The recent observance of the 79th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which took place on August 6 and 9, 1945, still remains as a forbidding reminder of the destructive consequences of nuclear weapons. It emerged subsequently that the US bombings killed an estimated 90,000 to 210,000, with roughly half of the deaths occurring on the first day in Hiroshima.
Nevertheless, despite an intense global campaign for nuclear disarmament, the world has witnessed an increase in the number of nuclear powers from five—the US, UK, France, China and Russia—to nine, including India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. There are also reports that this trend of increase in nuclear powers might soon also include Iran and South Korea. They are already been considered as potential nuclear powers of the future.
A report prepared by Noram, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International has pointed out that South Africa is the only country that has voluntarily given up nuclear weapons after developing them. In the 1980s, South Africa produced six nuclear weapons, but dismantled them between 1989 and 1993.
A number of factors may have influenced South Africa’s decision, including national security, international relations, and a desire to avoid becoming a pariah state. However, it also needs to be pointed out that there have been no nuclear wars—only threats—largely because of the success of the world-wide anti-nuclear campaign, the role of the United Nations and the collective action by most of the 193 member states in adopting several anti-nuclear treaties. According to the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), the United Nations has sought to eliminate weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) ever since the establishment of the world body.
One needs to recall in this regard the fact that the first Resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1946 established a Commission to deal with problems related to the discovery of atomic energy, among others. This Commission was also allowed to make proposals for, inter alia, the control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes. Several multilateral treaties have since been established with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation and testing, while promoting progress in nuclear disarmament. These include the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, which was signed in 1996 but has yet to be in force, and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
Jackie Cabasso, a nuclear analyst who monitors and analyzes US nuclear weapons programs has mentioned something which needs to be taken seriously- “as we approach the 79th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world is facing a greater danger of nuclear war than at any time since 1945. The terrifying doctrine of nuclear deterrence, which should long ago have been delegitimized and relegated to the dustbin of history and replaced with multilateral, non-militarized common security, has metastasized into a pathological ideology brandished by nuclear-armed states and their allies to justify the perpetual possession and threatened use—including first use—of nuclear weapons”. She has also added that “it appears to be more important than ever that we heed the warnings of the aging nuclear bomb survivors. What happened to us must never be allowed to happen to anyone again- nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist; no more Hiroshimas, no more Nagasakis!”
She is absolutely right. However, this demands an irreversible process of nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, on the contrary, she has observed that during the current multiple global crises “all nuclear armed states are qualitatively and, in some cases, quantitatively upgrading their nuclear arsenals and a new multipolar arms race is underway, she noted”. She has also indicated that- “we will also need to stimulate a rational hope that security can be redefined in humanitarian and ecologically sustainable terms that will lead to the elimination of nuclear weapons and dramatic demilitarization, freeing up tremendous resources desperately needed to address universal human needs and protect the environment. Our work for the elimination of nuclear weapons must take place in a much broader framework, taking into account the interface between nuclear and conventional weapons and militarism in general, the humanitarian and long-term environmental consequences of nuclear war, and the fundamental incompatibility of nuclear weapons with democracy, the rule of law, and human wellbeing”.
In this regard one needs to thank Professor Dr. M.V. Ramana for recalling what Khana said nearly eight hundred years ago- “The glass is half-full or half-empty depending on how one looks at it.” While South Africa is the only country that dismantled its entire nuclear weapons program, many other countries—Sweden, for example—have chosen not to develop nuclear weapons even though they have the technical capacity to do so. They did so in part because of strong public opposition to nuclear weapons, which in turn was due to social movements supporting nuclear disarmament. Thus, organizing for nuclear disarmament is not futile.
Addressing the UN Security Council last March, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that with geopolitical tensions escalating, the risk of nuclear warfare has reached its highest point in decades. It was also reiterated that reducing and abolishing nuclear weapons was the only viable path to saving humanity. He added that- “there is one path—and one path only—that will vanquish this senseless and suicidal shadow once and for all. We need disarmament now,” he said, urging nuclear-weapon States to re-engage to prevent any use of a nuclear weapon, re-affirm moratoria on nuclear testing and “urgently agree that none of them will be the first to use nuclear weapons.” He also called for reductions in the number of nuclear weapons led by the holders of the largest arsenals—the United States and the Russian Federation—to “find a way back to the negotiating table” to fully implement the New Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, or START Treaty, and agree on its successor. Pope Francis has also called the possession of nuclear arms “immoral” and added that – humanity cannot survive a sequel to what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
When Nagasaki marked the 78th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of the city last year, the Mayor Shiro Suzuki also urged world powers to abolish nuclear weapons, saying nuclear deterrence also increases risks of nuclear war. He called on the Group of Seven (G7) industrial powers to adopt a separate document on nuclear disarmament that called for using nuclear weapons as deterrence. Suzuki also underlined that “as long as states are dependent on nuclear deterrence, we cannot realize a world without nuclear weapons.”
It needs to be mentioned that AP has issued a report that Suzuki, whose parents were hibakusha, or survivors of the Nagasaki attack, had tasted reality of the harm created by atomic bombings and that is why Shiro Suzuki is such a staunch supporter for achieving a world without nuclear weapons. In this context, we need to appreciate the point that survivors’ testimonies are a true deterrent against nuclear weapons use. Some geo-strategic analysts have discoursed that Russia’s nuclear threat has encouraged other nuclear states to accelerate their dependence on nuclear weapons or enhance capabilities- further increasing the risk of nuclear war. However, one must understand that Russia is not the only one representing the risk of nuclear deterrence.
Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialized in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance, can be reached at <muhammadzamir0@gmail.com>
