
‘Never forget': Pacific countries remember nuclear test legacy as weapons ban treaty debated
Growing up in the Pacific nation of Kiribati, Oemwa Johnson heard her grandfather's stories about nuclear explosions he witnessed in the 1950s. The blasts gave off ferocious heat and blinding light. He told her people were not consulted or given protective gear against bombs detonated by the US and UK at Kiritimati Island, now part of Kiribati, decades ago.
People in Kiribati suffered grave health consequences as a result of exposure to radiation from the tests in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a legacy they say continues to this day. Johnson says there's a lack of accountability and awareness of how nuclear testing by foreign countries has harmed her people and homeland.
'It doesn't matter if they're very small island nations, their stories matter,' the 24-year-old says.
Between 1946 and 1996, the US, the UK and France conducted more than 300 underwater and atmospheric nuclear tests in the Pacific region, according to Pace University International Disarmament Institute. Kiribati, French Polynesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands were among the most affected.
For decades the countries have called for justice for the ongoing environmental and health impacts of nuclear weapons development. The push intensified this month as supporters of the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons (TPNW) – including many from Pacific nations – met to discuss the treaty and call for wider ratification.
The treaty imposes a ban on developing, testing, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons – or helping other countries in such activities. It entered into force in 2021 and has 98 countries as parties or signatories. In the Pacific region 11 countries have backed the treaty. Treaty supporters want universal global support but many countries – including the US, the UK and France – oppose the treaty.
The nine nuclear armed countries argue that nuclear weapons are critical to their security. Likewise, Nato nations, Japan, South Korea and others are not yet party to the treaty. Australia, where the UK conducted nuclear tests in the 1950s, has not ratified the TPNW despite the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, saying in 2018 that Australia would do so the treaty when his party was in power.
A spokesperson for Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said Australia 'shares the ambition of states parties to the TPNW of a world without nuclear weapons' but, like the US, the UK and France, prioritises the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Many TPNW supporters argue that the treaty strengthens and complements the non-proliferation treaty, while opponents like Nato say it is incompatible with its obligations.
Representatives from the UN diplomatic missions of France, the US and the UK did not respond to requests for comment on the TPNW.
Against this backdrop, politicians, activists and other representatives gathered at UN headquarters in New York this month for week-long discussions on how to secure more support for the TPNW.
Hinamoeura Morgant-Cross, a representative of the French Polynesia assembly, was among the parliamentarians. She says her family was significantly affected by French nuclear detonations at Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls between 1966 and 1996. Morgant-Cross told the forum high rates of radiation-induced cancer in her family had motivated her to become an anti-nuclear activist and assembly member.
'It started with my grandma with thyroid cancer,' she said. 'Then her first daughter – my auntie – with thyroid cancer. She also got breast cancer. My mom and my sister have thyroid disease. I got chronic leukemia when I was 24 years old. I'm still fighting against this leukemia.'
New Zealand's UN representative in Geneva, Deborah Geels, stressed the treaty's 'special importance in the Pacific', warning: 'Tensions between nuclear-armed states and nuclear risk are rising, and no region is immune – even the South Pacific.'
The Marshall Islands, where the US detonated 67 nuclear bombs during the 1940s and 1950s, has not yet joined the TPNW. It has expressed concern that article six of the treaty – which calls for countries bound by the treaty to provide victim assistance and environmental remediation – could absolve the US from responsibility to address damage caused by nuclear tests. Efforts to establish an international trust fund to support article six are ongoing.
'While we want to make sure that there's no nuclear testing and no nuclear war … we feel the TPNW doesn't go far enough to address issues that affect all of us,' said the Marshall Islands ambassador to the UN, John Silk.
Speaking on a panel of nuclear survivors and frontline communities, Kiribati's UN ambassador, Teburoro Tito, encouraged the Marshall Islands and all countries to sign and ratify the treaty.
'We hope they will soon join the TPNW which we believe is the most effective way of dealing with the aftermath of nuclear use and testing,' Tito said.
Johnson wants to raise awareness of the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons in the Pacific and sees the treaty as a pathway toward justice. She says the time has come to end the threat nuclear weapons pose to all countries.
'We must commit to ensuring that the world never forgets the events that transpired in Kiribati and other Pacific nations,' she said. 'Their voices are not merely echoes of the past. They serve as critical warnings for our future.'
Speaking at the UN this month, Johnson was resolute.
