Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty A Tool To Undermine The Global South?
Image: AFP
Reneva Fourie
The opening line of the United Nations Charter is 'We the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war ...'. Yet eighty years on, we once again face the terrifying prospect, not just of a global war, but of nuclear war.
The authority of the UN is increasingly undermined as founding members leave it cash-strapped and disregard multilateralism and international law. As we remember the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bombed by the United States on 6 and 9 August 1945, we question whether the nuclear powers have learned anything.
The US attack on Japan was an act of savagery that resulted in over 200,000 lives lost and a ravaged environment. It had no military justification. By then, the Soviet Union had already struck a decisive blow against Nazi Germany, effectively ending the war. The bombings served merely to assert US dominance in an emerging Cold War.
As the US and its allies desperately try to strangle the emergence of a multipolar world, the same need for global dominance prevails. Military budgets are rising, and rhetoric is increasingly shifting from deterrence to aggression. US President Trump's erratic nuclear threats set a dangerous precedent for impulsive brinkmanship.
Iran was even attacked despite clear evidence that its nuclear programme is humanitarian. The hypocrisy was glaring. The aggressor, Israel, known to possess nuclear weapons through its past collaboration with apartheid South Africa, launched an unprovoked strike and was not held to account. Instead of outrage, Israel received support from Western countries, particularly the US.
This casts doubt on the credibility of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. While nuclear-armed states enhance their arsenals freely, those without are forced to comply or face consequences. Established initially to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons while encouraging the peaceful use of nuclear energy, the NPT has been undermined by the reluctance of nuclear states to disarm, deepening discontent, especially in the Global South.
The UN Charter places the responsibility for peace and global governance in the hands of the people. We must hold our governments accountable and reassert the importance of international law, multilateral cooperation and disarmament. A nuclear fallout is beyond anyone's ability to manage. Prevention is the only option.
Human security must be at the centre of the global nuclear discussion. Nuclear technologies play an increasingly important role in socio-economic development. South Africa already benefits from nuclear energy. Koeberg, the country's oldest nuclear power station, has provided reliable, low-carbon electricity for decades.
The South African Nuclear Energy Corporation also applies nuclear and radiation technologies to support industry, medicine and science while upholding environmental responsibility. Through the SAFARI-1 programme, South Africa is a global leader in producing medical isotopes used to diagnose and treat cancer. A recent study by the Department of Science, Technology and Innovation also highlights further peaceful applications.
Across Africa, the need for clean and stable power is growing rapidly, yet millions still lack access to reliable electricity. While renewables are essential, they require support from consistent and stable sources. Small modular reactors offer a promising solution. These compact systems can serve remote or underserved areas, and South Africa is wisely reviving its Pebble Bed Modular Reactor programme.
With supportive policies and partnerships, nuclear energy can drive a cleaner, inclusive future. South Africa's energy plans must set clear nuclear goals, ensure localisation and skills development, and align with just transition and climate finance efforts.
Safety must remain paramount. The design, construction and operation of nuclear facilities must meet the highest safety standards. South Africa has a robust legal and regulatory framework, overseen by the independent National Nuclear Regulator, which aligns with international best practices.
Environmental responsibility is also key. Although nuclear energy produces less waste than fossil fuels, some waste is long-lived and must be carefully managed. The National Radioactive Waste Disposal Institute is responsible for developing safe and sustainable systems for the storage, transportation, and disposal of radioactive waste.
Nuclear energy can be a tool for peace and progress. But the 1945 atomic bombings of Japan and the more recent nuclear threats against Russia and attacks on Iran demonstrate the potential destructiveness of its abuse. We must prevent history from repeating itself.
Apartheid South Africa once developed nuclear weapons. But the anti-apartheid movement, led by the ANC and its allies, pressured the regime into dismantling that arsenal. All governments that possess nuclear weapons should also be pressured by their citizens to disarm.
Today, South Africa retains the capability but chooses not to use it. The country believes the existence of nuclear weapons is fundamentally wrong. It remains committed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and plays an active role in international disarmament.
Africa's safeguards are strong. The African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, known as the Pelindaba Treaty, bans the development, possession or use of nuclear weapons across the continent. It requires full-scope IAEA safeguards, prohibits the dumping of radioactive waste and is upheld by the African Commission on Nuclear Energy. What is now needed is full operationalisation of this commission, along with greater regional cooperation in regulation, training and verification.
