Is the world any closer to a nuclear weapons free society

Unfortunately, this is rather a controversial topic. In fact, it’s a taboo subject in some lands while in others, the anti-nuclear movement continues to grow. For the uninitiated, nuclear energy technology is a good thing to have because it elevates a country’s status but the experienced know the risks to human life and the environment posed by such materials.

Countries that know better, the US and Russia are busy ripping apart agreements like the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF) which seeks to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons. 

There is no doubt the two powerful rivals will engage in another mindless nuclear race.

 But why nuclear weapons at all when it has been demonstrated that a nuclear detonation causes such a disproportionately large and permanent damage. In fact, simple logic would require all nuclear weapons states (NWS) to dismantle/destroy all nuclear weaponry! 

Sadly, simple logic often ranks behind national security considerations for many countries. One would think that the Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear tragedies should have galvanized a concerted global action towards reduction or even total destruction of nuclear material by states several years ago.

However, the reality is that beyond the declarations and treaties, NWS are unwilling to reduce their nuclear arsenals to levels below what they would deem a credible deterrent. From a security standpoint, the argument seems to be, your enemies will not attack you if they believe you have a deadly weapon that you can retaliate with. 

Perhaps that is why beyond the rhetoric by the US President Donald Trump at the UN General Assembly in 2017, the superpower has not contemplated attacking North Korea because the latter possesses nuclear weaponry that can strike American territories.

So based on this national security argument, military strongmen and hawkish politicians from states that possess nuclear weapons have long resisted calls to eliminate nuclear weapons. While much of the rest of the world has adopted a series of treaties and declarations to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons, the initial NWS states namely, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and the United States are still to abide by their Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Article VI obligations.

The NPT forbids countries without nuclear weapons from developing such armaments while those that already have them must disarm although there is no timeframe set for this to be completed.

In addition to the original NWS, India, Pakistan and Israel also possess nuclear weapons but have refused to be party to the NPT process while North Korea, a recent nuclear power, actually withdrew from the NPT back in 2003.

It appears there is another incentive for possessing the nuclear bomb, in addition of course, to the usual credible deterrent mantra! Nuclear weapons give hegemonic power to those possessing them. When you possess this weapon the rules are different.

To illustrate, Israel, which maintains a nuclear policy that it terms amimut in Hebrew or opacity, is believed to possess several nuclear warheads enough to decimate all its Arab rivals. So because of this ‘power imbalance’, Israel has not been invaded by conventional Arab armies since the Yom Kippur war in 1973.

 At the same time, the Jewish state is constantly accused of acting with impunity against regional rivals who cannot retaliate forcefully because of the threat of nuclear annihilation. There is no denying that Israel is an unmatched military power in that region due to superior weapons, better training and US support. However, the continuing investment into nuclear deterrent by Israel also shows this nuclear threat has worked for the Jewish state.  

Elsewhere in the Middle East, Syria and Iraq have all attempted to build this bomb (without success though) because for them, the weapon ‘improves security’ while giving the owner of the bomb dominance over rival regional powers.

In the meantime, North Korea has routinely used the threat of a nuclear attack to extort concessions from South Korea and the United States. Pyongyang has learnt that constantly reminding your enemies that you have a nuclear bomb apparently gives you leverage when negotiating with even bigger rivals.

Iran was able to gain a number of concessions from the United States and the European Union when it negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a far reaching 25 year settlement that constrained Iran nuclear capacity in exchange for sanctions relief. While the JCPOA is on verge of collapse, the Iranian case also highlights how global powers treat differently countries that are on course to acquire the bomb.

Sadly, this irregular approach to gaining power is now threatening the movement against nuclear weapons proliferation. Turkey and Saud Arabia have openly threatened to start their own nuclear weapons programme if Iran is ‘allowed’ to build nuclear weapons. There is no guarantee that these countries are not already building weapons given the secrecy that often surrounds a military nuclear weapons production.

In Africa, few countries have the wherewithal to run a successful nuclear weapons program. The apartheid regime had a few nuclear bombs but South Africa abandoned them prior to joining the rest of the world in 1994. The Mummar Gaddafi’s Libyan government ran a secret weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program before abandoning this in 2003. Both decisions were hailed as victory for the nuclear disarmament movement.

However, there is a growing sentiment that Africa remains marginalized on the world stage, particularly at the United Nations simply because no country on the continent has a nuclear deterrent. The Jacob Zuma led government complained bitterly when Western countries intervened militarily in Libya 2011 following an uprising.

Zuma argued African countries could have provided a better solution than the bombing campaign that left Libya without a properly functioning government thus availing a safe sanctuary for militant groups. It is also plausible to suggest that if Libya still had its WMD program, France and NATO would not have attacked and perhaps a ‘better’ solution to the civil conflict would have been arrived at.

Besides running a WMD program, Gaddafi was an outspoken critic of what he saw as double standards by the world’s superpowers. He regularly called for reforms to key global institutions such as the United Nations where a few countries--the original NWS-- dominated.

Perhaps South Africa feels it might be the next military target since it gave up its WMDs like Libya and became a signatory to a number of non-proliferation treaties. South Africa is vocal critic of what it sees as Western double standards when it comes access nuclear technology and just like Libya, it has called for reforms to global institutions. However, South Africa is the only country on the African continent that uses nuclear technology for energy.

The reader should note that nuclear materials, technology and expertise associated with nuclear fuel cycle are inherently dual-use, meaning they are useful both for civil production of nuclear energy and military production nuclear weapons.

So in essence, South Africa still possesses the capability and capacity to produce nuclear weapons but has not chosen to do so.  Instead South Africa still believes in the nuclear free world cause in spite of the double standards exhibited by some NWS when it comes to disarmament. NWS continue to modernize as well as to add new capabilities to their nuclear forces.

Regrettably, these perceived double standards continue to make it difficult to convince other non-nuclear weapons states to totally eradicate radioactive materials in their respective countries. In fact, such ‘ hypocrisy’ by NWS has been used by some countries to justify development of nuclear weapons, consequently rendering the nuclear weapons free society goal a distant dream.

At this stage, nuclear disarmament advocates can only counter this state of affairs by increasing education and campaigns against nuclear weapons. More countries should speak out against the continuing nuclear arms race.