'We are not passively awaiting justice; we are actively demanding it.'

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

The National
28 minutes ago
- The National
The UK's silence on Gaza will haunt generations to come
You could be mistaken for thinking I am describing some Second World War scenario, but depressingly, this is the reality in Gaza today. Despite repeated promises of a ceasefire, and a commitment to lift the siege of Gaza and allow aid to enter, Israel is still blocking food from reaching starving Palestinians. A UN spokesperson recently announced that only five trucks of aid had reached more than two million people trapped in Gaza, and even then, aid workers were not given permission to distribute that tiny amount. READ MORE: How much has your MP claimed in expenses? See the full Scottish list here According to The New York Times, over the past year, Israel has been in talks with private US security contractors, namely former CIA veteran Philip Reilly, to create an Israeli-backed food distribution programme. In February of this year, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) was established with the backing of the Trump administration. United Nations aid expert Tom Fletcher said that the GHF makes aid conditional on Israel's political and military aims, and 'makes starvation a bargaining chip'. The former head of GHF resigned last week citing the foundation's inability to uphold the core humanitarian principles of 'neutrality, impartiality and independence'. According to The New York Times, the GHF emerged from 'private meetings of like-minded officials, military officers and businesspeople with close ties to the Israeli government'. It is therefore very convenient that the GHF, supported by Israel, uses biometric screening, including facial recognition, to vet who receives aid. Critics also warn that the GHF's decision to concentrate aid in southern Gaza serves as a further attempt to depopulate northern Gaza, as planned by the Israeli military. The GHF's lack of experience and capacity to deliver aid to more than two million Palestinians was laid bare on its very first day of operation. We saw images of thousands of starving Palestinians rushing to try to reach food, after three months of Israeli-imposed starvation. Those lucky enough to access food went on to discover there was only enough for a couple of days at most. What began as a retaliatory campaign, after Hamas killed around 1200 Israelis and kidnapped 250 more, has since turned to genocide. As it stands, Israel has killed more than 61,000 Palestinians – of which nearly 20,000 were children. Almost all of Gaza's homes have been damaged or destroyed, alongside 80% of facilities, 88% of school buildings and 70% of road networks and cropland. 222 journalists have been killed since the October 7 attack, of which 217 were Palestinian. The disproportionate response from Israel and the continual breaking of international law means it is beyond doubt that Israeli actions are a deliberate military attempt to seize more Palestinian land. Israel places evacuation orders on areas it plans to bomb, only to issue further evacuation orders to the places people have been displaced to. READ MORE: MSP demands answers from Police Scotland over Kneecap 'security concerns' Most people in Gaza have moved repeatedly in attempts to escape Israeli airstrikes, though no part of Gaza has been spared attacks. The Israeli military has issued more than 65 evacuation orders since October 7, 2023, leaving about 80% of the Gaza Strip under active evacuation orders. Following this, Israel has authorised 22 new settlements in the occupied West Bank. This is despite the International Court of Justice ruling that Israel's settlement policy is a direct breach of international law. Israel Katz, the country's defence minister, said the decision to expand these illegal settlements 'strengthens our hold on Judea and Samaria', using the biblical term for the West Bank, which is Palestinian territory. Israel's far-right finance minister Bezalel Smotrich said: 'We have not taken foreign land, but rather the inheritance of our forefathers.' Breaking international law in the name of religion is exactly the kind of behaviour we would describe as extremism. Bombing innocent civilians who are sheltering in hospitals and schools, to the point of obliteration, can only be described as terrorism. READ MORE: 'Do something!': Question Time audience member in fiery row with Labour MP on Israel This Labour Government has contorted itself into knots trying to be everything to everyone. One week, the Foreign Secretary David Lammy suspended talks on further trade deals with Israel, only for the British trade envoy, Lord Ian Austin, to visit Israel the next week to 'promote trade'. The UK Government's continual reticence to speak out against this genocide will haunt us for generations to come, especially when compared to how quick off the mark it has been to condemn the Irish band Kneecap. The duplicity of this Labour Government's failure to act efficiently and proportionately in speaking out against this genocide cannot be forgotten. History will certainly never let us forget.


