Actions to reduce the risk of nuclear war

“We must act to reduce the risk of nuclear war” is the title of an article by former senior Australian government official John Carlson AM published in The Korea Times on June 19.

The second conference of the States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) will be held from November 27 to December 1, 2023, at the United Nations headquarters in New York (USA). (Source: UNnews)

Mr. John Carlson was also Director General of the Australian Office of Safeguards and Non-Proliferation from 1989 to 2010. He is a non-resident senior fellow at the Vienna Centre for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation (Austria), and an expert with the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network on Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. The following is the content of the article:

Nuclear disarmament process needs to be established

“Humanity is on a knife’s edge,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned. “The risk of nuclear weapons being used has reached levels not seen since the Cold War.” Urgent action is needed to reduce the risk of nuclear war and establish a process to achieve nuclear disarmament.

Nuclear disarmament is not an unrealistic aspiration. Rather, it is unrealistic to believe that our good fortune in avoiding nuclear war can last indefinitely. Over the years, there have been several near misses or malfunctions that have almost led to nuclear war. A roadmap to the elimination of nuclear weapons, with urgent steps to reduce risks, is imperative for the survival of humanity.

As US President Ronald Reagan acknowledged in 1984, a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be waged. In its 1996 advisory opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that the indiscriminate nature, destructiveness and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons meant that their use would almost certainly violate international humanitarian law.

In a nuclear war, not only can civilians in the warring countries not be protected, but the catastrophic consequences, including radioactive fallout and the “nuclear winter” effect, cannot be limited to those countries. Nuclear war is a global threat from which all countries have the right to be protected.

While the ICJ could not conclude whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons in extreme self-defense was lawful, it stressed that any such use would have to comply with international law, a seemingly impossible requirement. The ICJ stressed that all states have a duty to pursue negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. This is a specific duty for the 190 signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), including the five recognized nuclear weapons states – the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France and China – and a general international law duty for the four non-NPT nuclear weapons states – India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.

It is deplorable that nuclear-weapon states ignore their obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament. As permanent members of the Security Council, nuclear-weapon states parties to the NPT have a special responsibility to uphold international law. The lack of will and vision regarding disarmament reflects the influence of those whose cause is based on nuclear weapons.

The world cannot afford to remain inactive on nuclear disarmament. Inspiration can be drawn from the 1985 Reagan-Gorbachev Reykjavik Summit, which showed that world leaders agreeing on a timetable for the elimination of nuclear weapons was within reach. Although the summit failed to achieve this goal, it did lead to major arms reduction agreements.

Implementation framework

What can be done? Nuclear disarmament is a huge challenge, but the thorny issues can be tackled by breaking them down into discrete steps that can make progress. Tackling specific issues can reduce risks and help create a positive climate for further progress. Governments must be pressured to establish a framework for doing this.

First, governments need to take urgent action on measures to reduce risks and tensions. These include communication channels and hotlines, alert reduction – removing weapons from launch mode when given warning, limiting the circumstances under which nuclear weapons can be used – a “no first use” agreement proposed by China would be a major step forward, and strengthening national control over the authority to use nuclear weapons – the fate of the world is not in the hands of one or two individuals.

Another essential area is to revive negotiations and develop new arms control agreements. This would involve setting limits on the types and numbers of nuclear weapons and their associated delivery systems. An important aspect would be the elimination of so-called tactical nuclear weapons. Another area of ​​work would involve verification, transparency and confidence-building arrangements.

There needs to be a process of ongoing engagement, not only on arms control and disarmament but also on broader security issues. Such engagement can clarify differences, improve mutual understanding, identify common ground, find solutions and build trust. The emphasis should be on diplomacy and proactive dialogue. New forums will be needed at the leadership and working levels, and perhaps at the regional and global levels. These forums must be results-oriented and not paralyzed by political disagreements, as happened with the Conference on Disarmament.

Source: https://baoquocte.vn/cuu-quan-chuc-australia-hanh-dong-giam-thieu-nguy-co-chien-tranh-nhat-nhan-276040.html