nuclear-news

Global majority of countries now signed onto the UN nuclear ban treaty

Kyrgyzstan has signed, and Ghana has ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), bringing the numbers of those who signed, ratified or acceded into the global majority. Kyrgyzstan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Zheenbek Kulubaev signed the treaty at the United Nations earlier today while Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, Foreign Minister of Ghana, deposited his country’s ratification, bringing the total to 99 out of 197 eligible states that have taken legal action under the treaty.

26 Sept 25 https://www.icanw.org/global_majority_now_signed_onto_nuclear_ban_treaty?utm_campaign=tpnw_reaches_majority&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ican

This is a key milestone for what is still a young treaty which was adopted by the UN just over just 8 years ago and only came into force under 5 years ago.

The TPNW outlaws nuclear weapons and all activities associated with them, including production, possession, testing, threats or use.

The TPNW was inspired by efforts to build the legal bulwark against the catastrophic humanitarian harm that nuclear weapons are known to cause. As we know from the evidence from the United States’ nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 80 years ago, the effects of nuclear weapons are uniquely cruel and inhumane because of the indiscriminate, lasting, intergenerational harm they cause.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017 for its work that led to the adoption of the TPNW. ICAN’s Executive Director, Melissa Parke, welcomed today’s news: “I warmly congratulate Kyrgyzstan and Ghana on their actions today. The TPNW is the best way to ensure real security from the existential threat nuclear weapons pose to the future of humanity, because as long as they exist, nuclear weapons are bound to be used, intentionally or by accident. The treaty is the sane alternative to the misguided and dangerous doctrine of nuclear deterrence and a new nuclear arms race that don’t provide security, but instead threaten it.”

Ms Parke continued: “The nuclear-armed countries and their allies that endorse the use of nuclear weapons are a distinct minority and they have no right to continue to threaten the future of the rest of the world. The TPNW is the pathway under international law to the fair and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons so these nine countries have no excuse to continue to defy the majority here at the UN”.

The expanding influence of the TPNW has broken the hold nuclear-armed states and their flawed and dangerous doctrine of nuclear deterrence had on the public debate around nuclear weapons. The TPNW states are directly challenging deterrence doctrine as both a threat to all countries and an obstacle to nuclear disarmament – an objective the nuclear-armed states themselves say they share.

Theodora Williams Anti, from ICAN partner Foundation for Security and Development in Africa (FOSDA) said “Ghana’s ratification of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is a proud moment for our nation and a powerful statement to Africa and the world. By joining the majority of states in rejecting these weapons of mass destruction, Ghana affirms its unwavering commitment to peace, human security, and the protection of future generations. This milestone reminds us that true strength lies not in the threat of annihilation, but in the courage to choose dialogue, cooperation, and a safer world for all.”

95 states have signed the treaty, which has 74 states parties. Four countries acceded to the treaty without signing beforehand as permitted under its Article 14.

The fact that the global majority of states are now on board the treaty sends a strong signal to the nuclear-armed states and their allies which support the use of nuclear weapons in their defence strategies that they are the minority and increasingly regarded by the international community as irresponsible actors threatening global security.

The TPNW has made nuclear weapons as unacceptable as chemical and biological weapons. The more countries that join the treaty, the more the diplomatic pressure builds on the pro-nuclear states and the more isolated they will become with all the diplomatic and reputational costs involved.

September 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Disarmament over destruction: A renewed push for a world without nuclear weapons

United Nations, By Sachin Gaur, 25 September 2025

In the final days of the Second World War, as the idea of the United Nations was beginning to take shape, the atomic bombings of two Japanese cities sent a chilling warning to the world, of the terrifying destructive power of nuclear weapons. Eight decades later, amidst rising geopolitical tensions and ongoing conflicts, the threat from nuclear arms is escalating.

Highest threat level for decades

In his message for the ‘International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons’, observed annually on September 26, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres reminds the world that “nuclear weapons deliver no security – only the promise of annihilation.”

Nuclear disarmament has remained a top priority for the UN since its inception. In fact, the very first resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1946 focused on nuclear disarmament.

In the decades that followed, the UN continued to lead diplomatic efforts in this direction. In 1959, the General Assembly formally supported the goal of general and complete disarmament. In 1978, the first Special Session of the General Assembly on Disarmament declared nuclear disarmament to be the highest priority.

Every UN Secretary-General has actively pursued this goal. The current incumbent, António Guterres, has repeatedly warned in recent years that “geopolitical tensions and mistrust have escalated the risk of nuclear warfare to its highest levels in decades.”

“These weapons are growing in power, range, and stealth. An accidental launch is one mistake, one miscalculation, one rash act away,” he told the Security Council last year

What’s at stake

Although nuclear weapons have only been deployed twice, their shadow still hangs over humanity. Over 12,000 nuclear warheads still exist today. Their destructive potential threatens entire cities, millions of lives, the environment, and future generations.

