Jean-Marie Colin, Susie Snyder and Tuva Wideskod wrote that the existence of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons — and its entry into force on January 22, 2021 — An earthquake rang out among countries with deterrence policies.
The authors are non-proliferation activists Jean-Marie Collin (ICAN France), Susi Snyder (PAX Netherlands) and Tuva Widskjold (ICAN Norway).
This positive evolution of international law has been strongly opposed by NATO. NATO claims that its “nuclear capability is to maintain peace, prevent coercion and deter aggression,” but it has issued an undisguised threat to those who have joined this new UN treaty.
The alliance is creating conditions for proliferation and setting a dangerous precedent.
Let’s review it. The inertia of nuclear disarmament is a reality. It is implemented by countries that have or support nuclear deterrence policies. Compounding the problem is that their continuous modernization and renewal of their nuclear arsenals undermine the non-proliferation regime.
If nuclear-weapon states are responsible for reducing nuclear weapons, then the countries that accept, support, and benefit from this defense system are also responsible.
No one claims that nuclear disarmament is an easy task. But one thing is certain: not doing anything or progressing against the law is a dangerous game.
By rejecting the United Nations Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), the Atlantic Alliance and its 30 democratic regimes have sent a clear signal to non-democratic countries of the “right to not comply with international law.”
The TPNW was adopted on July 7, 2017 and will be effective from January 22, 2021. The treaty has 86 signatories and 54 member states, and will welcome new members in the coming months.
It benefits from extensive global support, which proves the commitment of cities (Amsterdam, Berlin, Bruges, Paris, Manchester, Oslo, Toronto…) and parliamentarians from NATO member states to support it.
This treaty strengthens non-proliferation and allows the implementation of Article 6 (Nuclear Disarmament) of the NPT. The latter is seen as the backbone of the non-proliferation regime and is in danger. Even the Alliance implicitly acknowledged this danger in its statement, “it cannot be taken for granted that the NPT’s lasting success”.
However, this reasonable idea was met with the opposite and irresponsible actions of the three nuclear nations of the coalition: the United Kingdom announced that it would increase its nuclear arsenal and abandon its 2010 NPT disarmament commitments.
While supporting NATO, France hopes to promote the Europeanization of its nuclear deterrence while comprehensively updating its arsenal through strategic dialogue and opening up deterrence exercises to other European countries.
Finally, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the United States will spend as much as $634 billion on new nuclear weapons systems over the next ten years.
The facts are very clear. These countries do not respect the “good faith” principle required by the NPT and the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion (July 7, 1996).
The alliance statement also undermined the democratic values of the United Nations and its institutions. It is important to realize that the TPNW needs to conduct open negotiations (2017), during which all countries can be present to express their views, thereby affecting the content of the text.
With the exception of the Netherlands, all NATO members stay away from these negotiations. By challenging the existence of TPNW, they also challenged the operation of the United Nations and its Secretary-General as the depositary of the Ban Treaty.
In our report “Non-nuclear alliance: why NATO member states should join the UN’s nuclear weapons ban“(Page 116), we reviewed the alliance’s arguments point by point, proving that they are based on myths, misunderstandings, and deliberate lies. NATO’s hostility towards TPNW directly contradicts its own security interests.
By responding constructively to the threat posed by nuclear weapons, the alliance members will protect their people. However, today they continue to rely on deterrence policies to deal with this threat-this will only add fuel to the fire.
Some NATO partners in Europe (Austria, Ireland, and Malta) or the Asia-Pacific region (New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand) are already parties to the TPNW; there are many more.
Other countries have announced that they will participate as observers (Finland, Sweden, Switzerland) in the first Conference of States Parties to be held at the United Nations in Vienna from January 12 to 14, 2022. And this list is expected to grow.
However, the coalition is trying to undermine the sovereign will of nations and prevent them from participating by calling on the “partners and all other countries” of the international community to think twice before joining the TPNW.
This unabashed threat reveals how these three nuclear-armed members are afraid of losing the moral support needed to justify their military capabilities, leading to disastrous humanitarian and environmental consequences…
NATO cannot hinder the development of international law. TPNW has no other goals, just to create more security by becoming universal.
In announcing that its member states support the “ultimate goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world,” NATO must see TPNW as an opportunity to end a threat that has been known to generations.