South Wales Guardian
3 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
‘No doubt' UK will spend 3% of GDP on defence by mid-2030s, Healey says
The Government has previously set out its 'ambition to reach 3% in the next parliament', after meeting its pledge to ratchet up defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027. But the Defence Secretary has promised a 'certain decade of rising defence spending', according to The Times, and said there was 'no doubt' the UK would meet its target. Mr Healey told the newspaper: 'It allows us to plan for the long term. It allows us to deal with the pressures.' The Government is looking at the roles, capabilities and reforms required by UK armed forces as part of its strategic defence review (SDR). It will explore 'deliverable and affordable' solutions 'within the resources available to defence within the trajectory of 2.5%'. When he announced the targets earlier this year, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said: 'In an ever more dangerous world, increasing the resilience of our country so we can protect the British people, resist future shocks and bolster British interests, is vital.' The new defence money will be found by reducing UK overseas aid from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI (gross national income), according to the Government, a move which prompted then-international development minister Anneliese Dodds to resign. 'You have maintained that you want to continue support for Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine; for vaccination; for climate; and for rules-based systems,' she told Sir Keir. 'Yet it will be impossible to maintain these priorities given the depth of the cut.' Nato heads of government are set to meet in The Hague, in the Netherlands, next month. Addressing the alliance's parliamentary assembly in Dayton, USA this month, Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte said: 'I assume that in The Hague we will agree on a high defence spend target of, in total, 5%.' A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: 'This Government has announced the largest sustained increase to defence spending since the end of the Cold War – 2.5% by 2027 and 3% in the next parliament when fiscal and economic conditions allow, including an extra £5 billion this financial year. 'The SDR will rightly set the vision for how that uplift will be spent, including new capabilities to put us at the leading edge of innovation in Nato, investment in our people and making defence an engine for growth across the UK – making Britain more secure at home and strong abroad.'


Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
'Stop letting criminals choose their own gender', UN warns after UK police forces allow 49 rapists to identify as female offenders
The United Nations has warned over letting criminals choose their own gender, after a new report found that 49 rapists were allowed to identify as female offenders in the UK. Reem Alsalem, the UN's special rapporteur for violence against women and girls, said at least a third of UK forces were still collecting data on criminals and victims' self-identified gender rather than their assigned sex at birth. Criticising British institutions, she said that the approach 'neglects women's and girls' specific needs' and increases safety risks, Ms Alsalem said in her interim report, which was published on Friday. Over the last 10 years, 49 convictions for rape have been listed as female, despite the fact the offenders were born male. Ms Alsalem added that the 'lack of legislative clarity on sex hampers data collection on violence against women and girls. 'Police data, while disaggregated by crime and location, often conflates the sex with the gender, for data on victims and perpetrators'. Her remarks come a month after the Supreme Court ruled that the definition of a woman relates to 'biological sex'. Lord Hodge said that five Supreme Court justices had unanimously decided that 'the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act refer to a 'biological woman and biological sex'. He recognised 'the strength of feeling on both sides' and cautioned against seeing the judgement as a triumph for one side over another, stressing that the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination. In an 88-page ruling, the justices said: 'The definition of sex in the Equality Act 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man.' The decision could have far-reaching implications on how sex-based rights apply, including how women-only spaces are allowed to operate. The judgement marks the culmination of a long-running legal battle between the Scottish government and a women's group over the definition of a 'woman' in Scottish legislation mandating 50 per cent female representation on public boards. The case centred on whether somebody with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be treated as a woman under the 2010 Equality Act. In handing down the court's judgement, Lord Hodge said: 'The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological woman and biological sex.' 'In a judgement written by Lady Rose, Lady Simler and myself, with whom Lord Reed and Lord Lloyd-Jones agree, we unanimously allow the appeal,' he added. Lord Hodge said: 'But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not… 'The Equality Act gives transgender people protection not only against discrimination through the protected characteristics of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and harassment, in substance in their acquired gender.' He recognised the 'strength of feeling on all sides' which lies behind the case, adding: 'On the one hand women, who make up one half of the population, have campaigned for over 150 years to have equality with men and to combat discrimination based on their sex. That work still continues. 'On the other hand, a vulnerable and often harassed minority, the trans community, struggle against discrimination and prejudice as they seek to live their lives with dignity.' The judgement was celebrated by women's rights groups, who cheered outside the court, opened a bottle of champagne and broke into song after the ruling was handed down. But a furious protester shouted 'trans rights are human rights' at those gathered, adding: 'Even if you kill every last one of us another will be born tomorrow.'