More than 50 per cent of the world’s population lives in countries that either possess nuclear weapons or are part of nuclear alliances. Deep concerns surrounding the possible use of these weapons have intensified due to conflicts, including the war in Ukraine.

Many nuclear-armed countries are also planning to modernise their arsenals. The integration of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, raises the possibility of misjudgements and misunderstandings, making the risks even more complex and unpredictable.

A renewed nuclear arms race?

A range of multilateral treaties and initiatives have been established to curb, regulate, or eliminate nuclear weapons over the decades, helping – to some extent – to put the brakes on proliferation and advanced disarmament.

However, rising global instability and violent conflicts are placing increasing pressure on these mechanisms. The weakening of such frameworks risks sparking a renewed nuclear arms race.

In 2019, the United States announced its withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which targeted the elimination of a specific class of nuclear missiles and, in 2022, a major review conference failed to reach consensus on the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

The following year, Russia withdrew its ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and suspended its participation in the ‘New START’ Treaty on measures for the reduction and limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms

These developments have led to growing frustration over the slow pace of disarmament and increasing concern about the catastrophic potential of even a single nuclear detonation: since the end of the Cold War, while the number of deployed nuclear weapons has decreased, not a single nuclear warhead has been eliminated as a result of any treaty. Nor are there any active negotiations currently aimed at nuclear disarmament………………………….. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/09/1165949

September 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

UN at 80: Civil Society Must Have a Say in the Struggle for Renewal

 Andrew Firmin, https://www.ipsnews.net/2025/09/un-at-80-civil-society-must-have-a-say-in-the-struggle-for-renewal/?utm_source=email_marketing&utm_admin=146128&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=UN_at_a_Mixed_Legacy_of_Highs_and_Lows_An_Overdose_of_Renewables_New_Energy_Risk_in_Brazil_and_more

LONDON, Sep 26 2025 (IPS) – As the high-level opening week of the UN General Assembly unfolds, with heads of states delivering often self-serving speeches from the UN’s podium, the organisation is undergoing one of its worst set of crises since its founding 80 years ago. This year’s General Assembly – ostensibly focused on development, human rights and peace – comes as wars are raging across multiple continents, climate targets are dangerously being missed and the institution designed to address these global challenges is being hollowed out by funding cuts and political withdrawals.

A UN Commission has just determined that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, while the Israeli state recently escalated its campaign of violence by bombing Qatar. Meanwhile, Russia’s war on Ukraine threatens to spill over with its recent launch of drones against Poland and incursion into Estonia’s airspace. Conflicts continue in Myanmar, Sudan and many other countries, despite the UN’s foundational hopes of ensuring peace, security and respect for human rights.

The Trump administration has abandoned multilateralism in favour of transactional bilateral dealmaking while spearheading a donor funding withdrawal that is hitting both the UN and civil society hard. The US government has also repudiated the Sustainable Development Goals, the ambitious and progressive targets all states agreed in 2015, but which are now badly off track.

Today’s multiple and growing crises demand an effective and powerful UN – but at the same time they make this less likely to happen.

Cutbacks loom large

As state leaders meet, one of the items on the agenda is the UN80 initiative. Launched in March, this is presented as a reform process to mark the UN’s 80th anniversary. But reflecting the impacts of the funding crisis, it’s first and foremost a cost-cutting drive. The slashing of donor aid – not only by the USA, but also by other established donor states such as France, Germany and the UK, often in favour of military spending – is having a global impact. The UN is being hit both by states failing to pay their mandatory assessed contributions, or delaying them for long spells, and by underfunding of initiatives that rely on additional voluntary support.

When it comes to mandatory contributions, the most powerful states are those that owe the most, with the USA in the lead with a circa US$1.5 billion debt, followed by China on close to US$600 million. Meanwhile voluntary funding shortfalls are particularly hitting human rights work, always the most underfunded part of the UN’s work. In June, UN human rights chief Volker Türk announced that 18 activities mandated by Human Rights Council resolutions wouldn’t be implemented because of resource constraints. In a world riven by sickening conflicts, human rights investigations on Palestine, Sudan and Ukraine aren’t able to operate at anywhere near full capacity.

Funding shortfalls, intensified by the Trump administration pulling out of key UN bodies and agreements, have forced the UN to plan for a 20 per cent budget cut in 2026. That may involve shedding some 7,000 jobs from its 35,000-person workforce, merging some agencies, shutting offices and relocating functions to cheaper locations.

The UN is undoubtedly an unwieldy and over-bureaucratic set of institutions, and it would be surprising if there weren’t some efficiency savings to be made. If staff are relocated from expensive global north hubs to cheaper global south locations, it could help UN bodies and staff better understand global south realities and improve access for civil society groups that struggle to travel to the key locations of Geneva and New York, particularly given the Trump administration’s new travel restrictions – although that wouldn’t be the rationale behind relocation.

