In January 2007, a letter calling for a âworld free of nuclear weaponsâ published in the Wall Street Journal by four former US statesmen reinvigorated the debate on nuclear disarmament .1 The authors were former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz , former Secretary of Defence Bill Perry , and former senator Sam Nunn , and their strongly worded letter evoked an increasingly uncertain international security environment where the risks associated with nuclear weapons have come to outweigh their benefits as tools of deterrence. The argument held all the more weight for the fact that the authors were all veterans of âAmericaâs cold-war establishment with impeccable credentials as believers in nuclear deterrenceâ, and their warning resonated loudly across the international community.2
The timing was also fortuitous, since it chimed with efforts to launch a new global disarmament movement that aimed to take a different path to traditional disarmament activism. The âGlobal Zero â movement was established in late 2006 by Bruce Blair , a former Minuteman ballistic-missile launch-control officer, and Matt Brown , who had served a term as Secretary of State for Rhode Island. The goal of their fledgling organisation was to âadvocate the kind of pragmatic actions that mainstream politicians and foreign-policy experts could endorse, while preserving, as a destination, a goal that seemed inspiringâ.3 Given momentum by the highly-publicised intervention by the so-called âfour horsemen of the Apocalypseâ, the movement received endorsements from a host of high-profile backers, including US President Barack Obama . Indeed, nuclear disarmament was a theme that featured prominently in President Obamaâs foreign policy rhetoric from an early stage in his first term in office. In April 2009, he gave a landmark speech in Prague in which he unequivocally committed the United States to the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. This speech âhighlighted the growing importance attached to the question of disarmament in the nuclear arenaâ.4 High-level support of this nature set the Global Zero initiative apart from âthe old âban the bomb â crowdâ, and in February 2010, the Global Zero Commission set out its vision for a four-stage process leading to âthe phased, verified, proportionate dismantlement of all nuclear arsenals to zero total warheads by 2030â at a well-attended conference in Paris .5
More recently, the Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons (HINW ) initiative opened a new front in the debate on disarmament. This initiative was launched with a conference in Oslo in March, 2013 and sought to reframe the debate on nuclear disarmament in humanitarian terms. A recent research paper on the issue noted that âthe potential use and the physical effects of nuclear weapons have not been part of an international and public discussion since the 1980sâ, and the HINW initiative aimed to address this lapse in considerations of nuclear weapons, their role and their value.6 The first conference was attended by representatives from 128 countries, and was followed by equally well attended conferences in Narayit (Mexico) in February 2014 and Vienna (Austria) in December 2014. The last conference adopted a âHumanitarian Pledge â document where countries agreed: âto cooperate with all stakeholders âto identify and pursue effective measuresâ to fill the legal gap for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weaponsâ, and âto 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 risksâ.7
The HINW initiative was endorsed by some 160 member states at the 2015 NPT Review Conference , yet perhaps its most significant contribution to the disarmament agenda was its role in supporting the move towards negotiations to achieve a legally binding prohibition on nuclear weapons.8 Indeed, William Potter notes that âThe ban treaty is, in at least some respects, an outgrowth ofâ the HINW initiative.9 The momentum generated by the HINW movement, served as a driver for work within the 2016 UN Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG ) on Disarmament. This, in turn, led to a recommendation by the OEWG that the UN General Assembly convene a conference âopen to all States, with the participation and contribution of international organizations and civil society, to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total eliminationâ.10 Negotiations on a ban treaty duly followed, and on 7 July 2017, 122 nations voted in favour of a permanent and legally binding prohibition on nuclear weapons. The ban treaty will officially enter into force once accepted by 50 states.
Certainly, the ban treaty negotiations were not without challenges. As Sagan and Valentino note, âNone of the nine states that possess nuclear weapons even attended the negotiationsâ.11 Moreover, the sole participating NATO member cast the only vote against the treaty , having forced a vote when many believed the treaty would be adopted by consensus. And, from a legal perspective, the final treaty that emerged from the process will do little to change the status quo. Those states possessing nuclear weapons raised objections to the treaty and the negotiation process that preceded it. Indeed, the United States , France , and the United Kingdom issued a strongly worded joint statement in response to the adoption of the treaty: âWe do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it. Therefore, there will be no change in the legal obligations on our countries with respect to nuclear weapons. For example, we would not accept any claim that this treaty reflects or in any way contributes to the development of customary international lawâ.12 Ultimately, Sagan and Valentino claim that âWith not a single nuclear weapons state signing up as a member, even the treatyâs strongest proponents acknowledge that it is a largely an aspirational document designed to promote disarmament by delegitimizing nuclear weaponsâ.13
Whatever the broader and lasting impact of the treaty , the nuclear weapons ban represents the culmination of recent efforts to reinvigorate the global nuclear disarmament movement. It has thrust nuclear disarmament under the international spotlight and, by extension, reaffirmed the importance of work around nuclear warhead dismantlement verification .
The Enduring Appeal of Nuclear Weapons
For many disarmament advocates, the significance of the prohibition on nuclear weapons cannot be overstated. Beatrice Fihn , the executive director of ICAN argues that, âBy stigmatizing nuclear weapons â declaring them unacceptable and immoral for all - the international community can start demanding and pressuring the nuclear-armed states and their military alliances to deliver what theyâve actually promised: a world free of nuclear weaponsâ.14 Yet, amidst this understandable enthusiasm and optimism, it is important to note that the trend in the nuclear arena seems to be moving firmly in the opposite direction, with nuclear weapons regaining prominence amidst rising instability and uncertainty. While France , Russia , the United Kingdom and the United States have all reduced their arsenals in recent years, these reductions have been accompanied by significant moves to modernise nuclear forces. Take the United States, for example. In a recent study, Wolfsthal , Lewis and Quint highlighted plans for the United...