Recognition of “double madness” at the International Day for Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
Emma Bjertén
2 October 2024
On 26 September 2024, the UN General Assembly held a high-level event to commemorate the annual International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. Established with the adoption of resolution 68/32 in 2013, the Day aims to enhance “public awareness and education about the threat posed to humanity by nuclear weapons and the necessity for their total elimination, in order to mobilise international efforts towards achieving the common goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world.” The high-level meeting is an opportunity for states and civil society to reflect on the progress made on nuclear disarmament. However, most interventions expressed deep concern with the lack of disarmament and described a world moving in the opposite direction, where nuclear-armed states are engaged in conflicts and new technologies are making the risk of nuclear weapon use higher than ever before.
In his opening remarks, the UN Secretary-General called nuclear weapons being “a double madness.” He described the first madness being “the existence of weapons that can wipe out entire populations, communities and cities in a single attack.” He described the second madness being that despite these existential risks, states are no closer to eliminating nuclear weapons than they were ten years ago. Instead, the UN Secretary-General stressed, we are heading in the “wrong direction entirely,” lamenting that “nuclear saber-rattling has reached a fever pitch.” He warned that established norms against the use and testing of nuclear weapons are being “eroded,” emphasising recent threats to use nuclear weapons and underscoring the fear of a new arms race. Nearly 80 years after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he stressed how nuclear-armed states “continue to roll the dice, resisting disarmament measures and believing that, somehow, our luck will never run out.”
Nuclear-armed states at war
Most delegations raised concerns about the current geopolitical tensions, in particular the alarming situation of two wars that include nuclear-armed states. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s aggressions against Palestine were frequently mentioned. Several delegations stressed how the risk of nuclear war is at its highest since the height of the Cold War.
Malta argued that “Russia, a nuclear-armed state, has not only waged an illegal war of aggression against Ukraine, but it has also normalised nuclear rhetoric and withdrawn its ratification from the CTBT [Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty].” Türkiye noted that “the issue of non-NPT nuclear weapon possessing states has gained even more traction with Israel’s almost confession of possession of these weapons,” and argued it should be substantially addressed.
Several state representatives specifically condemned the nuclear threats made by an Israeli minister, who called for launching nuclear weapons against the Palestinian people in Gaza. Many delegations also called on Russia to cease its dangerous nuclear rhetoric and warned that these kinds of statements can contribute to escalation.
Increased role of nuclear weapons in military doctrines
Many delegations expressed distress over the increased role nuclear weapons play in military doctrines. Others, such as Brazil, warned that the resumption of explosive testing and the establishment of new nuclear sharing arrangements have become mainstream. Mexico raised concern about the rhetoric of those who speak of nuclear weapons as doctrines of deterrence and argued that nuclear weapons are not compatible with humanitarian law. Jamaica said it is a false narrative that nuclear weapons would provide security and said their continued existence only serve to raise tensions. Malaysia regretted that nuclear weapons continue to be in doctrines and argued that the false narrative of nuclear deterrence cannot be allowed. Similarly, Austria raised concern with “shaky assumptions” of nuclear deterrence saying we cannot base security on assumptions but must base them on facts.
Malta emphasised the importance to move away from the logics of war and militarism arguing “we can no longer accept deterrence doctrines as a given. They are fallacious and will never ensure security.” It said, “the only guarantee against the use of nuclear weapons is their total elimination,” which many delegations echoed. Malta argued that dialogue and diplomacy are the only means through which the goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons can be achieved.
In contrast, the United States tried to justify its nuclear weapons and doctrine, arguing that it is “necessary” to “maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent consistent with the NPT,” and saying that it extends “deterrence to our allies and partners so they feel no need to pursue nuclear weapons in their own defense.” The US claimed to do this “alongside our efforts to prevent nuclear buildups and proliferation.”
Nuclear spending and modernisation
Despite such claims, as several delegations stressed, nuclear-armed states are modernising and upgrading their nuclear arsenals, not preventing nuclear buildups but actively engaging in them. Some delegations specifically highlighted how these investments violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As Brazil summarised:
Every single state in possession of nuclear weapons has worked, over the past year, to improve their nuclear arsenals quantitatively or qualitatively, or both. Budgets for nuclear weapons have increased, modernisation efforts have advanced and even topics which were once considered beyond the pale, such as the resumption of explosive testing, the creation of new basing locations and the establishment of new nuclear sharing arrangements have now become mainstream.
In 2023, nuclear-armed states invested 91.4 billion USD in nuclear weapons. A number of delegations mentioned this figure in their statements, questioning the moral aspect of investing in something that aims to destroy rather than advancing humanity. The Maldives emphasised how funding is a common roadblock to address challenges such as extreme poverty, childhood mortality, and lack of primary health care and education, yet there seems to be no shortage of funds for nuclear weapons. Several delegations stressed that the investments made in nuclear weapons should be allocated instead to fund sustainable development and peace, which nuclear weapons undermine. Namibia stressed that “the production, stockpiling, testing, and modernisation of such weapons of mass destruction perpetuate war and militarism. It is not a strategy for keeping peace.”
The self-image of nuclear-armed states
In recent years, the high-level meeting to commemorate the annual International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons has often illustrated the lack of engagement by nuclear-armed states and their allies. While a small group of nuclear-armed states usually attend to deliver statements, most members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the self-described nuclear alliance, have kept their distance. It was therefore surprising that the United States this year delivered a statement. Other nuclear-armed states participating were China, India, and Pakistan.
A common theme among the nuclear-armed states was to describe themselves as “responsible” states in a world where others are irresponsible. India referred to its postures of no first use and of non-use against non-nuclear-armed states. Pakistan argued that it is only nuclear-armed because India is, while China said it only has nuclear weapons in self-defence, not for threatening non-nuclear-armed states. It called on the states with the largest nuclear arsenals to fulfill their primary responsibilities for nuclear disarmament, “make further significant and substantive cuts in the nuclear arsenals and create conditions for other nuclear weapon states to join.”
The United States referred to its achievements of establishing norms, treaties, and practices to prevent nuclear war and reducing the number of nuclear weapons, but argued, “now these achievements are at risk as some turn away from the tools that have held back the possibility of nuclear war, withdrawing from key agreements, rejecting dialogue and transparency, engaging in irresponsible nuclear rhetoric, the slender thread holding back nuclear catastrophe is framed in this unprecedented security environment.” While these factors are of major concern, the statement did not recognise the US role in this development. It was less than six years ago that a former US president tweeted nuclear weapons threats saying his nuclear button is “much bigger and more powerful” than Kim Jong-un's and that “it works!” It was also not long ago the same US president decided to pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which caused a diplomatic crises and was accused of undermining the value of multilateral diplomacy. With this in mind, it might be hard to convince the world that the US is any different from what it accuses others of being, and for those that argue that it was under another administration, it is not a comforting thought knowing that the US election is in less than six weeks away—and so far the investments into the US nuclear arsenal are independent of party.
The ban on nuclear weapons
Most delegations addressed the alarming humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. The President of the Marshall Islands described how her country was subjected to 67 known atmospheric nuclear and thermonuclear weapons tests that poisoned the environment and had devastated consequences for the health of its people. Kazakhstan also described the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons testing on its people and highlighted the importance of a trust fund for victim assistance. The representative of the Steppe Organization for Peace: Qazaq Youth Initiative for Nuclear Justice demanded nuclear justice and described how the nuclear tests still impact the third-generation survivors.
While many delegations expressed their disappointment over the failure to adopt an outcome document in the last two Review Conferences of the NPT and emphasised their concern about the stagnation in nuclear disarmament, several delegations referred to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) as a more positive engagement. Several delegations including the African Group, Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), International Committee of the Red Cross, Pacific Islands Forum, Austria, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Chile, Comoros, Ecuador, Holy See, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Myanmar, Nepal, Peru, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Lester, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe, indicated their support for the TPNW and its contribution to nuclear disarmament. Many delegations also called on other states that have not yet done so to sign, ratify, or accede to the TPNW.
Among others, Malaysia, Mexico, and Thailand welcomed or congratulated Indonesia, Sierra Leone, and the Solomon Islands, which two days earlier had ratified the TPNW during a high-level ceremony, adding themselves to the now 73 state parties of the Treaty.
Several states emphasised that the TPNW complements the NPT and its article VI, welcomed the outcomes of the previous two meetings of states parties, and/or stated they were looking forward to the third meeting taking place in New York in March 2025.