pretense that nuclear weapons guarantee the security of the world,” which “is simply unsustainable, intrinsically immoral, and an insult to intelligence.” Mexico pointed out, “Nine states have arrogated to themselves the right to decide on life and death not only of the other 184 states, but the 193. They have the weapons and five of them have the so-called veto power; we, the voice and reason of humanity, have the vows of humanity of the General Assembly to establish the prohibitions that protect us from hecatomb.”
Kenya also critiqued the existing nuclear doctrines, arguing, “The era of an open-ended nuclear deterrence posture is long past.” It said the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments is not “optional or conditional” and called on all nuclear-armed states and their nuclear-supportive allies to eliminate nuclear weapons from their security doctrines.
Risking nuclear war
Unfortunately, the nuclear-armed states and their allies are instead doubling down on artifacts of “deterrence”. Even in the midst of heightened risks of the use of nuclear weapons, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is planning to go ahead next week with its annual mass murder exercise, Steadfast Noon. Fourteen NATO states will be participating in this drill, hosted in Belgium, which trains military personnel on the logistics of using nuclear weapons. Russia is also planning to hold nuclear weapon exercises in the coming weeks. These military exercises, which advancing the preparedness of these states to use nuclear weapons, will exacerbate the already extremely tense and unpredictable situation.
In the meantime, many Western media commentators are spreading false information about the impacts of so-called tactical nuclear weapons, which they assume are what Russia might use if it does decide to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. These commentators argue these are small bombs that will not cause that much damage. This is irresponsible and incorrect. While some “tactical” nuclear weapons do have a relatively low yield of explosive force, every nuclear weapon has the potential to cause catastrophic levels of destruction, especially if used in a populated area. Moreover, the smallest weapons in the Russian nuclear arsenal have about 10 kilotons of explosive yield. The nuclear bomb the United States detonated over Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. Approximately 140,000 people died from the bomb in Hiroshima by the end of 1945; many more died later from radiation burns and cancers and the intergenerational harms are ongoing.
While nuclear-armed and NATO governments condemn nuclear threats and offer rhetorical commitment to nuclear disarmament at forums like the First Committee, they are actively preparing and planning for nuclear war, and are simultaneously downplaying the humanitarian and environmental impacts of nuclear weapon detonations. This is unconscionable behaviour at any time; at a time when there are active threats to use nuclear weapons, this is about as reckless as one can get.
From apathy to action
Most of the rest of the world is demanding change, now. Antigua and Barbuda encouraged all states “to move beyond broad platitudes and towards tangible commitments to peace and security for the benefit of all our communities,” which Guinea specified as meaning an end to the arms race and the “colossal investments” in nuclear weapons. Paraguay called for the cessation of hostilities, respect for international law, and peace through dialogue, diplomacy, and negotiation. “We are convinced that these are the best tools to achieve peace in Ukraine and reduce tensions in other regions of the world, which will also make it possible to regain stability, alleviate the suffering of thousands of people and contribute to economic and social recovery.”
The competition between the United States and Russia, which has caused untold suffering for decades around the world, is now being replicated in the relations between the United States and China. The pursuit of empire by each of these states has led the world into despair and threatens us with extinction, either through climate chaos induced by capitalism’s voracious appetite for perpetual growth or through nuclear war. To build a future in which we can collectively survive, we need to learn the lessons from our past: foremost among which is that militarism leads only to violence, not to peace or well-being.
Tanzania noted that our present provides several key lessons, including that: “There is no community or country in the world that is always and permanently secure; peace is a value that if not taken care of can be easily lost; if peace is lost, it is difficult to restore it; the loss of peace has a great cost that can never be compensated; and efforts to protect, develop, and restore peace are a continuous process.” All of this, said Tanzania, shows that “enhancement of international security is not a temporary process, but part of communities’ life cycle.”
As we near Disarmament Week, which begins on 24 October, these lessons must guide the work of the First Committee and of global efforts for peace outside of the halls of the United Nations. NATO and Russia must cancel their nuclear exercises and end their threats to use nuclear weapons. Beyond these immediate imperatives, we must abolish all nuclear weapons, now. This moment of crisis is a stark reminder that to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, and to never be threatened like this again, the only answer is the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is ready to go as an international instrument that outlaws the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons and provides a framework through with the nuclear-armed states can eliminate their nuclear weapon programmes in a verifiable and timebound manner. This, in turn, will open new possibilities for demilitarisation and disarmament that can help de-escalate tensions and change competition into cooperation. Our lives, and the lives of future generations, depend on it. As Malaysia said during the nuclear debate, “It is inconceivable that humanity should live indefinitely in the dark shadow cast by such instruments of war and destruction, which constitute a present-day sword of Damocles in our world. Let us advance steadily, with renewed resolve, to herald the dawn of a nuclear-weapon-free age.”
[PDF] ()