From Nayarit to New York, a Constructive Ban-the-Bomb Movement Continues Adam Mount and Naomi Egel - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
go to original April 25, 2015

What is the NPT? An animated introduction to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (WMD Awareness)

On Monday, diplomats will gather in New York for a conference to review the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Held once every five years, the Review Conference is an opportunity to assess progress on the treaty’s basic bargain: States without nuclear weapons promise not to build them if the five nuclear states promise to get rid of theirs. This conference comes at a critical time. For 70 years, the nonproliferation regime has limited the spread of nuclear weapons. Today, it is marked by deep discord.

The steps that NPT states have agreed upon to strengthen the regime have stalled, while nuclear arsenals around the world are undergoing rapid modernization. Frustrated with the lack of progress toward nuclear disarmament, a broad coalition of states and nongovernmental organizations has been moving toward drafting a ban on nuclear weapons, as part of a series of conferences focused on the humanitarian impacts the use of nuclear weapons would have on all countries. Some non-nuclear countries have begun to whisper that the NPT is obsolete.

The humanitarian initiative represents a challenge for the United States. Will the movement complement or undermine the NPT? To what extent would a ban on nuclear weapons conflict with US interests?

The movement consists of a diverse collection of states and civil society groups. Many support the idea of a nuclear weapons ban. The movement has rapidly gained momentum since its first meeting in Oslo, Norway in March 2013. At the second meeting, in Nayarit, Mexico in February 2014, the Mexican chair’s summary called for a legally binding nuclear weapons convention - although not all states attending agreed - and at the December 2014 meeting in Vienna, Austria issued the “Austrian pledge,” recognizing the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons and calling for actions to eliminate them. Since then, 70 states have signed this pledge.

It is unclear how these efforts will result in global nuclear disarmament. Many hope that a ban on nuclear weapons could strengthen global antinuclear norms and encourage domestic groups to put pressure on their governments. As more states support a ban, advocates contend, it may gain the status of customary international law. However, there is little agreement about how these steps could gain the assent of the existing nuclear powers.

To date, the United States has expressed apprehension about the movement. US diplomats avoided the meetings in Oslo and Nayarit, but did attend the Vienna conference. There, the United States was sympathetic toward the movement’s goals but repeated that it “does not support efforts to move to a nuclear weapons convention, a ban, or a fixed timetable for elimination of all nuclear weapons. Rather, achieving lasting disarmament will take sustained effort and commitment.”

Despite what may seem like an impasse, a constructive relationship between the United States and the humanitarian movement is in the interests of both parties.

Read the rest at Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

We invite you to add your charity or supporting organizations' news stories and coming events to PVAngels so we can share them with the world. Do it now!