As a major exporter of uranium, Africa should ensure its resources are not used to produce nuclear weapons. There must be a common African position that no uranium from the continent will be used for military purposes.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

IOL News
20 minutes ago
- IOL News
South Africa Holds Hope for Review of US Import Tariffs After High-Level Call
Import tariffs by the United States could still be reconsidered, following direct communication between President Cyril Ramaphosa and US President Donald Trump. Image: Mandel NGAN / AFP The South African government remains optimistic that recently imposed import tariffs by the United States could still be reconsidered, following direct communication between President Cyril Ramaphosa and US President Donald Trump. In a phone call held on Wednesday, the two leaders discussed trade relations between the two countries, with a focus on the new tariffs that have raised concern among South African exporters. The conversation marks a significant diplomatic step as Pretoria seeks to protect local industries affected by the changes in US trade policy. While details of the discussion remain limited, government officials have confirmed that President Ramaphosa used the opportunity to raise concerns about the impact of the tariffs on South African businesses and jobs. According to sources familiar with the matter, Ramaphosa highlighted the long-standing partnership between the two nations and expressed hope that the tariffs could still be reviewed in a spirit of cooperation. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading The tariffs in question have placed added pressure on several key sectors in South Africa, particularly agriculture and steel. Exporters of these goods have already reported increased costs and reduced competitiveness in the American market since the duties came into effect. Business leaders have warned that unless the situation changes, some companies may be forced to scale back operations or even cut jobs. In response, the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition has been engaging with its counterparts in Washington, hoping to find a resolution that will allow continued access to one of South Africa's most important trading partners. Officials say they are exploring all diplomatic and legal options available under international trade agreements. Minister of Trade Ebrahim Patel said the government remains committed to finding a way forward through dialogue. 'We believe that the relationship between South Africa and the United States has always been one of cooperation and mutual benefit. We are confident that, with continued engagement, we can address these recent trade developments in a way that supports both economies.' South Africa and the United States share a strong trade relationship under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which gives eligible African countries preferential access to the US market. However, new tariff measures introduced by the Trump administration have threatened to disrupt that arrangement, especially for goods that are now facing additional duties upon entry into the US.


Mail & Guardian
3 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
The new trade playbook: Africa's response to US bilateralism
US President Donald Trump announced a 30% tariff on South African goods, saying his country's relationship with Pretoria has been, 'unfortunately, far from reciprocal'. (X) On 2 April, the world witnessed a trademark move from US President Donald Trump, who declared the day Using an unprecedented and unconventional methodology, the US calculated these tariffs by taking its trade deficit with each country, dividing it by the value of that country's exports to the US, and then halving the result. The outcome was a sweeping set of tariffs ranging from 10% to 50%, with countries such as Lesotho at the upper end of the scale. This one-size-fits-all approach blatantly disregards unique country-specific realities, especially for least developed countries. Take Lesotho: years of support from successive US governments under the African Growth Opportunity Act helped it develop an export-oriented apparel industry employing about More broadly, the reciprocal tariff regime is not only punitive, it undermines US commitments under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. It poses a direct challenge to the multilateral trade system, and Africa is directly in the crosshairs. The tariffs will be felt across African countries. Although the US announced a pause in implementing full reciprocal tariffs until August, providing a window for One noteworthy example of this is the UK-US 'Economic Prosperity Deal'. The two parties seem to have agreed on a Other countries — including Vietnam, Philippines and Japan — have signed bilateral deals involving adjusted tariff rates (20%, 19% and 15% respectively). These are accompanied by supplementary conditions such as penalties on transhipped goods or sector-specific investment clauses. Notably, there is no trade deal, yet, with any African country. Zimbabwe was the first African country to respond in April 2025, prematurely, by suspending all tariffs on US imports in a bid to signal goodwill. Meanwhile, major African economies such as South Africa and Kenya are deep in negotiations, attempting to secure favourable terms in the face of mounting pressure. While another extension to the tariff pause seems likely, it's clear that the US is pursuing a transactional, bilateral trade strategy, offering selective relief in exchange for sectoral concessions or access to strategic resources like critical minerals. This approach is deeply concerning. It reduces complex trade relationships to blunt negotiations, with developing countries expected to simply 'take it or leave it'. Such a strategy fragments global trade into a patchwork of uneven bargains, privileging those with greater economic or strategic clout. For African countries, the risk is clear: without a united response, they risk being sidelined. The danger is that African nations may be pressured into accepting inequitable deals without the protection of multilateral institutions like the WTO. These deals could extend to critical sectors such as raw materials, where African leverage is significant but often underused. In response, African countries must pursue smart sector-specific bilateral deals and push for tariff exemptions on key exports like apparel, coffee and minerals. Leveraging the continents' strategic assets (minerals such as cobalt, lithium, for example) is critical to securing favourable terms. At the same time, it is crucial to diversify trade partnerships with emerging economies like China, and enhancing South-South cooperation for new export markets will be key. Long-term resilience will also require African governments to invest in industrial competitiveness and deepen regional integration under the African Continental Free Trade Area. In this new trade playbook, Africa must not be a passive player. With coordinated strategy and assertive diplomacy, the continent can protect its interests and shape a more equitable global trading order. Shimukunku Manchishi is a senior policy officer: trade at African Future Policies Hub.

IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
Trump's Economic Coercion Failing to Intimidate BRICS Countries
Demonstrators burn a US flag and a picture of US President Donald Trump during a protest in defence of national sovereignty following the US government trade taxes and sanctions on Brazil, near the US consulate, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on August 1, 2025. Image: AFP Kanwal Sibal US President Trump has rattled Washington's ties with New Delhi to an unexpected degree. Countries, including India, were prepared for rough diplomatic weather after Trump won his second term, but did not anticipate the kind of onslaught he has unleashed on the global system and diplomatic norms. Trump's latest attack on India and the BRICS countries explains this underlying dynamic. The BRICS aspire to play a greater political, economic and financial role in global affairs. This aspiration is based on shifts of economic and concomitant political and financial power towards the so-called emerging powers or middle-income countries. BRICS countries have already begun to use their national currencies in trading with each other as much as possible. The use of draconian financial sanctions on Russia by the West has accelerated this process. Today, almost all trade operations between Russia and China are conducted in rubles and yuan. India, too, is encouraging the use of its national currency in payment transactions with select countries. A significant portion of the trade between India and Russia is now settled using a rupee-ruble mechanism. Washington cannot use secondary sanctions to prevent countries, including India, from using the US dollar to trade with Russia and then oppose de-dollarisation if these countries are compelled to use alternative payment mechanisms. If the US continues to weaponise the dollar, it will inevitably lead to the very 'de-dollarisation' that Trump is concerned about. India has officially disowned any de-dollarisation agenda, not the least because the US is its biggest trade partner in goods and services. India seeks more investments and technology transfers from the US. In many ways, New Delhi's ties with Washington are the most important for achieving its growth and developmental goals. But that does not preclude India from establishing other partnerships to reduce over-dependence on one country, balance its external relations and hedge against the excesses of US foreign policy. Trump has exacerbated the disruptions caused by Washington's frequent use of sanctions as a political weapon by also weaponising tariffs. He is convinced that by imposing arbitrarily determined tariffs on imports from other countries, he will compel them to enter into negotiations with the US to obtain relief by lowering their high tariffs on American products. But India on Wednesday sent a clear message: it is determined to protect the interests of its businesses, farmers and people. Trump's use of tariffs as a lever, like in the case of Brazil, where he has cited President Lula's treatment of his predecessor Bolsonaro as a reason for imposing 50% levies, is being closely monitored by the world's governments. Trump has repeatedly targeted BRICS since his return to the Oval Office. He had threatened the countries with tariffs if they continued to pledge to create a new common currency or support any alternative to the US dollar. Trump appeared to harbour the illusion that BRICS was 'dead' following his threats, which have now materialised into action. In reality, the BRICS summit held in Brazil this July showed no visible signs of intimidation. On the contrary, such overt displays of American economic coercion may well drive more countries toward alliances that seek to challenge the dominance of any single global power. The administration in Washington appears to lack realism in its assessment of global trends. Trump positions himself as a peacemaker and openly aspires to win a Nobel Peace Prize, while at the same time bombing Iran and assisting Israel in perpetuating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Similarly, threatening China as a BRICS member with 100% tariffs so casually – along with talk of bombing Beijing if the People's Republic were to invade Taiwan – makes little sense, especially given that an interim trade deal has already been reached and further negotiations are imminent. The US cannot reasonably claim that forums like BRICS have no right to determine their agenda in pursuit of their shared interests. At the same time, the US has walked out of or subverted key international agreements and institutions. It has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Change agreement, the WHO, the UN Human Rights Commission and UNESCO. Trump seems to believe that these organisations cannot function or survive without the presence of the US and its financial contributions. In reality, the US will lose its voice and its leadership in these international forums. The space it vacates will be filled by others, especially China. Beijing has already carved out enormous influence in the UN institutions, as it is now the second largest contributor to the UN. With Washington also bullying Europe and thereby damaging Western solidarity, the US's absence from these organisations will have even less impact. The more the world learns to manage without the US in these international bodies, the more America's international influence will erode. These US decisions will also accelerate the dispersal of influence at the global level, as other centres of influence develop. * Kanwal Sibal is a retired Indian foreign secretary and a former Ambassador to Russia between 2004 and 2007. This article was originally published at ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.