Nuclear Ban Daily, Vol. 4, No. 3
Editorial: Dismantle, Change, Build
30 November 2023
By Ray Acheson
Throughout the general exchange of views at the TPNW Second Meeting of States Parties (2MSP) on Tuesday and Wednesday, participants lamented the multitude of horrifying developments in international relations and so-called geopolitics that have yet again forced the world to contemplate the possible use of nuclear weapons, and even nuclear war. “The hopeful eye to the future—to a world without these weapons of mass destruction—is set against the dark veil of unbearable suffering,” said Trinidad and Tobago. “Several decades after the world had crossed a new threshold of horror and witnessed the first ever use of the atomic bomb, we are obliged to ask ourselves today, whether we have learnt from the past.”
As has been made clear by the lack of participation in 2MSP by nuclear-armed states and most of their nuclear client states, and by the comments from the few nuclear weapon supporters that are participating in this meeting, such as Germany and Norway, those who love the bomb have not learned anything from the past. Germany, delivering a more aggressive statement than it did to 1MSP, said that due to Russia’s war in Ukraine it is more committed than ever to the practice and policy of nuclear deterrence—as if building up for nuclear war has ever done anything other than exacerbate the risk of nuclear war. Norway similarly said it “fully stands behind” the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s doctrine and posture, including its nuclear sharing arrangements.
The remarks by these governments prompted Equatorial Guinea to ask if some states are at the wrong meeting, noting that they are articulating positions contrary to the TPNW. Despite these interventions, however, the rest of the general exchange offered helpful insights into universalisation efforts—including updates from several governments that are working to become states parties, such as Indonesia and Mozambique’s announcements that they are nearly finished their ratification processes—and into the direction of implementation of many of the Treaty’s provisions. As Austria said, “While practically all vectors on nuclear weapons point in the wrong direction, the TPNW is the one international development that shows the way out of the nuclear weapons paradigm: the stigmatization and prohibition of these most indiscriminate and unacceptable weapons based on the understanding of their catastrophic humanitarian consequences and risks.” Egypt, an observer state, similarly described the TPNW as a “ray of light” when other initiatives, such as gradual incremental roadmaps and risk reduction measures, are failing to achieve progress.
Key to advancing the TPNW’s stigmatisation of nuclear weapons is the critique of nuclear deterrence policies and practices. Nuclear deterrence, as explained in the previous editorial, perpetuates mass violence whether or not nuclear weapons are detonated. In this spirit, Jamaica urged further efforts from TPNW states parties to “continue to dispel the notion that the possession of nuclear weapons represents power, status, deterrence and an instrument of national security,” while Sri Lanka underscored the delusions inherent in such beliefs, which spark “a chain reaction in enticing those who do not have nuclear weapons to develop an appetite to acquiring them and for those who have nuclear weapons to continue developing and stockpiling them.”
As Brazil said, recent events around the world have exposed these and other contradictions of nuclear deterrence doctrines:
Nuclear sharing by one side cannot be fought with nuclear sharing by another. ICBM launches cannot be counteracted by nuclear-armed submarines and bombers visiting non-nuclear states. Quantitative increases in warheads do not excuse qualitative improvements in warheads. Proliferation of missiles is not the answer to missile defense, nor is missile defense the answer to missile proliferation.
Brazil noted these actions are both morally wrong and strategically wrong, “as they reinforce security dilemmas, heightening risks for all without making any country safer.” It is crucial to continue to articulate and amplify the absurdity of basing security policies and strategies on the possession, development, deployment, and use of weapons of mass destruction.
TPNW states parties have an opportunity to advance this work in a concrete way by supporting the Austrian proposal for the intersessional period between the second and third Meetings of State Parties to be used to develop a comprehensive set of arguments and recommendations against narratives related to nuclear deterrence.
Further, as the South African delegation pointed out, the 2MSP declaration should send a strong message of rejection of nuclear deterrence doctrines, policies, and practices, and all of the developments that are related to maintaining deterrence such as the modernisation of nuclear weapons, spending on nuclear forces, and nuclear sharing and deployments. In addition, “The prevalence and negative impact of nuclear weapons on global relations, and the lack of progress on nuclear disarmament which increases the systemic risk of nuclear conflict, have to be addressed,” urged South Africa.
As participants of 2MSP now move into the stage of work reviewing the implementation of the TPNW’s various articles and the reports of its working groups and other entities advancing the achievement of the Treaty’s goals, we can take heart that the bold aspirations of the Treaty’s negotiators are coming to fruition due to hard work over the intersessional period since 1MSP. The violence being waged globally by nuclear-armed states does not determine the outcomes of this meeting, nor does it limit the ambition of its states parties or the activists, affected communities, and academics working to advance its goals. As affected communities proclaimed in a joint statement, “With the next generations, there is not only hope but also an assurance of continued advocacy for justice, as long as nuclear colonialism is not ended, and justice is not granted to our communities.”
War is the backdrop of all our work, and, as Costa Rica said, war is “the inevitable outcome of male power structures, sustained by military-industrial apparatuses, with global ramifications.” The TPNW rejects these structures of war, seeking to abolish not just nuclear bombs but also the ideologies and infrastructure that sustain them. At the same time, the Action Plan adopted at 1MSP and the TPNW’s working groups facilitate the construction of alternative ideologies and infrastructure for peace and justice, achieved through diplomacy, negotiation, and solidarity. For abolitionist movements confronting a range of structures of state violence, the approach of “dismantle, change, build” guides the work to both deconstruct and reconstruct a world that works for all.
“A milestone of multilateralism, the TPNW is not only the most direct way to rid ourselves of the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons,” explained Costa Rica. “It also charts the course for a better coexistence among states and for the resolution of the most pressing challenges facing humanity today…. And now that the TPNW is here, now that we finally have an international legal instrument for abolishing all nuclear weapons, we must do the work to make sure that international law is the ongoing expression of our will, not the conclusion of our efforts.”
[PDF] ()