nuclear-news

A ‘P5+4’ summit could break the nuclear deadlock

A ‘P5+4’ summit could break the nuclear deadlock, The Strategist B1, 7 Jun 2019, |Ramesh Thakur In April, US President Donald Trump directed White House officials to identify pathways to new arms control agreements with Russia and China. If he’s looking for a big and bold new idea, here’s one: a ‘P5+4’ nuclear summit of the leaders of the nine countries that have the bomb.

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the ‘P5’) are the only countries recognised by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) as lawful possessors of nuclear weapons: China, France, Russia, the UK and the US. The ‘+4’ are the non-NPT nuclear-armed countries—India, Israel and Pakistan—and North Korea, the world’s only NPT defector state.

The existing architecture of nuclear arms control has served us well but is now crumbling. It was weakened first by the US exit from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and then the indefinite delay of the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty. More recently, the deterioration has accelerated with the Trump administration’s abandonmentof the nuclear deal with Iran, the US and Russian suspensions of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and the failure thus far to discuss extending New START beyond its expiry date of 2021.

There is a related problem. The NPT-centric architecture cannot accommodate the reality of four non-NPT possessor states. The architecture deficit is exacerbated by the fact that the agenda of nuclear arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament has stalled. The Korean denuclearisation-cum-peace-process has run out of steam. Last month’s meeting of the preparatory committee for the 2020 NPT review conference could not reach agreement on a common statement………..

Nuclear arms control satisfies all the key criteria for a summit. Like pandemics, climate change and biodiversity, nuclear threats spill across national boundaries and defy unilateral solutions. A summit of the nine political leaders, but only them, that is appropriately structured and has been adequately prepared can focus them to do what they alone can do—make tough choices from among competing interests and priorities. Cabinet ministers have single portfolio responsibilities. Heads of state and government have to oversee the entire agenda. With broad, overarching responsibilities, leaders can weigh priorities and balance interests across competing goals, sectors, and national and international objectives. ………

The first thing a nuclear summit should do is reaffirm the famous 1987 declaration by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev: ‘a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought’. If all nine leaders sign such a statement, it can be adopted as a resolution also by the UN Security Council and General Assembly. That would reverse the recent trend to normalise the discourse of possible nuclear-weapon use and, by hardening the normative boundary between nuclear and other weapons, perhaps also help to stop mission creep with respect to the roles and functions of nuclear weapons………

A summit-level agreement on a few important items would be a powerful stimulus to restarting stalled talks on other outstanding items like bringing the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty into force and commencing negotiations on a fissile materials cut-off treaty. Even a modestly successful summit would tell the world that the nine powers take seriously their responsibility for preserving nuclear peace………https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/a-p54-summit-could-break-the-nuclear-deadlock/

June 8, 2019 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, weapons and war