27 April 2015, Vol. 13, No. 1
Editorial: We can wait no longer
Ray Acheson | Reaching Critical Will of WILPF
Five years after the adoption of the NPT Action Plan in 2010, compliance with commitments related to nuclear disarmament lags far behind those related to non-proliferation or the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Yet during the same five years, new evidence and international discussions have emphasised the catastrophic consequences of the use of nuclear weapons and the unacceptable risks of such use, either by design or accident. Thus the NPT’s full implementation, particularly regarding nuclear disarmament, is as urgent as ever. One of the most effective measures for nuclear disarmament would be the negotiation of a legally-binding instrument prohibiting and establishing a framework for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Not everyone sees it that way. In fact, ahead of the 2015 Review Conference, the NPT nuclear-armed states and some of their nuclear-dependent allies have argued that any such negotiations would “undermine” the NPT and that the Action Plan is a long-term roadmap that should be “rolled over” for at least another review cycle.
This is an extremely retrogressive approach to what should be an opportunity for meaningful action. Negotiating an instrument to fulfill article VI of the NPT would hardly undermine the Treaty. On the contrary, it would finally bring the nuclear-armed states into compliance with the legal obligations.
Those countries that possess or rely on nuclear weapons often highlight the importance of the NPT for preventing proliferation and enhancing security. Yet these same countries, more than any other states parties, do the most to undermine the Treaty by preventing, avoiding, or delaying concrete actions necessary for disarmament.
It is past time that the NPT nuclear-armed states and their nuclear-dependent allies fulfill their responsibilities, commitments, and obligations—or risk undermine the very treaty regime they claim to want to protect. Their failure to implement their commitments presents dim prospects for the future of the NPT. The apparent expectation that this non-compliance can continue in perpetuity, allowing not only for continued possession but also modernisation and deployment of nuclear weapon systems, is misguided.
Instead, we need new international law, coupled with implementation of existing agreements and obligations. We need a process of change that involves stigmatising, prohibiting, and eliminating nuclear weapons is necessary.
This process requires a legally-binding international instrument that clearly prohibits nuclear weapons based on their unacceptable consequences. Such a treaty would put nuclear weapons on the same footing as the other weapons of mass destruction, which are subject to prohibition through specific treaties. A treaty banning nuclear weapons would build on existing norms and reinforce existing legal instruments, including the NPT, but it would also close loopholes in the current legal regime that enable states to engage in nuclear weapon activities or to otherwise claim perceived benefit from the continued existence of nuclear weapons while purporting to promote their elimination.
NPT states parties need to ask themselves how long we can wait for disarmament. This year, the year of the 70th anniversary of the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is a good place to start.