View previous stories
	Understanding Inequality in China by C. J. Polychroniou, Vamsi Vakulabharanam Global Policy Journal, Durham University   Understanding Inequality in China: An Interview with Vamsi Vakulabharanam, by C. J. Polychroniou. (Global Policy Journal)   Economic inequality is a global phenomenon. And while the data suggests that inequality between countries has fallen, inequality within countries has risen. China, for instance, a country with very low levels of inequality just a few decades ago, now features inequality levels that are comparable to those in the US.   What are the structural mechanisms generating inequality in China since the transition was made from state socialism to market reforms, and what were the sources of equalization during the Mao years? Is China equipped to weather the storm of US tariffs?   Political economist Vamsi Vakulabharanam sheds light on these questions in the interview that follows. Vakulabharanam is Associate Professor of Economics and Co-Director of the Asian Political Economy Program at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He is the author of the recently published book Class and Inequality in China and India, 1950-2010.   C. J. Polychroniou: Inequality has been on the rise across the globe for several decades although it manifests itself in different ways in different societies and its causes are quite complex. In the United States, however, it is widely acknowledged that economic inequality has risen sharply since the 1980s and that this is largely due to the promotion of neoliberal economic policies.   But what about China, which has experienced rapid growth over the past several decades? Inequality has also increased sharply in China even though it is believed that its leadership rejected the neoliberal prescriptions for economic reform. What are the causes underlying the rise of inequality in China?   Vamsi Vakulabharanam: Global economic inequality (focusing on economic inequality among all the individuals in the world) has two components – economic inequality within countries and economic inequality between countries. Since the 1980s, after neoliberal economic reforms were introduced across the world, there has been a consistent increase in within-country inequality, barring very few exceptions for brief periods (e.g. the pink tide in Latin America).   Economic inequality between countries has tended to decrease marginally because of the fast-paced growth in populous countries like China and India. Both these countries have witnessed rapid economic growth between the 1980s and 2010s, even as they have become more unequal internally.   What this has done is to catapult a small proportion of the Chinese and Indian elites (capitalists, professional classes and political elites) into the global middle and upper classes during the same period, where these select groups have witnessed significant convergence with their counterparts in the developed capitalist world.   In China, the economic reforms initiated after 1978 tended to reduce inequality until the mid-1980s. This is because the initial reforms were focused on agriculture and in creating special economic zones (e.g., Shenzhen) that led to rapid economic growth in sectors and regions that had witnessed slower growth in the previous three decades. At the same time, the rural non-agricultural sector (e.g., Township and Village Enterprises) grew rapidly and contributed significantly to a spurt in exports from China during the 1980s. After 1985, when the coastal development strategy was initiated, within-country inequality began to rise in China. This increase in inequality had two major sources. The coastal region (and river delta regions) tended to grow faster compared to the central and western regions, thereby creating a trend of rising regional inequality.   At the same time, as the urban sector started growing faster than its rural counterpart, there was a rapid growth in the gap between urban and rural areas. These two processes started by the early 1990s to push up the inequality rates up in China.   After 1992 and until about 2007, inequality in China rose continuously, partly due to the continued increase in the urban-rural gap and regional inequalities (the latter roughly until about 2000). However, new processes were added during this period to those that were already heightening inequalities. Despite the popular conception that China did not adopt neoliberal economic policies, the distinctive experience of China rests on two grounds.   First, the economic reforms were implemented gradually as opposed to the Russian experience, although most of the prescriptions of the Washington Consensus were implemented in China not in one shot but over time (indeed, scholars like David Harvey have pointed out that growth in China can be described as neoliberalism with Chinese characteristics).   Second, China has maintained a mixed-ownership (in terms of productive resources other than land) economy, although the state-owned enterprise sector (SOE) has a smaller proportion now as the private sector operations have grown over time. There was a significant privatization of SOEs around the turn of the century. They also contributed to a smaller share of total employment over time, partly due to the rapid growth of the private sector but also because state owned enterprises engaged in large scale retrenchments during this period (between 1995 and 2002, over 50 million workers were retrenched in China).   The rising inequality process after 1992, therefore, incorporated a new dimension. In urban areas, inequality among classes started to rise. This was, in part, because millions of migrants entered cities to work in manufacturing and in the informal sector after 1992 (without a change in their residency status from rural hukou to an urban one).   The distance between some original urban constituents and the migrants tended to increase during this period, while there was higher competition for jobs at the lower end between migrants and some of the older urban residents (e.g., the retrenched workers). There was a faster growth of incomes for the urban elites such as owners, managers, professionals and political elites compared to the rest of the urban population such as older urban workers and migrant workers who had moved from rural to urban areas.   This new dimension, Class, is what I focus on in my new book Class and Inequality in China and India, 1950-2010. By the early 2000s, income inequality in China (even without including high net worth individuals in the sample) has tended to be as high as it is in the US. Wealth inequality has also risen rapidly in China during this period and has tended to equal wealth inequality levels in the capitalist Global North.   From the mid-2000s onwards, inequality in China has remained at high levels although it has tended to stagnate or mildly reduced. There are many factors that are causing this outcome but let me highlight a few here.   First, around 2007, the coastal regions witnessed labor shortages, so wages showed an upward tendency, causing some equalization in incomes. This was also the period when some economists began to speculate that the Chinese economy was witnessing a Kuznets moment of transformation in inequality dynamics.   Simon Kuznets (Nobel prize winner in economics) had hypothesized in 1955 that within-country inequality in capitalist countries would rise at low levels of per capita income and then tend to decline at higher levels of per capita income. Whether it was a Kuznets-like moment or not, economic activity began to shift to the central and western regions, applying a downward pressure on regional inequalities as well.   Second, the Chinese state initiated a new set of welfare-oriented policy reforms that did not go very far but addressed the urban-rural gap and the gap between urban populations and the migrants. While this was by no means revolutionary, it put brakes on the rising inequality process.   All in all, there were four periods after the 1978 economic reforms during which China witnessed very different sets of inequality dynamics. Between 1978 and 1985, it witnessed a reduction in inequality. During the 1985-92 period, inequality tended to rise. Between 1992 and mid-2000s, inequality rose precipitously. Post-2007, inequality has tended to stagnate but is still comparable to inequality levels in the US.   C.J. Polychroniou: Was there inequality in China prior to the initiation of economic reforms and trade liberalization? In other words, what is the socialist legacy in China regarding inequality?   Vamsi Vakulabharanam: The socialist legacy regarding inequality is that there was a significant equalization of incomes and wealth between 1949 and 1978. There were four sources of equalization, and three sources of inequality during this period, with the former dominating over the latter for the entire Mao era. While precise data is not forthcoming for this period, the structural evidence is overwhelming, pointing to this conclusion.   The four sources of equalization were the following: (1) Private wealth was largely eliminated; (2) in units like communes or state-owned enterprises enhanced equality; (3) regional inequality was reduced (inter-provincial inequalities went down); and (4) there was significant equalization of access to health care and education.   The first source of equalization is the elimination of private wealth. In rural areas, large scale land reforms were implemented in 1952, and the collectivization of land was successfully completed by 1956. This meant that rural land was owned collectively by village communes. In urban areas, land was owned by the socialist state, so private landownership was largely eliminated. By the 1950s, productive enterprises were largely owned by the state (State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) or the collectives, so private property (save minor assets) was largely eliminated in rural as well as urban areas.   The second source of equalization was the creation of income equality in local units such as communes or state-owned enterprises. This is a case of within-unit equalization in rural areas, which kept open the possibility of between-unit inequality across the country. In urban spaces, within productive enterprises, wage differences were brought to a minimal level by the 1950s.   In fact, the Gini Coefficient for urban areas in 1978, when survey-based income data is again available from the National Bureau of Statistics, was below 0.2. China was among the most equal urban spaces in the whole world at that time.   The third source of equalization was in terms of reducing regional disparities. During the Mao period, there was a conscious policy effort to eliminate regional inequalities. This was implemented by relocating productive activity (industrial) to inner provinces away from the more affluent coastal provinces. This process brought about significant levels of provincial equalization, which is reversed in the post-1980s period.   The fourth source of equalization was in terms of education and health care. China expended its resources to implement universal elementary and school education from the very inception of the socialist state. This was in sharp contrast to the Indian development experience, wherein scarce resources were significantly divided between the elites and the large population that was without any formal education.   In terms of health care too, China was able to provide universal, high-quality care to its urban population typically through employment-based health care programs. In rural areas, peasants were trained to provide primary health care, and this is how the famous institution of “barefoot doctors” was created.   However, there were broadly three kinds of inequalities that continued. These were (1) between-commune inequalities in rural areas; (2) urban-rural gaps; and (3) political and ideological inequalities.   First, in terms of the between-commune inequalities, the main source of the differences across communes came from fertility differences, ecological differences and historical differences. This meant that rural income inequality remained high in China despite the elimination of private wealth, and it was much higher than urban inequality during the Mao period.   Second, there was a significant and persistent gap in urban and rural incomes, with a significant deterioration occurring during tumultuous periods, such during the Great Leap Forward campaign and in the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution. The urban population was kept under check and rural migrants were not allowed into cities.   Rural populations also had restrictions on intra-rural population and were largely confined to particular villages and communes. Rural populations had lower incomes than their urban counterparts despite the claim of the state being a peasant-based state. This conclusion can be reached by comparing income data from some communes and workers’ wages in cities and the 1978 data once it was made available on a larger scale.   Third, there were power and status differences between party leaders and the rest of the population at all levels. These differences may or may not have translated to the economic domain, but they were important markers of non-economic inequalities in everyday life of this period.   In sum, economic and erstwhile political elites were eliminated. Private wealth was eliminated. Within-unit economic equality was established in rural units. Urban equality was implemented across the country, along with educational and health equities. While some inequalities remained, the overall dominant trend during the whole socialist period (or what has been termed the Mao period between 1949 and 1978) was one of greater equality.   C. J. Polychroniou: The Chinese economic model in place since the late 1970s is called a market socialist economy. Is that an accurate description? I mean, is it possible for an economy to be socialist if it has a stock market?   Vamsi Vakulabharanam: This is an interesting question. In my own understanding, there are two phases in the evolution of the Chinese economy after 1978. The first phase is between 1978 and the early 1990s. This is the phase that Giovanni Arrighi emphasized in his book Adam Smith in Beijing, where he argues that Chinese reforms largely ushered in markets but did not engage in processes of accumulation by dispossession, whereby people are stripped of their productive assets leaving them with nothing but their ability to perform labor. I could see people making a case for China being market socialist during that period.   My criticism of Arrighi is that in the post-1992 period, there was significant retrenchment of workers as mentioned above but, in addition, land dispossession processes occurred at a rapid pace to pave the way for private sector manufacturing and infrastructure (e.g., three gorges dam). A lot of migrant workers that moved from rural areas to urban areas were dispossessed of their means of production in their villages, and many of them today have no villages to return to while possessing no major assets where they currently live, including housing in urban areas.   Overall, a significant majority of the workforce in urban areas works for the private sector now. According to surveys in major cities, close to half the urban workforce is engaged in informal work. The private sector in China is largely indistinguishable from the private sector in the capitalist world in the sense that its profitability is based on a capitalist mode of exploitation of workers.   The Chinese state has retained ownership and control over some key sectors such as telecommunications, energy (e.g., petroleum and electric power), military equipment and infrastructure (e.g., railroads). Many SOEs in today’s China also function on broad capitalist principles. In any case, the private sector is the dominant one in the overall Chinese economy.   The state may have greater leeway over the private sector, especially after 2012, compared to the immediately preceding period inside the country and compared to other capitalist countries, but it is unmistakable that the larger economy is governed by capitalist dynamics. I would characterize the current Chinese economy as a mixed-ownership capitalist economy, not a market-socialist one.   