Latest news with #TreatyontheProhibitionofNuclearWeapons
09-05-2025
- Politics
Komeito Calls for Security Dialogue in Northeast Asia
Tokyo, May 9 (Jiji Press)--Komeito, the junior member of Japan's ruling coalition, proposed the establishment of a framework for multilateral security dialogue in Northeast Asia, in its peace-building vision adopted Friday ahead of the 80th anniversary this August of the end of World War II. Komeito made the proposal, looking to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe as a reference. It expects the dialogue framework to include at least Japan, the United States, South Korea, North Korea, China and Russia. In the vision, the party said it is essential to build trust through dialogue among countries, including hostile states, to prevent conflicts in Northeast Asia. As a first step, it suggested starting discussions on common issues such as disaster prevention and climate change. The vision also calls for restricting the use of artificial intelligence for military purposes and creating an environment for Japan to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. "Showing the international community our clear path as a peaceful nation will lead to peace and security," Komeito leader Tetsuo Saito said at a press conference. [Copyright The Jiji Press, Ltd.]
Scientific American
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Scientific American
India and Pakistan Remind Us We Need to Stop the Risk of Nuclear War
We are living in a scary time. After a terrorist attack that killed at least 26 people, mostly Indian tourists, in Kashmir in April, India blamed the attack on Pakistan, threatened to cut off that nation's water supplies and followed up in May with airstrikes. Pakistan has promised a ' measured but forceful response,' threatening a wider war endangering everyone. India and Pakistan each have about 170 nuclear weapons. A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would produce smoke from fires in cities and industrial areas. That smoke would rise into the stratosphere, the atmospheric layer above the troposphere where we live, which has no rain to wash out the smoke. Our research has found that the smoke would block out the sun, making it cold, dark and dry at Earth's surface, choking agriculture for five years or more around the world. The result would be global famine. Like it or not, humanity still has a nuclear dagger pointed at its throat. But there is another choice that starts with the U.S. If we take our land-based missiles off their hair-trigger alerts and negotiate with Russia to reduce our nuclear arsenal, we could set an example for the rest of the world. If we eventually sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the U.S. could provide an example to Iran and other nations with an interest in building their own nuclear arsenal. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. The alternatives are terrifying. One of us (Robock) published an article in Scientific American 15 years ago describing how a war in South Asia, like the one now possible between India and Pakistan, could produce global climate change and threaten the world's food supply, but we did not know how large that threat would be. In the years since then we have calculated, for a range of smoke amounts released from nuclear war, the specific effects on agriculture in each nation. From there, we estimated how the people would fare under the assumption that their stored food was gone, trade was halted, and they kept the same agricultural activity. A nuclear war between India and Pakistan could kill one to two billion people through starvation in the two years after the war. The U.S. and Russia have more than 8,000 deployed nuclear weapons. A nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia could kill more than six billion people around the world in the following two years. The direct impacts of blast, radiation and fire on those attacked by nuclear weapons would be horrific, as we know from what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, but 10 to 20 times more people would die from famine. Many people assume that there will never be another nuclear war, since it has now been 80 years and several generations since the last one. They also have been told that nuclear deterrence must be maintained to keep us safe. Yet threats to use nuclear weapons from Russia and North Korea, and even from the U.S. president, have worried many. The New START treaty, the only remaining arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia, expires next year. China is rapidly increasing its nuclear arsenal. President Trump just proposed a budget for the next fiscal year with a 13 percent increase for the Defense Department. This is exactly the wrong direction for the U.S. A substantial part of the defense budget is for a ' modernization ' of our nuclear arsenal. Our nuclear 'triad' is composed of land-based missiles, submarine missiles and nuclear bombs that could be dropped from airplanes. We already have all of these, and they cannot be used without the risk of killing almost all the people on the planet. They need to be removed, not modernized. Deterrence is a myth. The theory is that we will not be attacked because we will attack an enemy if they attack us, thus deterring them. But in order for it to work, they have to believe that we will act as a suicide bomber. That is, that we will attack an enemy, producing so much smoke that we will be unable to grow any crops for more than five years and thus all starve to death. This is not mutual assured destruction (the so-called 'MAD' theory). It is self-assured destruction (SAD). The upcoming Independent Study on Potential Environmental Effects of Nuclear War, a report from the U.S. National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine due out this summer, the first such report since 1985, will make this danger more plain. The rest of the world well understands the risk we all face. In 2017, after three international conferences on the humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons, including the indirect effects on food supply based on our work, the United Nations passed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which prohibits possession, manufacture, development and testing of nuclear weapons, stationing and installment of nuclear weapons or assistance in such activities, by its parties. The treaty came into force on January 22, 2021. There are currently 94 signatories and 73 states parties, but the nine countries, notably including the U.S., with nuclear weapons have not signed it and are trying to ignore the will of the rest of world. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which led the effort to get this treaty, was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize 'for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons.' For deterrence to succeed, there must be no use of nuclear weapons by accident, terrorists, computer malfunctions, hackers or unstable leaders. We have come close many times. As Beatrice Fihn, executive director of ICAN, said in her Nobel Peace Prize Lecture on December 10, 2017, 'If only a small fraction of today's nuclear weapons were used, soot and smoke from the firestorms would loft high into the atmosphere—cooling, darkening and drying the Earth's surface for more than a decade. It would obliterate food crops, putting billions at risk of starvation. Yet we continue to live in denial of this existential threat.… The story of nuclear weapons will have an ending, and it is up to us what that ending will be. Will it be the end of nuclear weapons, or will it be the end of us? One of these things will happen. The only rational course of action is to cease living under the conditions where our mutual destruction is only one impulsive tantrum away.' When Carl Sagan, a leader in early nuclear-winter research, was asked if he didn't want to keep our nuclear weapons as a deterrent, he said: 'For myself, I would far rather have a world in which the climatic catastrophe cannot happen, independent of the vicissitudes of leaders, institutions, and machines. This seems to me elementary planetary hygiene, as well as elementary patriotism.' We agree.
Mail & Guardian
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Mail & Guardian
Could Ali Mazrui's nuclear pragmatism inspire practical policies?
Kenyan American political scientist Ali Mazrui Possession of nuclear weapons is not incidentally negative, it is directly and purposefully so, designed to instantly kill millions of people upon pressing an intercontinental ballistic missile button, according to Kenyan American political scientist He made this obvious point in the course of comparing what he called the crises of global survival, including climate change and nuclear war. He knew this was an obvious point, although it was often ignored. The Russo-Ukrainian War and the potential fractures in United States extended deterrence have today triggered fears of a renewed nuclear arms race and nuclear proliferation, or even a nuclear war. Contemporary nuclear politics may therefore need creative and even radical ideas that part ways with established practices. One such idea is Mazrui's 'nuclear pragmatism', which holds that horizontal nuclear proliferation — the spread of nuclear weapons to new actors in the Global South — is a necessary step toward a universal nuclear disarmament. He believed this could fundamentally change the mindsets of the leaders of major nuclear powers and encourage them to abolish their arsenals. This idea, a little too counterintuitive for sure, has long been overlooked in the Western canon of security studies literature. I argue that giving it a closer look could at least provoke new lines of thinking. 'Abolish to abolish' and 'proliferate to abolish' are the two schools of thought in Africa on nuclear disarmament championed, respectively, by the first president of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, and by Mazrui. Both Nkrumah and Mazrui were for the total abolition of nuclear weapons. Nkrumah argued that nuclear weapons were too dangerous to be used for any purpose, including deterrence, since a threat of violence itself is a form of violence. Mazrui agreed with Nkrumah that nuclear weapons must be abolished. But the two diverged sharply on how to achieve this. Nkrumah preferred a geographically focused, legally based approach. The ideas of Africa as a nuclear-free zone and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons resonate with the approach once advocated by Nkrumah. Mazrui maintained that Nkrumah's approach could at best lead us to a nuclear-free Africa but not to a nuclear-free planet; the former is meaningless if it does not lead to the latter. Mazrui thus asserted: '… African countries should stop thinking in terms of making Africa a nuclear-free zone.' His alternative suggestion was for African countries to 'reconsider their position' vis-à-vis the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which came into being in 1968. In other words, Mazrui suggested that African countries should (threaten to) withdraw en masse from the treaty. He insisted, '… non-proliferation for the nuclear 'have-nots' will be a nonstarter until it is matched by progressive military denuclearization among the 'haves'.' From Mazrui's point of view a modest proliferation of nuclear weapons in Africa and the Middle East could increase nuclear anxieties among the major nuclear states in the Global North, intensify the pressure on the leadership there for total nuclear disarmament and ultimately lead to the rejection of nuclear weapons by all — and their abolition. He passionately advocated this idea for more than half a century. Unlike Nkrumah's view, Mazrui's idea was never seriously considered in Africa, and it was never referenced in the mainstream discourse on nuclear disarmament. But this appears to be slowly changing in recent years. The assertion made by the United Nations secretary general, António Guterres, in February 2025, however, still accurately captures the prevailing mood about nuclear weapons in the Global South. Guterres said: 'The nuclear option is no option at all.' Mazrui's nuclear pragmatism is based on at least four assumptions: (1) nuclear weapons are evil by nature and should be illegitimate, not just for some, but for all; (2) a modest horizontal nuclear proliferation in the Global South would increase nuclear anxieties within the major nuclear powers; (3) this anxiety, in turn, would intensify the public pressure on the leaders of the major nuclear states for total military denuclearisation; and (4) ultimately, the whole process would lead to the rejection of nuclear weapons by all and their total abolition. Mazrui started from the premise that the nuclear accident at Therefore, he posed the question: what other, less catastrophic alternatives might lead to global nuclear disarmament? What thus came into being was his nuclear pragmatism: horizontal nuclear proliferation, specifically a modest increase in nuclear capabilities in Africa and the Middle East, could offer such an alternative, fostering a climate where crises may be manageable and constructive. Of course, horizontal nuclear proliferation has its risks, Mazrui added, but are those risks really more dangerous than the risks of vertical proliferation in arsenals of the superpowers themselves? A key element of Mazrui's nuclear pragmatism is the distrust that Western powers have about nuclear weapons in the Global South. This distrust could be beneficial if it generates enough alarm in the Northern Hemisphere, which could, in turn, lead to a significant movement aimed at declaring nuclear weapons illegitimate for all nations and working toward their elimination in every country that possesses them. It must nevertheless be reiterated that Mazrui never overlooked the risks associated with nuclear proliferation. The ideal scenario for him was total nuclear disarmament or an initiative toward that end without any additional nuclear stockpile (vertical nuclear proliferation) and additional membership in the nuclear club (horizontal nuclear proliferation). For him, however, horizontal nuclear proliferation would lead to a sufficiently great sense of imminent peril to tilt the judgment in favor of total denuclearization in the military field everywhere. According to Mazrui, the racial prejudices and cultural distrust of the white members of the nuclear club may well serve the positive function of disbanding the larger club. The geographical focus of horizontal nuclear proliferation was to be Africa and the Middle East. But a modest horizontal proliferation in the Middle East would be more dangerous in global terms than a slightly higher level of proliferation in Latin America or Africa. This is partly because a regional war in the Middle East carries a greater risk of escalating into a world war than does a regional war in Latin America or Africa. It was, therefore, the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East that could cause greater alarm in the Global North and trigger a movement for the prohibition of nuclear weapons for all. 'Perhaps until now, the major powers have worried only about 'the wrongs weapons in the right hands,'' Mazrui reasoned, 'when nuclear devices pass into Arab or African hands, a new nightmare will have arrived — 'the wrong weapon in the wrong hands'.' This Northern fear could be an asset for getting the North to agree to total and universal denuclearisation in the military field. Dr Seifudein Adem is a research fellow at JICA Ogata Research Institute for Peace and Development in Tokyo, Japan. He is also Ali Mazrui's intellectual biographer.
Herald Malaysia
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Herald Malaysia
Archbishop to UN: Dialogue, disarmament 'best way' to honor Pope Francis
Archbishop Gabriele Caccia shared his thoughts in addresses at the UN's New York headquarters May 01, 2025 File photo of Archbishop Gabriele Giordano Caccia with Pope Francis. (Photo: Vatican News) By Gina Christian, OSV NewsThe Holy See's diplomat to the United Nations has reiterated a call to end nuclear proliferation, saying the best way to honor the late Pope Francis is to "rediscover the spirit" that created the global organization following World War II, and collaboratively strive for Gabriele Caccia, the Holy See's UN permanent observer, shared his thoughts in two April 29 addresses at the UN's New York a plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly convened to commemorate Pope Francis -- who died April 21 at age 88 -- Archbishop Caccia stressed the late pontiff "recognized the fundamental importance of multilateralism, with the UN at its center." While "not afraid to highlight the need" for what he'd called "reform and adaptation," the late pope was "clear" that the UN was necessary, said Archbishop Caccia. He cited three key moments that demonstrated Pope Francis' belief in the importance of the UN -- the late pope's Sept. 25, 2015, address to the UN General Assembly, delivered amid an apostolic journey to the US and Cuba; a joint statement Pope Francis issued with UN Secretary-General António Guterres in 2020; and the iconic March 27, 2020, prayer of Pope Francis during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic prayer in particular -- which saw a solitary Pope Francis praying for the world from an empty St. Peter's Square amid the rain -- vividly illustrated global interdependence, said Archbishop Caccia. He added that Pope Francis had also warned of an "uncontained pandemic, a moral one, which he defined as 'the globalization of indifference.'" Such indifference, coupled with fear, has led to an increased "erosion of international peace and security, widespread political instability and a growing disregard for multilateralism and international law," said Archbishop Caccia, speaking April 29 during the UN general debate on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Adopted by the UN in 2017, the treaty serves as a legally binding instrument towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. To date, there are 94 state signatories and 73 states parties to the treaty. Neither the United States or Russia, which together account for approximately 88 percent of the world's nuclear weapons, has adopted the treaty. "Conflicts continue to erupt and to intensify in various regions, further exacerbating global tensions and human suffering, especially among those in the most vulnerable situations," Archbishop Caccia said. Currently, more than 120 conflicts are taking place throughout the world, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross Among the most prominent are Russia's war in Ukraine; the Israel-Hamas war; civil wars in Myanmar and Sudan; insurgencies in various African nations, as well as in Afghanistan and Pakistan; and armed gang violence that has destabilized Haiti. Military spending has soared worldwide, with the global total reaching a record high of close to $2.5 trillion in 2024, up more than 7 percent from 2023 and averaging just under 2 percent of nations' gross domestic product. The European Union, the United Kingdom and Canada have accelerated defense investments, as the US under the Trump administration has unsettled longstanding defense alliances. Yet, said Archbishop Caccia, "international peace cannot rest on a false sense of security based on the threat of mutual destruction, total annihilation or the fragile balance of military powers." Rather, "the international community has a moral responsibility to advance disarmament, particularly in light of the rapid evolution of delivery systems and cybertechnologies," he said. The archbishop underscored the "urgent need" to prioritize disarmament, with military spending redirected for peaceful purposes through a global fund dedicated to hunger elimination and development for emerging nations -- a proposal the Holy See had previously advanced. Archbishop Caccia once again urged nations to adopt the UN's treaty against nuclear proliferation. "Even as the winds of war blow with renewed force and fear threatens to overshadow peace and human fraternity," he said, "a world free of nuclear weapons is not only possible, but necessary."--
The Mainichi
01-05-2025
- Politics
- The Mainichi
A-bomb survivor warns of decline of 'nuclear taboo' in U.N. meeting
NEW YORK (Kyodo) -- A Japanese atomic bomb survivor expressed hope for progress at a major U.N. conference on nuclear disarmament next year, warning at a preparatory session on Wednesday of the increased fear of the use of nuclear weapons following Russia's war against Ukraine. "We have high expectations for the role of the NPT review conference in a world where the decline of the 'nuclear taboo' is a growing concern," said Hiroshi Kanamoto, representing 2024 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Nihon Hidankyo, Japan's leading atomic bomb survivors' group, referring to the review meeting on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. "Will the NPT, which entered into force half a century ago in 1970, continue discussions indefinitely without any progress?" the 80-year-old who survived the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima in 1945 said, noting that the "ardent wish" of aging survivors is to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons in their lifetime. Kanamoto delivered his speech during a session attended by nongovernmental organizations as part of the third, and final, meeting of the preparatory committee for the 2026 NPT review conference, which will lay the groundwork for whether a final document can be adopted next year. The last two NPT review conferences, held in 2015 and 2022 at the U.N. headquarters, were unable to reach agreement on any substantive outcome documents, amid divisions between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states. In 2022, last-minute opposition from Russia scuttled hopes for consensus at the conclusion. Noting that atomic bomb survivors rejoiced when a U.N. nuclear ban treaty entered into force in 2021, Kamamoto said "the nuclear taboo" seems to be "wavering." "We are now living in a very dangerous world," he said, citing Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine that began in 2022 and the deadly conflict between Israel and Hamas that started in 2023. The review conference convenes once every five years, in principle, to assess the situation surrounding nuclear disarmament among other issues under the treaty, which now has 191 parties. The NPT recognizes Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States as nuclear weapons states and obliges them to pursue nuclear disarmament. The move to create the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was led by some non-nuclear weapon states and civil society campaigns increasingly frustrated with the stalled progress on disarmament. Japan, the only country in the world to have experienced nuclear attacks, has not signed the nuclear weapons ban treaty. The Asian nation relies on the nuclear deterrence provided by its security ally, the United States, and the government has called for maintaining and strengthening the NPT regime.