But the proposed cuts mean the UN is effectively planning to do less than it has done before, at a time when the problems are bigger than they’ve been in decades. Given this, decisions about UN priorities mustn’t be left to its officials or states alone. Civil society must be enabled to have a say.

Civil society already has far too little access to UN processes. At the high-level week, even civil society organisations normally accredited for UN access are locked out of events. Reform processes such as last year’s Summit of the Future have also fallen far short of the access needed. Civil society’s proposals to improve the situation – starting with the creation of a civil society envoy, a low-cost innovation to help coordinate civil society participation across the UN – haven’t been taken up.

Now even civil society’s limited access could be further curtailed. Already the Human Rights Council is shortening sessions, reducing the opportunities available for civil society. The proposed cuts would impact disproportionately on the UN’s human rights work. In the name of efficiency, the UN could end up becoming less effective, if it grows even more state-centric and less prepared to uphold international human rights law. States that systematically violate human rights can only benefit from the ensuing lower levels of scrutiny.

Civil society is an essential voice in any conversation about what kind of UN the world needs and how to make it fit for purpose. It urgently must be included if the UN is to have any hope of fulfilling its founding promise to serve ‘we the peoples’.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

September 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

World leaders urged to prevent nuclear war, end the nuclear arms race and achieve global nuclear abolition

September 26 is a significant date. On this day in 1983 a nuclear war was narrowly averted when Colonel Stanislav Petrov, Duty Officer at a Russian nuclear early warning facility, broke protocol by not affirming to senior command an apparent incoming ballistic missile attack from the United States (later confirmed as a false alarm).

UNFOLD ZERO, New York, September 26, 2025

World leaders, meeting at a UN High Level Meeting to commemorate the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons today, are being called to stand down nuclear forces, end the costly nuclear arms race and commit to achieving the global elimination of nuclear weapons no later than 2045, the 100^th anniversary of the United Nations.

The call comes in in a Joint Appeal for Nuclear Abolition Day September 26 from over 500 civil society organizations representing peace, disarmament, human rights, environment, business, religious, youth, development and academic communities from around the world. It is endorsed by an additional 1000+ individuals, including parliamentarians, local body representatives, religious leaders, Nobel Laureates, former diplomats, academics/scientists, medical professionals, youth leaders and regular members of civil society (see below for a small sample list of endorsers).

The Appeal, which is organized by NuclearAbolitionDay.org, highlights that the risk of nuclear war by accident, miscalculation, crisis escalation, or malicious intent, is higher now than ever – with the Doomsday Clock ticking closer to midnight. The use of nuclear weapons by any of the nine nuclear-armed States or their nuclear allies would have catastrophic human, economic, and environmental consequences. 

“Nuclear weapons are a hazard for all of humanity and therefore should be dismantled and abolished altogether from the face of our earth our planet our home,” says Ela Gandhi (South Africa), Chairperson of Gandhi Development Trust, Honorary Co-President of Religions for Peace and Granddaughter of Mahatma Gandhi.

“On September 26, we face the fact that proliferation of nuclear arms fits the definition of insanity,” says Senator Marilou McPhedran (Canada), Member of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament.

The Appeal attests that the threat and use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal, and that States currently relying on nuclear weapons for their security have an obligation to replace these policies with approaches based on international law and common security, as outlined in the UN Charter.

“The 1996 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion held that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control,” says Dr. Deepshikha Kumari Vijh (USA),Executive Director of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, who will present the appeal to the High-Level Meeting this afternoon. “Nuclear Weapon States are urged to meet this obligation.”

 “The lack of engagement and good faith actions by UN Member States on nuclear disarmament is not just disappointing – it’s a dangerous failure,” says Chris Guillot, co-founder of AwareNearth. “We must shift our mindset on nuclear risk now, for the sake of future generations.”

“Let us all build friendship and peace among nations, abolish genocidal nuclear weapons and give hope to Humanity” says Mairead Corrigan Maguirre (Ireland), Nobel Peace Laureate 1976.

September 26 is a significant date. On this day in 1983 a nuclear war was narrowly averted when Colonel Stanislav Petrov, Duty Officer at a Russian nuclear early warning facility, broke protocol by not affirming to senior command an apparent incoming ballistic missile attack from the United States (later confirmed as a false alarm). “If a similar situation of incorrect information about a potential nuclear attack were to arise today, either in the Russian nuclear command and control system or in the US one, it’s doubtful, in the current geopolitical context of explicit nuclear threats, that a latter-day equivalent to Colonel Petrov would be there,” says John Hallam (Australia), Steering Committee Member for NoFirstUse Global. “The consequences for everyone and everything would then be catastrophic.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.unfoldzero.org/world-leaders-urged-to-prevent-nuclear-war-end-the-nuclear-arms-race-and-achieve-global-nuclear-abolition/

September 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment