The monstrosity of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was evidenced by the droppings of ‘Little boy’ and ‘Fat man’ upon the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 75 years ago. Since then, good traction has been made by both state and non-state actors in the global nuclear disarmament effort, evidenced by the landmark UN Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1970. However, in recent years, the fight against nuclear weapon production has clearly waned, leading to widespread stagnation of disarmament efforts. Reported by the Washington Post, the Trump administration’s recent discussion of conducting nuclear tests, a practice that hasn’t been seen since 1992, has reignited outcry from the nuclear non-proliferation community, with fears that such plans may aggravate security tensions, leading to a new nuclear arms race.
United States bilateral relations
As one of the largest global nuclear powers, the recent actions by Washington have cast a debilitating shadow over disarmament efforts. The collapse of the ‘Iran deal’ (the JCPOA) in May 2018 marked the beginning of this major decline. The voluntary withdrawal by the US drew critique from many of its key allies, not to mention all the nuclear-weapon states including Russia and China.
This was followed by the expiration of the INF Treaty with Russia in the following year, an agreement imposing restrictions on both countries in building intermediate-range missiles. Given more than 90% of all nuclear weapons hail from Russia and the US, the break down of joint bilateral efforts is especially concerning, seen as a major blow for non-proliferation cooperation.
Hopefuls cast emphasis on the New START Treaty (‘Strategic Arms Reduction’), the remaining agreement between Russia and the US, which places limits upon nuclear missile launchers. Set to expire in February 2021, Trump has made it personally clear to President Putin that he is unenthusiastic about renewing the treaty unless China were to come on board.
At present, China has given no indication of joining disarmament negotiations and maintains its enthusiastic encouragement for other states to continue non-proliferation endeavours. This is logical if considering the large disparity in nuclear capabilities that Washington currently has compared to Beijing. However, in the absence of follow up treaties, if all states were free to stockpile and bolster nuclear weaponry, this will likely tip the balance in the opposite direction.
As it alleges non-compliance from its partner states, it is clear that the US has now turned to undo the constraints placed upon its own strategic nuclear capabilities.
The recent position of the US with regards to continuing nuclear development is inflammatory and provoking other nuclear states. The talks for renewed nuclear testing, and the 2021 defence budget which outlines the creation of new nuclear warheads, as well as intermediate-range missiles that were previously denied by the INF treaty, signals a growing arms race against Russia and China. Some have suggested that this is a tactic, nuclear brinkmanship of sorts, that forces partner states to sign on treaty agreements. However, this comes with great risks if not an obvious security dilemma, involving inducement of other states. So far, Russia has confirmed the commencement of negotiations with the US for the START treaty, however, warns against any hopes for Beijing’s cooperation. Given the US’ renewed competition with China, it is unclear again whether these talks will amount to an extension of the treaty. North Korea, on the other hand, seems to have been spurred on by the lack of peace talks with the US, with Kim Jong Un most recently speaking at the 67th anniversary of the Korean War armistice on July 27th, referring to the ‘absolute strength’ of its nuclear weaponry is capable of preventing war.
Multilateral means
In the breakdown of bilateral talks, the prospects for multilateral non-proliferation treaties have also been met with mixed reviews. The UN Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed by 191 states, delivered a turning point in the global effort in mitigating the dangers of WMD. Yet more and more, the relevancy of this treaty is being called into question as states fail to implement key targets for disarmament. Last reviewed in July 2019 by the Arms Control Association, the estimated number of global nuclear warheads is nearly 14,000.
Although this is down from 70,000 since 1986, the pace of reduction has significantly slowed in the last 30 years. The current number of warheads, of which more than 9000 are in military stockpiles, is capable of easily destroying the globe several times. The difficulties of disarmament are further exacerbated as states continue to distrust one another, with no singular state willing to reduce arms without the guarantee that others will follow suit. Without cooperation between Russian and US as the two key role models, this general lack of universality renders non proliferation stagnant, and disarmament seemingly impossible.
The recent Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 2017 (‘Ban Treaty’) has further divided the international community. The ban treaty, which advocates for complete elimination of nuclear weaponry without the reduction phase, has been scorned by many key states including Canberra, for its unrealistic expectations and inability to acknowledge the security realities that govern global relations. The sheer fact that it does not engage any nuclear weapon state is telling of its ineffectiveness.
The current state of nuclear disarmament is clearly lacking and plagued by mistrust. However, given past precedent, there is still hope within the current framework for positive change if sufficient levels of urgency are once again applied by all states. Most importantly, mutual trust must be gained between the nuclear great power states, to influence non proliferation, if we are to see tangible results.
