Three days after attending four days of intense nuclear weapon conferences in the Austrian capital, the title for this opinion piece comes to me as I recall the words sung by Ultravox on their 1981 hit, conveniently called Vienna also.
Over those intense four days we saw and heard everything we needed in order to know that: a) nuclear weapons should never, ever be used again, b) even a “small exchange” of 50 weapons by both sides of a conflict could lead to 2 billion deaths, c) any use would in fact be illegal, d) we are probably at more risk from an accident occurring than from intentional use, e) the development of cyber warfare increases that risk on a daily basis, and f) a nuclear explosion is more likely today than at the end of the cold war.
In addition, it became apparent how in the public consciousness there are two nuclear weapons that exploded (the two on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) whereas there have been dozens of nuclear weapons exploded during above-ground testing in such places as North Africa, the Marshall Islands, Australia, the USA and Kazakhstan among others. In these conferences we were able to hear from survivors from Japan but also survivors from the testing sites. On every occasion the audience was moved, sometimes to tears, at the powerful testimony of destroyed lives, horrifying birth deformities, miscarriages and cancers.
No one left Vienna under any illusion that it would be at all beneficial to humanity if a nuclear weapon were to be detonated.
For decades now the nuclear disarmament process has been largely stuck despite the fact that article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, that entered into force in 1970 and which has been ratified by 189 governments, says this:
“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” (My emphasis added)
Unfortunately in 1995 the treaty, which was originally due to expire that year, was extended indefinitely giving nuclear weapons states all the time in the world to disarm.
Five countries are not signatories of the NPT: South Sudan hasn’t had time to do so yet, India, Pakistan and Israel have no intention of doing so and North Korea, who used to be a signatory, withdrew to pursue their own bomb. The latter four have nuclear weapons and this has blocked the NPT process because the other five weapon states (the USA, UK, Russia, France and China) keep on saying that the time isn’t right for disarmament, disregarding the fact that the treaty doesn’t say that the time should be right, only that the date should be early. Surely 44 years later is stretching the definition of early to its absolute breaking point!
What should the global family of nations do under such circumstances? This is the vexing question that has led civil society and a few courageous governments to focus on these humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons.
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons is an association of 360 NGOs in 93 countries, and includes Pressenza. Their lobbying since 2007 has focused on a possibility to bypass the deadlock in the NPT process and move forward on an element of disarmament that will be an essential component of the process, namely a treaty which bans nuclear weapons. Other weapons of mass destruction have required a ban treaty before the weapons were eliminated so a ban treaty for nuclear weapons would be a useful step forward.
Many countries are calling for it, 44 in this conference alone, yet others are reluctant, saying that all progress must come through the 5-yearly process of the NPT review cycle. In fact ‘reluctant’ is too light, ‘determined to block a ban treaty at all costs’ would be a better way of saying it.
The latter group includes the USA and the UK, who attended a humanitarian impact conference for the first time [this is the third edition; China, Russia and France have not attended any]. In a statement by the US representative at the conference he said, “In this regard, I note the United States does not support efforts to move to a nuclear weapons convention, a ban, or a fixed timetable for elimination of all nuclear weapons.”
These countries show no intention of ever disarming using the blocked NPT as a justification, and instead investing billions of dollars on modernising the weapons they have.
Yet they cannot block countries that want to press ahead with a ban treaty. Those countries have every right to do so and can use mechanisms available with a UN framework.
At the end of the conference Austria signalled a strong interest in pushing forwards with a ban treaty. In their pledge Austria stated:
“Austria calls on all states parties to the NPT to renew their commitment to the urgent and full implementation of existing obligations under Article VI, and to this end, to identify and pursue effective measures to fill the legal gap for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons and Austria pledges to cooperate with all stakeholders to achieve this goal”
….
“Austria pledges to cooperate with all relevant stakeholders, States, International Organisations, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movements, parliamentarians and civil society, in efforts to stigmatise, prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons in light of their unacceptable humanitarian consequences and associated risks.”
The language used left the ICAN delegation elated that the humanitarian initiative could finally lead to some movement in the direction of a ban treaty. Careful reading of the paragraphs though seems to leave Austria with a lot of room for manoeuvre should she loose her enthusiasm or come under too much external pressure.
At the end of the day, if there’s a ban treaty signed and ratified by 184 non-nuclear-weapon countries or not is academic because until the P5 and the rogue 4 sign up to a ban and actually get rid of their weapons the risk of a nuclear explosion will continue to increase.
It is a horrible and macabre thought, but maybe it will take an accidental nuclear explosion in some unfortunate part of the world in order to wake up the consciousness of those who hold the weapons and force them – through sheer necessity after seeing the horror for themselves, and not through the eyes of octogenarian survivors and testing victims – to disarm.
Until then, the USA and the others will continue to sit in conferences with their headphones on. Not listening to the translations of the other conference delegates, but instead with Ultravox blaring into their ears, listening to their eighties music: actually sometimes it feels that things haven’t moved on very much since the eighties in these forums at all.
