SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons
Nuclear Justice Efforts Are Here to Stay
The states that have caused harm to peoples around the planet can finally stop pretending that such harms are either nonexistent or that they have done enough to address them.
Nov 19, 2024
On November 7, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly supported a resolution to help victims of nuclear weapons use and testing. Brought forward by the Republics of Kazakhstan and Kiribati, and co-sponsored by 39 additional U.N. Member States, the resolution received 169 votes in favor, with only four nuclear weapon possessors—Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom—voting against it. The remaining five nuclear armed states (China, India, Israel, Pakistan, and the United States), plus Poland, all abstained.
The vote is a resounding affirmation that nuclear justice efforts are here to stay. The states that have caused harm to peoples around the planet, including their own citizens and those whose care they were entrusted with, can finally stop pretending that such harms are either nonexistent or that they have done enough to address them. The nuclear weapon possessors, most especially the five nuclear weapon states—China, France, Russia, United States, and the United Kingdom—recognized as such by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, must engage in earnest.
Ultimately, nuclear justice must also include elimination of all nuclear weapon arsenals. This would ensure that the suffering of those impacted by nuclear weapons has not been in vain.
Ever-growing understanding of the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapon attacks by the United States on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the testing of nuclear weapons that lasted for decades and reached numerous corners of the globe, provided a huge impetus behind the Humanitarian Initiative, a successful effort started in the early 2010s by a group of states in collaboration with civil society, all motivated to change the nuclear weapons status quo. Coupled with the growing appreciation of what nuclear war would bring today or tomorrow (subject of another U.N. resolution that passed this month with 141 in favor votes, 30 abstentions, and France, Russia, and the United Kingdom voting no), as well as the research on the risk of nuclear weapon use and the recognition that no adequate response could be devised for such a possibility, the Humanitarian Initiative led to successful efforts to bring into the U.N. system a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons (Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons or TPNW).
When the TPNW was drafted in 2017, the diplomats recognized that it wasn’t enough to prohibit nuclear weapon activities, but that the past and present consequences for people and the environment had to be addressed head-on. This led to the Articles 6 and 7 of the TPNW on victim assistance, environmental remediation, and international cooperation, which are collectively referred to as the humanitarian provisions of the treaty. The goal is not just to make these ongoing harms integral to the effort to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons, but to address them directly and provide tangible results for the communities that have suffered from adverse health and socioeconomic impacts for decades and whose environments may still be radiologically contaminated. Having entered into force in 2021, the TPNW is now faced with the implementation of these provisions for two states that are already parties to the treaty, Republics of Kazakhstan and Kiribati. Kazakhstan was the site of 456 Soviet nuclear tests from 1949 to 1991, while Kiribati was home from 1957 to 1962 to United States and United Kingdom tests whose cumulative yield was equivalent to more than 2,000 Hiroshima bombs.
The humanitarian provisions of the TPNW have led to the broadening of conversations about these harms and the new norm arising from the treaty of the obligation to address them. While the United States had a Radiation Exposure Compensation Act from the early 1990s until its expiration earlier this year, and France introduced its Loi Morin law in 2010, these efforts have been severely limited in their scope and impact. In both cases, the definition of a victim was restricted in such a way as to prevent many of those harmed from qualifying for the compensation. Even for the people who have qualified, the assistance has been inadequate. Worse yet is the case of all of the communities that have been completely disregarded and excluded from such compensation schemes.
What is particularly powerful about the nuclear justice resolution is that, with the exception of Poland this year, it has left the nuclear weapon possessors totally alone. Even their closest friends and allies have now voted in favor of the resolution for the second year in a row. More than 70 states that have not yet joined the TPNW have now affirmed that nuclear justice is a worthwhile effort they are ready to stand behind. In this way, the resolution is a powerful example of the way in which the TPNW Is already having an impact on international norms and policies even as nearly half of U.N. Members States have yet to join the treaty.
The road to nuclear justice is long. It will include acknowledgment, compensation, and the promise to never cause such harms again. The next phase must consist of genuine and independent assessment of needs both for victim assistance and environmental remediation in all impacted areas, with the international community coming together to offer help, including technical and financial assistance. How much remains to be done will in many ways depend on what the assessments demonstrate.
Ultimately, nuclear justice must also include elimination of all nuclear weapon arsenals. This would ensure that the suffering of those impacted by nuclear weapons has not been in vain. Instead, future generations will see it as the rallying call that brought the international community together to guarantee the right of survival to humanity and our fellow Earth inhabitants for the foreseeable future.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Isn’t the Nuclear Threat a 2024 Campaign Issue?
Neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris has volunteered positions on nuclear arsenals or nuclear abolition, due to either not wanting to appear weak or a lack of understanding of the risks of their continued existence.
Sep 27, 2024
Thursday was the United Nations International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. This day was initially declared in 2013 as a way to heighten awareness of the threat of nuclear weapons in an attempt to educate the world community and reaffirm its commitment to global nuclear disarmament. Next year is the 80th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the first and only use of nuclear weapons, immediately killing an estimated 210,000 men, women, and children with scores dying in the ensuing years from cancers, burns, injuries, and other lethal effects of the bombs.
Following World War II, nuclear disarmament has been one of the highest priorities of the United Nations and was the subject of the first General Assembly resolution in 1946. Unfortunately, the aftermath of WWII also saw the Cold War and the first nuclear arms race between the United States and the former Soviet Union. By 1986 this armed the world with 70,300 nuclear weapons. Through arms reduction treaties over the years that number has been reduced to approximately 12,100 weapons this year.
While the significant reductions in nuclear weapons is notable, the knowledge of the humanitarian consequences following the use of nuclear weapons from only a single weapon or a limited or full-scale nuclear war confirms the insanity of the very existence of any number of these weapons.
With the passing of the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, let us ensure that future generations look back on our time here and realize that we saw the threat to our existence and took the necessary actions to eliminate that possibility.
Yet today we remain as close or closer to nuclear war than at any time since the dropping of the first nuclear weapons. The world is full of potential nuclear hot spots: the current war in Ukraine with Russian President Vladimir Putin threatening the use of battlefield nuclear weapons and more, the war raging in Israel against Gaza, the constant tensions between India and Pakistan, the tensions between China and Taiwan, and finally ongoing tensions with North Korea.
These flash points, in addition to the growing catastrophic effects of climate change resulting in further international conflict, as well as disruptive technologies, including cyber attacks and the potential use of AI, caused the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to move their infamous Doomsday Clock to 90 seconds to midnight for the second year in a row.
In this setting, and in the midst of the current U.S. presidential campaign, mainstream media has largely been oblivious to or unaware of the growing national and international nuclear abolition movement and efforts therein. The presidential campaign has seen no discussion of nuclear weapons or abolition, and only candidate Trump has mentioned them in vague reference to deterrence or World War III. Neither candidate has volunteered positions during this campaign on nuclear arsenals or nuclear abolition, due to either not wanting to appear weak or a lack of understanding of the risks of their continued existence.
Certainly the awareness and understanding of the consequences of nuclear weapons and their use can be overwhelming, paralyzing, and often daunting to address. Yet we must be aware of the risks they pose and the opportunities before us. This past year has seen significant increased awareness of nuclear weapons following the Oppenheimer film; the subsequent New York Times series, “At The Brink,” covering our nuclear world; and finally Annie Jacobsen’s New York Times best-selling book, Nuclear War: A Scenario, which describes in graphic detail the end of civilization playing out in 24 minutes, following a hypothetical nuclear attack by North Korea on the United States and the self-fulfilling prophecy of the reflexive apocalyptic response. This book should be mandatory reading for any presidential candidate or member of Congress, requiring their response for how they plan to prevent this scenario.
On this week of the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, there is much happening, both internationally and here in the United States. As people are made aware of the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, they are demanding abolition of these weapons and for our leaders to take action immediately. Internationally, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has three new nations ratifying the treaty this week, bringing the total to 73—with 25 additional signatory nations awaiting ratification.
This movement has been spearheaded by ICAN, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons. In the United States there is an intersectional grassroots movement that is rapidly growing called “Back From the Brink.” Supporting the TPNW, this movement calls on the United States to take a leadership role in convening the nine nuclear nations for a verifiable, time bound effort to abolish all nuclear weapons. In addition, it includes the actionable precautionary measures until abolition has been realized. These include a no-first-use policy, eliminating the authority of any president to initiate nuclear war, removing our weapons from hair trigger alert, and finally canceling the plan to replace all of our nuclear weapons with new, enhanced nuclear weapons.
Back From the Brink has the support of 490 organizations, 77 cities and counties, eight state legislative bodies, 44 members of Congress, and 428 municipal and state officials. It also has a U.S. House of Representatives resolution, H. Res 77, sponsored by Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern and supported by 44 members of Congress. Back From the Brink can be endorsed by all, and currently there are 19 local hubs across the nation working collaboratively and in coalition with their communities to build support for this effort.
