Click here if you don’t see subscription options
Kevin ClarkeOctober 06, 2016
The first infamous BikinI Atoll test 1946The first infamous nuclear-weapon test at Bikini Atoll, in 1946

Progress on nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation may be one of the casualties of the current chill in U.S.-Russia relations resulting from the horror show that is Syria and continuing tension over Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine intrigues. This week Russian officials suspended or curtailed a number of cooperative efforts with the United States aimed at discouraging nuclear proliferation, including feasibility studies on the conversion of Russian research reactors to low-enriched uranium and the continuing implementation of the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement. That program commits Russia and the United States to eliminating parts of their weapons-grade plutonium stocks.

The Russian countermeasures on proliferation followed quickly on the heels of a U.S. decision to suspend what had become fruitless negotiations toward a cease-fire in Syria. They represent one more blow this week to efforts to diminish the threat posed by nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation. The setback does not bode well for near-term progress on U.S.-Russia disarmament, an effort that has stalled for years after decades of significant moves to reduce nuclear stockpiles.

As major nuclear powers prepare for modernization programs that could lead to a new nuclear arms race, activists around the world have been coming at the issue of disarmament from a number of different angles in recent years. In that “ban the bomb” campaign they have been enjoying the renewed interest and support of the Holy See and Pope Francis in disarmament and nonproliferation efforts.

Related: No More Nukes?

Just a few days before the Russian snub on proliferation, Archbishop Bernardito Auza, the Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, had been at the United Nations arguing that “nuclear arms offer a false sense of security” and describing “the uneasy peace promised by nuclear deterrence” as a “tragic illusion.”

Addressing a General Assembly side event marking the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons on Sept. 27, the archbishop said, “Nuclear weapons cannot create for us a stable and secure world.

“Peace and international stability cannot be founded on mutually assured destruction or on the threat of total annihilation.”

He concluded, “It would be naïve and myopic if we sought to assure world peace and security through nuclear weapons rather than through the eradication of extreme poverty, increased accessibility to healthcare and education, and the promotion of peaceful institutions and societies through dialogue and solidarity.”

In another setback this week to the international anti-nuke movement, the United Nations’ highest court on Oct. 5 rejected nuclear disarmament cases filed by the tiny Pacific nation of the Marshall Islands against Great Britain, India and Pakistan. The International Court of Justice, in a close decision, ruled that the Marshall Islands failed to prove that a legal dispute over disarmament existed between it and three nuclear powers before the case was filed, "consequently the court lacks jurisdiction.” The 16-judge bench ruled there was no evidence that the Marshalls had been involved in a prior dispute with any of the three nuclear powers or sought bilateral negotiations on the issue.

The groundbreaking suit was first brought to the I.C.J. by the Marshall Islands in 2014. The international court had been perceived as a possible equalizing option for small nations hoping to force nuclear powers to make more progress on disarmament. The Marshall Islands originally filed cases against all nine nations that have declared or are believed to possess nuclear weapons: The United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. But only the cases against Britain, India and Pakistan got to the preliminary stage of proceedings. The I.C.J. had refused to take up cases against the other countries as they did not recognize the court’s jurisdiction.

Phon van den Biesen, a Dutch lawyer who represented the Marshall Islands, said he was deeply disappointed by the rulings.

“If the court keeps creating this sort of threshold, what is the court for?” he said. “It’s a dispute that is clear to all of the world except for eight judges here.”

Though he cast the deciding vote to toss out the case against Britain, the court's president, Ronny Abraham, acknowledged that the Marshall Islands has a particular interest in nuclear disarmament “by virtue of the suffering which its people endured as a result of it being used as a site for extensive nuclear testing programs.”

Representatives from the Marshall Islands had brought the case to The Hague arguing that the health and lives of its citizens had been destroyed by the dozens of nuclear tests conducted along its territory between 1946 and 1958. According to Greenpeace, 67 nuclear tests were conducted by the United States in the Marshalls in that period, making it one of the most contaminated places in the world.

Greenpeace reports: “With a population of less than 70,000, the Islanders suffered greatly from the impact of radiation; the land and sea poisoned as well.”

The Marshall Islanders had argued that by not stopping the nuclear arms race, Britain, India and Pakistan had breached obligations under the the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty—even if New Delhi and Islamabad have not signed the pact.

Related: From Deterrence to Abolition; Vatican Revises Stance on Weapons

At hearings in March, Marshall Islands former Foreign Minister Tony de Brum said he watched one of the U.S. nuclear tests as a 9-year-old boy while fishing with his grandfather off the Rongelap Atoll. It was the testing of a thermonuclear bomb in 1954, 1,000 times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb. “The entire sky turned blood red,” he told judges in an emotional speech. After the explosion, he testified, it began to rain radioactive fallout at Rongelap. Within hours, the atoll was covered with a fine, white, powder-like substance.

“No one knew it was radioactive fallout,” said de Brum. “The children thought it was snow. And the children played in the snow. And they ate it.” De Brum testified that some of his country’s islands were “vaporized” by the tests.

Pope Francis has frequently spoken of the church’s revived concerns with the status quo on nuclear deterrence and the lack of progress on disarmament. Last year during his historic address before the U.N. General Assembly in New York he called for the “complete prohibition” of nuclear weapons and condemned the doctrine of deterrence. “An ethics and a law based on the threat of mutual destruction—and possibly the destruction of all mankind—are self-contradictory and an affront to the entire framework of the United Nations, which would end up as ‘nations united by fear and distrust,’” he said. “There is urgent need to work for a world free of nuclear weapons, in full application of the Nonproliferation Treaty, in letter and spirit, with the goal of a complete prohibition of these weapons.”

Editor's note: After this story posted Beatrice Fihn, executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, was quick to point out that there were was indeed more positive developments in recent days for the anti-nuke movement.

The AP reports:

Despite arm-twisting and vocal opposition from nuclear powers like the United States, six non-nuclear countries urged the U.N. General Assembly Wednesday to work toward a "legally-binding" accord to ban nuclear weapons in hopes of ridding them from the planet altogether one day.

The countries—Austria, Brazil, Ireland, Mexico, Nigeria and South Africa—sent world diplomats a draft text that calls for a U.N. conference next year to draw up a treaty banning nuclear weapons, diplomats said. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the text, which is to be considered at the U.N. in New York starting next month.

The 3-page draft, which heads to a U.N. committee in New York, hews closely to a resolution passed at a working-group meeting of non-nuclear states in Geneva last month. The text urges states "to negotiate a legally-binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons" that would aim one day for their "total elimination."

It also says a U.N. conference should convene next year for 20 working days in two sessions, bringing international organizations and civil society into the process of drawing up a treaty.

However, it stops short of setting a calendar or deadline for an eventual passage of the treaty.

The text also urges countries to apply working group recommendations to increase transparency about the risks of nuclear weapons, enact measures to reduce the risk of accidental or unauthorized detonations, and raise awareness about the consequences of a detonation.

Austria's permanent representative in Geneva, Thomas Hajnoczi, called the text a "big step." While acknowledging that security agreement at the U.N. for a nuclear weapons ban would likely be a long process, Hajnoczi expects a vote on the text by a U.N. committee on disarmament around Nov. 1 that could send it to the assembly in December.

"It's hard to see how this treaty wouldn't strengthen the non-proliferation regime," he said, alluding to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that has been a global benchmark of limiting nuclear weapons for years.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
JR Cosgrove
5 years 10 months ago
If one want to get an alternative view of what is happening with Russia and the United States, each week Stephen Cohen, one of the most knowledgeable people on current and past Russia history and culture, talks on the John Batchelor Show. Cohen is a socialist and was very sympathetic to the Soviet Union and his wife is editor of the Nation. He is conversant on every issue on Russia and reads their press and watches video of their television. He points the finger at Washington. Not what it is in the news. But he makes a lot of sense. You listen to him and you realize that maybe it is not Putin that is the bad guy in US/Russia relations but people here in the US. Here is a link to the latest podcast. He is generally on every week for an hour, 40 minutes of air time. As I said an alternative point of view that provides a lot of information. http://bit.ly/2dibXMW Did anyone know that there was a meeting of principals (White House, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State and head of CIA ) yesterday to discuss the possibility of war with Russia over Syria and another meeting this weekend with the National Security Council. http://wapo.st/2dymWUa
Carlos Orozco
5 years 10 months ago
J, I've heard Stephen Cohen, and he seems to me a true expert. Not one of those ideological crackpots that wants the public to think you can keep arming head-chopping Islamic fanatics with modern weaponry, impose a no-fly zone on the SOVEREIGN country of Syria, shoot down Russian war planes, and then wait for the Sunday football games. Too bad the MSM has pretty much vetoed him, following orders from the Orwellian Ministry of Truth. Alternative media, on the other hand, has been reporting for some days that Russia and America have been TARGETING AND KILLING each others' intelligence operatives on the ground, starting with the "accidental" attack on Syrian troop positions around Deir al-Zour. Also, in the last few days, millions of Russians participated in civilian nation-wide emergency drills, not seen since God knows when. Not a word on the MSM, while the groper and rape enabler freaks in Presidential Reality Show serve as an excellent distraction. https://geopolitics.co/2016/09/24/russia-bombs-30-cia-mossad-officers-in-secret-allepo-bunker/ http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/09/22/unconfirmed-russian-med-ship-launch-missile-attack-to-kill-foreign-command-center-near-aleppo/
Michael Barberi
5 years 10 months ago
J. Obama will never approve any recommendation involving military strikes against the Assad regime or Russia.
JR Cosgrove
5 years 10 months ago
I agree. The average American hasn't a clue as to what is going on in Aleppo. The choice is Assad or Al Qaeda in Damascus and right now we are arming Al Qaeda which is ironic given 9/11. As distasteful as it seems, Russia and all the atrocities happening will probably lead to a defeat of Al Qaeda and ISIS and Putin will have solved the problem that Obama created. And Obama will take a victory lap. Thank God for fracking so we can ignore their oil for the time being.
William Rydberg
5 years 10 months ago
Nice to read something on the threatening potential for global Thermonuclear War in America. First time I have heard the Pope's perfunctory mentions of peace described as 'frequent'. There ought to be mature Jesuits at America Magazine who lived with other Popes that can explain what it means when a Pope actively persues peace when the World is under imminent threat-ITS PRACTICALLY ALL HE TALKS ABOUT. Check the history books,,, in Christ

The latest from america

Photo courtesy of Unite Here Local 23
The Senate cafeteria workers are not asking for much—just an improved hourly rate that has a chance of catching up to inflation and something close to the health insurance abundance enjoyed by the senators they serve each day.
Kevin ClarkeAugust 10, 2022
A Reflection for the Memorial of St. Clare, by J.D. Long-García
J.D. Long-GarcíaAugust 10, 2022
A "Fridays for the Future" protest in Bonn, Germany on March 3, 2019 (Mika Baumeister via Unsplash)
Young people are feeling more anxious, uncertain, and often hopeless about the climate crisis than ever. But in order to make real progress, we have to move past those feelings and let ourselves hope.
Stephen McNultyAugust 10, 2022
A pro-life advocate prays during a "Love Them Both" rally sponsored by Indiana Right to Life July 26, 2022, at the Indiana Statehouse in Indianapolis. The rally took place while an Indiana Senate committee was preparing to vote on a bill that would ban most abortions in the state. (CNS photo/Sean Gallagher, The Criterion)
Those who want to reduce or minimize abortion, as opposed to eliminating it, are in a more difficult political position. 
Robert David SullivanAugust 10, 2022