NZ was part of a UN conference on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons determined to secure some significant advances but were stymied by Russia's refusal to agree
Opinion: With Russian President Vladimir Putin threatening to use nuclear weapons in its war against Ukraine, nuclear weapon states continuing to modernise their weapons and concerns about Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programmes, the risk of the use of nuclear weapons is greater today than at any point since the Cold War.
Against this concerning backdrop, 190 countries met in August at the United Nations for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Review Conference. For the past five decades, the treaty has been one of the main international agreements governing nuclear weapons.
It is designed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, provide a path to nuclear disarmament, and facilitate the peaceful use of nuclear technology. Review conferences are times when the international community can come together to check whether states have been complying with the treaty, to develop initiatives to further its aims and diminish the risk of a nuclear catastrophe.
Given the grave risk of nuclear weapons’ use and the fractious security environment, the stakes for the conference were high and the negotiating conditions extremely challenging. I was the civil society participant on the New Zealand delegation so had a front-row seat to the ins and outs of the month-long efforts to secure an agreement and a chance to take part in the formal negotiation sessions as well as some of the many meetings among small groups of states in the backrooms of the UN and cafés of New York.
Like many of the other states in the world that do not have nuclear weapons, New Zealand went into the negotiations determined to secure some significant advances on the nuclear disarmament front. It has been many years since any progress was made towards a nuclear-free world and there was a strong sense now was the moment when real action was needed.
Frustratingly, however, while the nuclear weapons states paid lip service to the importance of disarmament, it was apparent from the start they were reluctant to take substantial steps forward. They argued the current global security environment meant the time was not right to take strong action on disarmament. Those in favour of disarmament made valiant efforts to highlight that the current security threats meant this was precisely the time to pursue disarmament, but such arguments had little effect.
Despite the geopolitical tensions buffeting the conference and the very different views on how to address the threat posed by nuclear weapons, on the last day of negotiations it appeared an agreement was in sight. The final text on the table was far from perfect but did provide for modest steps forward on the disarmament front including the beginnings of a framework for measuring and monitoring the disarmament efforts of the nuclear weapon states. What is more, against the odds, the indications were that all of the countries there were prepared to sign on to it.
Very disappointingly, however, at the eleventh hour, Russia scuttled the agreement. From day one, concerns about Russia’s threat to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine and its capture of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant dominated debates at the conference. Many Western states demanded strong condemnation of Russia’s illegal actions in the final agreement while Russia refused to contemplate any suggestion it was in the wrong.
Despite strenuous efforts to accommodate the varying views on the conflict and some very careful drafting, the Russians refused to come on board. This jettisoned any hope of the agreement being adopted.
The failure of the conference to produce an agreement is deeply concerning. It is four years until the next one is held, and countries will have another chance to try to reach an agreement on how to reduce the risk of a nuclear catastrophe.
This raises big questions about the adequacy of the non-proliferation treaty regime and has led some to suggest it’s time to pursue other avenues for nuclear disarmament. One such avenue could be the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, a treaty created in 2017 that completely prohibits nuclear weapons. The difficulty here is that nuclear weapons states and their allies have refused to engage. There are no easy answers – let’s hope it doesn’t take a very serious nuclear crisis to force states to take the bold steps required.
This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in the University of Auckland’s UniNews.