With the passing of the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, let us ensure that future generations look back on our time here and realize that we saw the threat to our existence and took the necessary actions to eliminate that possibility. Each of us has a role to play in making this a reality.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hiroshima Survivors Warn Against Nuclear War 79 Years After US Bombing
"The world needs to stop nuclear war from ever happening again," said one hibakusha. "But when I turn on the news, I see politicians talk about deploying more weapons, more tanks. How could they?"
Aug 06, 2024
As the number of people who survived the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rapidly dwindles 79 years after the attacks, hibakusha—the Japanese word for the survivors—and others are imploring humanity to do everything possible to avert another nuclear war.
"People still don't get it. The atomic bomb isn't a simple weapon. I speak as someone who suffers until this day: The world needs to stop nuclear war from ever happening again," Shigeaki Mori, who was an 8-year-old boy on his way to school on the morning of August 6, 1945,
toldThe New York Times. "But when I turn on the news, I see politicians talk about deploying more weapons, more tanks. How could they? I wish for the day they stop that."
Keiko Aguro was also 8 years old and standing on a road near her home in Hiroshima when a U.S. B-29 Superfortress dropped one bomb over Hiroshima that exploded with the force of 16 kilotons of TNT. The explosion destroyed nearly everything and everyone within about a 1-mile (1.62 km) radius. As many as 90,000 people died from the heat, blast wave, and ensuing inferno. Tens of thousands of others were injured, many of them mortally. Tens of thousands more would perish from radiation over the following weeks, months, and years.
"As survivors, we cannot do anything but tell our story," Aguro said. "'For we shall not repeat the evil'—this is the pledge of survivors. Until we die, we want to tell our story, because it's difficult to imagine."
"Now what survivors worry about is to die and meet our family in heaven," Aguro added. "I heard many survivors say, 'What shall I do? On this planet there are still many many nuclear weapons, and then I'll meet my daughter I couldn't save. I'll be asked: Mom, what did you do to abolish nuclear weapons?' There is no answer I can tell them."
Three days after Hiroshima, Nagasaki was obliterated in a 20-kiloton air burst that killed as many as 75,000 people that day, with a similar number of people wounded and tens of thousands more dying later from radiation.
The authors of the Times piece—Kathleen Kingsbury, W.J. Hennigan, and Spencer Cohen—wrote that "as another anniversary of August 6 passes, it is necessary for Americans—and the globe, really—to listen to the stories of the few human beings who can still speak to the horror nuclear weapons can inflict before this approach is taken again."
However, they note that "countries like the United States, China, and Russia are spending trillions of dollars to modernize their stockpiles," while "many of the safeguards that once lowered nuclear risk are unraveling and the diplomacy needed to restore them is not happening."
"The threat of another blast can't be relegated to history," the trio wrote. But they added that nearly eight decades later, many Americans still hail the bombings as "necessary and heroic acts that brought the war to an end."
But the prevailing U.S. historical narrative—which portrays the bombings as critical to ending the war—ignores the lack of consensus and grave misgivings among senior military commanders about dropping the bombs. Seven of the eight five-star generals and admirals at the time opposed its use. One of them, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, later said as president that "the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)—which won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work on the landmark Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons—marked this year's ignominious anniversary with a report focusing on how children are affected by nuclear war and the threat thereof.
The report contains graphic descriptions of the effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, and of nuclear weapons testing on children around the world. It also explains how fear of thermonuclear annihilation affected children during the Cold War and how humanity can protect children by disarming.
"Today, several thousand nuclear weapons still exist in the arsenals of nine countries, posing a unique existential threat to people everywhere, especially children. Many have vastly greater explosive yields than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki," the ICAN report states.
"To protect humanity from the catastrophic harm that nuclear weapons are designed to inflict, governments must act with urgency to eliminate them completely—the only guarantee against their further use and testing," the publication continues. "This would be a great service to the current generation of children and to all future generations, who would grow up free from the threat of nuclear war."
"The alternative is to pass on to them a world still teetering on the brink of catastrophe," ICAN added. "Or, quite unthinkable, a world reeling from the horrors of another nuclear attack, perhaps with a death toll orders of magnitude greater than that of the atomic bombings of 1945."
Echoing ICAN, Hiroshima Gov. Hidehiko Yuzaki said during the annual commemoration of the bombing at Hiroshima Peace Park that "as long as nuclear weapons exist, they will surely be used again someday."
"Nuclear weapons abolition is not an ideal to achieve far in the future," Yuzaki stressed. "Instead, it is a pressing and real issue that we should desperately engage in at this moment since nuclear problems involve an imminent risk to human survival."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular