ICAN Nuclear Ban Proposal and Refusal of Nuclear Weapon States

In March 2017, a new discussion and vote on an global ban on nuclear weapons has happened at the UN which gave very interesting results:  132 countries participated and a large majority of countries voted Yes to negotiate such a ban.

This sounds promising for reducing the risk of nuclear disaster in the world right?

Unfortunately, it is not that simple.

Let's paint the picture:  there are 5 states that currently and officially declare they have Nuclear weapons:  The United States of America, Great Britain, France, Russia and China.   4 other states are either thought to have nuclear weapons or have very recently demonstrated they they do through testing and outside observation.  Those countries are India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.

So 9 states that currently have nuclear weapon capabilities, 5 of which have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968.  

All of these 9 states have said No to the most recent ICAN proposal (ICAN is the International Committee to Ban Nuclear Weapons) to negotiate said ban.

This is disturbing to me, and as shown by other countries that have either voted No or have Abstained (mostly western world or developed countries really), have delivered official reasons being that without the nuclear state's participation, in these negotiations, it would be both pointless and dangerous to move forward.

I tend to agree.

I discuss this and my own version of bold solutions in the following video:

There is of course lots of logic enunciated by ambassadors and officials around this, of course.  For one, let's look at the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) here.  The core pillars that this highly successful treaty from an acceptance point of view, with only 4 important countries that are not signatories (only 1 of which is thought to possess nuclear weapons, Israel):

Pillar #1:  Non-Proliferation.  Basically, if you have nukes, don't sell, share or teach others how to build them.  Also, if other non-nuclear nations are trying to build them, do your best to discourage, condemn and sanction these signatory countries.

Pillar #2:  Disarmament.  If you are a nuclear nation, then work with other nuclear nation on your own timetables to reduce your arsenal with the ultimate goal of reducing your stockpiles to zero.  There is no timeline in which this has to be accomplished.

Pillar #3:  Peaceful use of nuclear energy:  signatory countries can develop, share, and encourage in the development of civilian use for nuclear energy (medical, energy production, research purposes etc....)

Now, the ICAN ban that is going to be negotiated  between June 15th and July 7th 2017 at the UN (since enough votes came in) contains these elements at its core (to be discussed):

• To prohibit the development, production, testing, acquisition, stockpiling, transfer, deployment, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.
• To prohibit signing members from assisting, financing, encouraging and inducing prohibited acts (see above).
• Provides an obligation for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and a framework to achieve it but it would force parties of the treaty to define timelines as part of the implementation process through appropriate legal instruments.  
• Includes positive obligations to pay damages for victims of nuclear weapons activities, including environmental damage.

This sounds great and the wording is much stronger than the NPT of 1968 since it defines legal obligations and legal prohibitions and not only intent. Also, the elimination of nuclear weapons, though still loose, forces signatory countries to establish timelines that would be then legally enforceable.

Great stuff in my opinion.

However, Russia, the USA, France, China and Great Britain (the 5 major nuclear powers, all signatories of the NPT), don't want to even negotiate for the exact same reason.

In a nutshell, they like the NPT and want to create an environment of trust where nuclear weapons would not be needed as deterrents to nuclear war first, then they can continue the disarmament.  At least that's the official story.  

I'm thinking:  how can you get enough trust between nuclear nations (obviously this is mostly Russia and China vs USA, France and Great Britain), when all those nations already have stockpiles.  Remember that even though over the years, stockpiles in numbers have diminished since the cold war, each individual nuclear weapon they have is 3,000 times more powerful than those dropped on Hiroshima!

Because of this, I do understand why many developed nations, friends of those nuclear powers, instead of voting yes, have voted no or have abstained to look good politically:  there IS no point in negotiating this if the nuclear powers don't participate.

I mean, how would other countries with lesser economic powers, weak military forces and no nukes, enforce such a Treaty in 2017 even if it is fully voted in by the UN (which is unlikely, because those same nations have veto a the UN don't they?).

Sweden, as I read the explanations why countries voted yes or no, being a very advanced state, has given me a glimmer of hope by voting YES, and here is their reason why:

1. The security of the world with regards to nuclear disarmament is bigger and more urgent than ever.
2. The NPT for the past number of years has been generally ignored and scheduled to disarm by nuclear countries has stopped.  No recent progress or movement.
3. On principle and on a humanitarian level they say yes because at least it is progress towards a nuclear free world.
4. There is no legal gap between the NPT and the ICAN proposal.  One is an enhancement of the other, contrary to some justifications from nuclear countries in their responses.
5. Sweden's stance must be loud and clear and they take that stance in the hope that other developed nations that do have nuclear power will follow suit and agree to make a real effort to bring about a nuclear weapon free world.

This is very courageous from the Swedish government, always a forerunner in social affairs and wellness.  A great example country to follow.

It is ridiculous to assume the world will be safer with nuclear weapon countries unwilling to continue disarming properly according to a defined timetable and each of them basically waiting for the other superpower to get rid of their nukes before they do.

One must take a stand.

If the USA would unilaterally put out a plan to get rid of their nuclear arsenal, independent to what Russia or China does, it would send a clear message to the whole world that this Sword of Damocles is in the process to be removed and the other powers may, according to their own words, in fact do the same.

Only then we'll have peace of mind and safety.  THEN the confidence can grow dramatically between nations.

Until then, other nations might as well pull out of the NPT and develop their own nukes as a deterrent.  It would only be fair wouldn't it?