by Janet Fenton
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/25101840.nae-nukes-anywhere—tale-two-treaties
The UN’s third meeting of the State Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW 3MSP) took place last month.
Next month will see the final preparative meeting for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, before both treaties are separately reviewed at the end of 2026, when comparisons, challenges and progress can be discussed by all participants.
Scotland, as the unwilling host base for the UK’s so-called independent nuclear deterrent, is strategically significant in the movement for nuclear prohibition and elimination but of course, is not a UN member state.
Firstly, the UK programme is not independent but deeply integrated with US nuclear policy and infrastructure (US nuclear weapons are, of course, also presently sited in other countries in the EU).
Secondly, the UK is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – which the UK and its nuclear-armed cronies describe as the “cornerstone” to nuclear discourse. The NPT includes a commitment to complete nuclear disarmament and it also calls on member states to refrain from sharing nuclear weapons and technology.
Thirdly, “deterrence” is an outdated concept. Originally based on the idea of two opposed but equally empowered protagonists, it is still touted by nuclear-armed states in today’s hostile and uncertain environment, where there is a questionable number of volatile actors.
Finally, the true rationale for disarmament comes through the recognition of the value of human life, and rights and responsibilities towards the planet that supports it.
This perspective must question whether any possession or use of nuclear weapons could ever be compatible with these responsibilities, or legal under international humanitarian law.
Exploring common security and disarmament includes promoting understanding of the complementarity of both of these two treaties. If the UK Government pays heed to its NPT obligations and takes a step forward by engaging with the TPNW, it will be engaging with the legal instrument that can safely deliver disarmament.
Unlike the NPT, the TPNW takes the humanitarian and environmental consequences of the use of nuclear weapons as its starting point, along with their disproportionate impact on women and indigenous communities.
It uses a gender-aware and intersectional approach that recognises human rights, and women’s perceptions and experiences are regularly included, as they should be, not only in the diplomatic chambers but at every level from the high street to the board room.
While the NPT laid down a foundation to restrain states from developing nuclear weapons, implementation of the TPNW is the only sane response to any discussion of the future of nuclear weapons, the most indiscriminate, inhumane and destructive weapons ever invented.
There are thousands of these weapons in the world. The threat arising from any use, deliberate or accidental, is of making the planet uninhabitable for human (and many, if not most, other) beings in a matter of days or hours.
Elimination of nuclear weapons will not be delivered through arms control measures and bilateral agreements, helpful though these may be in at least containing some aspects of the risk that nuclear weapons pose to all of us to while they continue to exist, as well as in offering some sort of space for negotiation.
What is needed is for us to consistently and continually remind ourselves and our leaders of the irremediable permanent and inhumane effects on people and planet that will inevitably arise from any nuclear weapon use, in conflict or by accident.
Against this terrifying and dismal picture, 3MSP presented a very different way forward, and the treaty, only four years in force, is starting to make at least some of the changes that are so desperately needed.
This could accelerate as soon as the reality of nuclear weapons as a liability for any government is understood, so that all take the necessary steps to join the TPNW.
The big steps forward are coming about largely through active connections, evidence-based suggestions for progress, and scientific rather than political explanations, with solutions and methods for progress coming from brilliant young scientists and thinkers.
Many of them have been energised and even angered by the lack of action being taken on the climate crisis. They are ready to challenge militarism, and confront violent masculinities and gender discrimination as well as to make major changes to prevailing political structures that confuse the use of violence and force with any kind of meaningful security.
This approach, being made by predominantly younger people, includes Generation Z survivors who have learned through the work of the TPNW about damage to their parents, grandparents and potentially their own children through the thousands of nuclear detonations undertaken to “test” nuclear weapons in development.
The scientific advisory board set up to work between the meetings of state parties delivered working papers and statements as evidence presented by compassionate scientists and academics, and most importantly the testimony of the many survivors, whether octogenarians from Nagasaki or the second, third and fourth generation survivors of Semipalatinsk, Kiribati or Nevada, all of whom were present at the 3MSP.
This feminist approach has been a hallmark since the original discussions and negotiations, and has enabled inclusive strategies that address the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons which no amount of political posturing and threats can address.
Positive takeaways from 3MSP include:
Dissident parliamentarians from nuclear-armed states held a powerful conference and issued a strong statement from it, making it clear their governments are not acting in accordance with a democratic mandate;
Proposals for an international trust fund to remediate some of the environmental damage done during the nuclear age will be ready for discussion at the review next year;
The work of the internationally selected scientific advisory group means that expertise in the verification and the timelines needed for dismantling can be accepted and recorded by the state signatories to the TPNW at its review, and information on past harms can be sought by that body from the states responsible, rather than requested by handfuls of indigenous peoples or individual governments;
We heard of many financial institutions no longer willing to invest in nuclear weapons because of the practical difficulties and stigma attached to their multinational interests;
Expertise in the verification and the timelines needed for dismantling and information on past harms done are now subject to scrutiny.
These are real and tangible moves that contribute to the changes required to address the climate crisis and human migration as well as reducing nuclear risk.
Militarily useless, expensive at every level, dangerous to everyone that comes in contact with them, it should not be beyond our powers to recognise that nuclear weapons are a terrifying liability for any nation-state, and even more for any military alliance, including any putative “Eurobomb”.
Securing, prohibiting and eliminating nuclear weapons has never been more urgent and the part that can be played by co-operative communities, nuclear-free zones and other collaborations to serve our common security can never matter as much as they do now.
The two review conferences for these treaties will require all of our support to progress that for the Earth and its people.
Janet Fenton is an organiser with Secure Scotland and the secretary of the Scottish CND cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament