The UN made history last week when it voted to start negotiations for a global ban on nuclear weapons. For the first time since the advent of the nuclear age, a landmark step has been taken towards a Global Zero accord, despite vehement opposition from all nuclear weapons states except North Korea.
With a vote of 123 for the ban, the First committee agreed “to convene in 2017 a United Nations Conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.” The resolution has broken the longstanding impasse over multilateral nuclear non-proliferation efforts undertaken during the past two decades.
However, this historic vote has laid bare the hypocrisy of nuclear weapons states. It is a shame that eight nuclear-armed states with thousands of nuclear warheads in their possession chose to do everything in their power to scuttle the UN negotiations instead of becoming part of the solution.
In recent months, the Obama administration ramped up lobbying efforts against the resolution, arm-twisting the main sponsors of the resolution. While Pakistan and India chose to abstain, other nuclear-armed states including Russia, Israel, France, and the UK have voted against the ban.
This voting pattern shows that many high-profile events like the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) processes and Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conferences have become nothing more than platforms for an outpouring of hypocritical concerns on the part of nuclear-armed states. The fact is that the strategic interests of major powers still continue to overshadow the influence of non-proliferation regimes.
On the other hand, the successful passage of the resolution demonstrates that most of the world’s nations consider global disarmament to be a practical and achievable goal. As of today, nine countries together possess more than 15,000 nuclear weapons, around 3,000 of which are still kept under hair-trigger alert condition – ready for use within three minutes. In South Asia, the risk of the use of nuclear weapons, by design or accident, is very high. It is an established fact now that India has sufficient fissile material and the technical capacity to produce to hundreds of nuclear weapons.
Any unauthorised use of these weapons would immediately kill tens of thousands of people in an instant. It is very likely that both countries would not survive a nuclear war using even a fraction of their arsenal in existence today. There is strong historical evidence to suggest that a terrorist incident or military adventure can cause a full-blown war between the two nuclear-armed countries.
Some experts dismiss the danger of a nuclear war as a low-probability event and therefore not a concern. However, the fact is that the governments of both countries are engaged in large and highly expansive programmes to modernise their nuclear forces and ensure a strong, practical missile defence system.
Pakistani governments have reiterated on many occasions that in case of a major offensive from India, they will be left with no option but to use nuclear weapons first. Pakistan hopes that because of this threat the Indian armed forces will abstain from disastrous steps like the ‘cold start’ offensive. While Delhi has taken the stance that it will never start a nuclear conflict and is also ready for an agreement on no first use of nuclear weapons, its armed forces have undertaken military exercises deliberately showing capabilities to destroy Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
The Indian nuclear establishment has also been seeking the capability to launch a nuclear attack if they believe Pakistani nuclear missiles are armed and ready for launch. After getting such impressions, Pakistani nuclear experts may also seek to pre-empt a nuclear attack from India by using their weapons even earlier. This scenario suggests that a false alarm or error of judgement can start a nuclear war between the two countries.
On both sides of the border, there are hawkish elements that do not want to strengthen mutual trust. Unfortunately, the political leaderships in both countries lack the wherewithal to rein in anti-peace lobbies.
In 2006, Alan Robock, a famous US climatologist, undertook extensive research on the consequences of a potential limited nuclear war between Pakistan and India. Examining the effects of this scenario, he found that even if the two countries used less than one-half of their current arsenal, more than 20 million innocent people would die within the first week from blast effects, burns, and radiation exposure.
Even a single nuclear explosion over cities like Karachi, Lahore, Mumbai or Delhi would completely destroy all buildings within five kilometers of the area. In addition to eradicating the social infrastructure, nuclear attacks would leave long-lasting and extreme environmental effects. A nuclear war between the two countries would totally change the politics and geography of both countries, and provoke shocking responses from the people.
The bottom line argument is that discussions about nuclear weapons should not be focused on narrow perspectives of nuclear security but on the indiscriminate devastation they cause. The UN vote represents a great opportunity to outlaw nuclear weapons in a universal and comprehensive manner. And we must look beyond our narrow national interests. The path towards a nuclear-weapons-free world is very long. Taking the first step may be hard but it is totally worth it.
Email:rizwanasghar5unm.edu