C. J. Polychroniou: What is the stance of the Chinese Communist Party on inequality? Does it take economic inequality and hence wealth redistribution seriously?   Vamsi Vakulabharanam: The official stance of the Chinese Communist Party on inequality has not changed since the time of reforms. Deng Xiaoping’s Let some people and some regions get rich first dictum affords a certain freedom-in-the-concrete for experimenting with policies that are deeply capitalist in nature. The real question is whether the emergence and entrenchment of capitalist class structures in the larger society changes the complexion of that dictum and creates a new one – in order to help those that did not get rich first, let there be another people’s revolution. Since the party is inspired by Marx, I am sure that its leaders are not unaware of the fact that the economic processes they have unleashed perpetuate class-based inequalities.   The real history of the Chinese economy and society after the initiation of the economic reforms, and especially after 1992, would indicate that the party turned a blind eye to issues of economic inequality in the interests of economic growth. It is true that the overall GDP of the Chinese economy has risen dramatically since the reforms and that different classes have improved their economic conditions more rapidly than they did during the socialist period.   However, some classes (such as the urban elites, as I show in my book) have witnessed significantly sharper increases in their incomes and wealth holdings and have become deeply entrenched in their class positions.   China has more dollar billionaires (814) than the US (800), according to the 2024 Hurun rich list. At the same time, more than 250 million internal migrants have no significant assets or even hukou in urban areas, while they are allowed to work in cities by the Chinese state. In a significant number of these cases, their village entitlements may have been eroded by the expanding urban spaces. This sort of a gap could not have arisen if the Chinese state was committed to egalitarianism, even with some leeway for a dictum like some inequality is acceptable if the overall economy achieves significant growth.   The Chinese Communist Party must rediscover egalitarianism in the deeply unequal society that China has turned into after the market reforms of 1978.   C. J. Polychroniou: The Trump administration has backed down from its disastrous trade war with China, but there is no doubt that tensions are still simmering. How would the trade war affect China's economy?   Vamsi Vakulabharanam: I am not a trade economist, but there are some obvious implications that everybody is aware of. Tariff hikes by the US will, in the short-term, lead to reductions in Chinese exports to the US and will increase unemployment in export-oriented sectors. Since China has imposed retaliatory tariffs, this will lead to price increases in those sectors in which China imports US goods. I show in my book that China and India still have a very unfavorable unequal exchange with the US, and these tariffs will worsen that condition even more. China may lose some more surplus value to the US in this new situation. However, China has considerable leverage in its trade relations with the US and is using it, which is the reason why the Trump administration backed down.   The Chinese state and the party are strategic entities and deeply responsive to changes in the global economy. In the medium-run, I expect the Chinese state to redirect its exports to other parts of the world and continue its economic journey without too many hiccups.   What is interesting to see is whether this trade war heightens the awakening of the party to address the inequalities inside the country that we have discussed here. That is another route that China can take to reduce its dependence on the US and other developed countries, with which it has an unfavorable labor value exchange, even now, in international trade.   In general, the main response of China after the global crisis of 2008 has been to externalize its internal contradictions (e.g., inequality) by focusing on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) initiative. The aim behind the BRI initiative is for China to expand its global presence but also to provide an outlet to the crises of Chinese capitalism.   Perhaps this is the opportunity for the party to deeply rethink the future trajectory of the Chinese society, and particularly its deeply unequal nature. It is by no means an easy task because China now has deeply entrenched class structures.   http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/23/05/2025/understanding-inequality-china-interview-vamsi-vakulabharanam
	Any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for humanity by SIPRI, UN News, ICAN, Red Cross, agencies   June 2024   Role of nuclear weapons grows as geopolitical relations deteriorate, reports the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)   The nine nuclear-armed states—the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and Israel—continued to modernize their nuclear arsenals and several deployed new nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable weapon systems in 2023.   Of the total global inventory of an estimated 12,121 warheads in January 2024, about 9585 were in military stockpiles for potential use. An estimated 3904 of those warheads were deployed with missiles and aircraft and the rest were in central storage.   Around 2100 of the deployed warheads were kept in a state of high operational alert on ballistic missiles. Nearly all of these warheads belonged to Russia or the USA, but for the first time China is believed to have some warheads on high operational alert.   ‘While the global total of nuclear warheads continues to fall as cold war-era weapons are gradually dismantled, regrettably we continue to see year-on-year increases in the number of operational nuclear warheads,’ said SIPRI Director Dan Smith. ‘This trend seems likely to continue and probably accelerate in the coming years and is extremely concerning.’   India, Pakistan and North Korea are all pursuing the capability to deploy multiple warheads on ballistic missiles, something Russia, France, the UK, the USA and—more recently—China already have. This would enable a rapid potential increase in deployed warheads, as well as the possibility for nuclear-armed countries to threaten the destruction of significantly more targets.   Nuclear arms control and disarmament diplomacy suffered more major setbacks in 2023. In February 2023 Russia announced it was suspending its participation in the 2010 Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START)—the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty limiting Russian and US strategic nuclear forces. As a countermeasure, the USA has also suspended sharing and publication of treaty data.   In November Russia withdrew its ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), citing ‘an imbalance’ with the USA, which has failed to ratify the treaty since it opened for signature in 1996. However, Russia confirmed that it would remain a signatory and would continue to participate in the work of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO).   Meanwhile, Russia has continued to make threats regarding the use of nuclear weapons in the context of Western support for Ukraine. In May 2024 Russia carried out tactical nuclear weapon drills close to the Ukrainian border.   ‘We have not seen nuclear weapons playing such a prominent role in international relations since the cold war,’ said Wilfred Wan, Director of SIPRI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme. ‘It is hard to believe that barely two years have passed since the leaders of the five largest nuclear-armed states jointly reaffirmed that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”.’   An informal agreement reached between Iran and the USA in June 2023 seemed to temporarily de-escalate tensions between the two countries, which had intensified over Iran’s military support to Russian forces in Ukraine. However, the start of the Israel–Hamas war in October upended the agreement, with proxy attacks by Iran-backed groups on US forces in Iraq and Syria apparently ending Iranian–US diplomatic efforts. The war also undermined efforts to engage Israel in the Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction.   North Korea continues to prioritize its military nuclear programme as a central element of its national security strategy. SIPRI estimates that the country has now assembled around 50 warheads and possesses enough fissile material to reach a total of up to 90 warheads, both significant increases over the estimates for January 2023. While North Korea conducted no nuclear test explosions in 2023, it appears to have carried out its first test of a short-range ballistic missile from a rudimentary silo. It also completed the development of at least two types of land-attack cruise missile (LACM) designed to deliver nuclear weapons.   ‘Like several other nuclear-armed states, North Korea is putting new emphasis on developing its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons,’ said Matt Korda, Associate Researcher with SIPRI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme and Senior Research Fellow for the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. ‘Accordingly, there is a growing concern that North Korea might intend to use these weapons very early in a conflict.’   Both India and Pakistan continued to develop new types of nuclear delivery system in 2023. SIPRI’s estimate of the size of China’s nuclear arsenal increased from 410 warheads in January 2023 to 500 in January 2024, and it is expected to keep growing. Depending on how it decides to structure its forces, China could potentially have at least as many intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) as either Russia or the USA by the turn of the decade, although its stockpile of nuclear warheads is still expected to remain much smaller than the stockpiles of either of those two countries.   ‘China is expanding its nuclear arsenal faster than any other country,’ said Hans M. Kristensen, Associate Senior Fellow with SIPRI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme and Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). ‘But in nearly all of the nuclear-armed states there are either plans or a significant push to increase nuclear forces.’   More positively, the June 2023 visit to Beijing by the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, seems to have increased space for dialogue between China and the USA on a range of issues, potentially including arms control. Later in the year the two sides agreed to resume military-to-military communicat   Global security and stability in increasing peril   The 55th edition of the SIPRI Yearbook analyses the continuing deterioration of global security over the past year. The impacts of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza are visible in almost every aspect of the issues connected to armaments, disarmament and international security examined in the Yearbook. Beyond these two wars—which took centre stage in global news reporting, diplomatic energy and discussion of international politics alike—armed conflicts were active in another 50 states in 2023.   Fighting in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan saw millions of people displaced, and conflict flared up again in Myanmar in the final months of 2023. Armed criminal gangs were a major security concern in some Central and South American states, notably leading to the effective collapse of the state in Haiti during 2023 and into 2024.   ‘We are now in one of the most dangerous periods in human history,’ said Dan Smith, SIPRI Director. ‘There are numerous sources of instability—political rivalries, economic inequalities, ecological disruption, an accelerating arms race. The abyss is beckoning and it is time for the great powers to step back and reflect. Preferably together.’   http://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2024/role-nuclear-weapons-grows-geopolitical-relations-deteriorate-new-sipri-yearbook-out-now http://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/nuclear-risk/ http://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time http://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2024-08-06/secretary-generals-message-the-hiroshima-peace-memorial-the-79th-anniversary-of-the-atomic-bombing-of-hiroshima http://www.sipri.org/events/2024/2024-stockholm-forum-peace-and-development http://www.ipsnews.net/2024/07/us-election-dangers-nuclear-weapons/   Aug. 2023   Any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for humanity   More than 100 medical journals issue urgent call for the elimination of nuclear weapons, warning that the “danger is great and growing.”   In January, 2023, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward to 90 seconds before midnight, reflecting the growing risk of nuclear war.   In August, 2022, the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that the world is now in “a time of nuclear danger not seen since the height of the Cold War”. The danger has been underlined by growing tensions between many nuclear armed states.   As editors of health and medical journals worldwide, we call on health professionals to alert the public and our leaders to this major danger to public health and the essential life support systems of the planet—and urge action to prevent it.   Current nuclear arms control and non-proliferation efforts are inadequate to protect the world's population against the threat of nuclear war by design, error, or miscalculation.   The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) commits each of the 190 participating nations ”to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”.   Progress has been disappointingly slow and the most recent NPT review conference in 2022 ended without an agreed statement.   There are many examples of near disasters that have exposed the risks of depending on nuclear deterrence for the indefinite future.   Modernisation of nuclear arsenals could increase risks: for example, hypersonic missiles decrease the time available to distinguish between an attack and a false alarm, increasing the likelihood of rapid escalation.   Any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for humanity. Even a “limited” nuclear war involving 250 of the 13 000 nuclear weapons in the world could kill 120 million people outright and cause global climate disruption leading to a nuclear famine, putting 2 billion people at risk.   A large-scale nuclear war between the USA and Russia could kill 200 million people or more in the near term, and potentially cause a global “nuclear winter” that could kill 5–6 billion people, threatening the survival of humanity.   Once a nuclear weapon is detonated, escalation to all-out nuclear war could occur rapidly. The prevention of any use of nuclear weapons is therefore an urgent public health priority and fundamental steps must also be taken to address the root cause of the problem—by abolishing nuclear weapons.   The health community has had a crucial role in efforts to reduce the risk of nuclear war and must continue to do so in the future.   In the 1980s the efforts of health professionals, led by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), helped to end the Cold War arms race by educating policy makers and the public on both sides of the Iron Curtain about the medical consequences of nuclear war. This was recognised when the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the IPPNW.   In 2007, the IPPNW launched the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which grew into a global civil society campaign with hundreds of partner organisations. A pathway to nuclear abolition was created with the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in 2017, for which the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize.   International medical organisations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, the IPPNW, the World Medical Association, the World Federation of Public Health Associations, and the International Council of Nurses, had key roles in the process leading up to the negotiations, and in the negotiations themselves, presenting the scientific evidence about the catastrophic health and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons and nuclear war.   They continued this important collaboration during the First Meeting of the States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which currently has 92 signatories, including 68 member states.   We now call on health professional associations to inform their members worldwide about the threat to human survival and to support efforts to reduce the near-term risks of nuclear war, including three immediate steps on the part of nuclear armed states and their allies: first, adopt a no first use policy; second, take their nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert; and third, urge all states involved in current conflicts to pledge publicly and unequivocally that they will not use nuclear weapons in these conflicts.   We ask them to work for a definitive end to the nuclear threat by supporting the urgent commencement of negotiations among the nuclear armed states for a verifiable, timebound agreement to eliminate their nuclear weapons in accordance with commitments in the NPT, opening the way for all nations to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.   The danger is great and growing. The nuclear armed states must eliminate their nuclear arsenals before they eliminate us. The health community played a decisive part during the Cold War and more recently in the development of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. We must take up this challenge again as an urgent priority, working with renewed energy to reduce the risks of nuclear war and to eliminate nuclear weapons.   http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(23)01526-X/fulltext http://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/ http://thebulletin.org/2023/07/artificial-escalation-imagining-the-future-of-nuclear-risk/ http://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2023-08-09/secretary-generals-message-nagasaki-peace-memorial-the-78th-anniversary-of-the-atomic-bombing-of-nagasaki http://news.un.org/en/story/2023/08/1139442 http://press.un.org/en/2022/sgsm21394.doc.htm http://www.ippnw.org/programs/nuclear-weapons-abolition http://www.ippnw.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/ENGLISH-Nuclear-Famine-Report-Final-bleed-marks.pdf http://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm   Mar. 2023   Izumi Nakamitsu, the head of the United Nations disarmament division has warned of the need for urgent global action to eliminate atomic weapons, especially during the current heightened tensions between the United States and Russia—the world's major nuclear powers—over the conflict in Ukraine.   Addressing the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons Forum in Oslo, Norway via video, United Nations High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Izumi Nakamitsu linked the concept of "humanitarian disarmament" with international agreements including the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the Anti-Personnel Landmine Ban Convention, and the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).   "It is clear that a desire to avoid the unspeakable human suffering caused by the use of nuclear weapons is a driving force for nuclear disarmament efforts," Nakamitsu said. "Such efforts are needed now more than ever."   "Since the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation just over one year ago, we have witnessed an increase in dangerous nuclear rhetoric," she noted. "There has been a further breakdown of trust among the two states with the world's largest nuclear arsenals. In the past weeks, we have seen the suspension of inspections under the last remaining treaty limiting the size of these arsenals."   "Nuclear risk is at the highest level since the depth of the Cold War," said Nakamitsu, who highlighted "five key measures that can be taken" to "reverse current dangerous trends":   State parties to the TPNW should make headway in implementing their treaty and continue to forcefully advocate for its principles;   States that have yet to sign or ratify the TPNW should make a serious study of the treaty that takes into account its articles, its normative value, and its operation to date;   States that choose to remain outside the TPNW should use the avenues available to them—including victim assistance, environmental remediation, nuclear disarmament verification, and further study of the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons—to make progress on nuclear disarmament;   States should condemn nuclear threats and blackmail and demand progress toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons—not in spite of, but precisely because of today's deteriorating security environment; and Civil society must continue to hold states—and the United Nations—accountable for living up to their promises, and for making tangible progress toward our shared goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.   To date, 92 nations have signed the TPNW, while 68 countries are state parties to the agreement, according to the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. None of the world's nine nuclear powers has signed the treaty.   "Though we are living in a moment of increased confrontation and militarization, one fundamental truth remains unchanged: The only way to eliminate nuclear risk is to eliminate nuclear weapons," Nakamitsu concluded. "This remains the highest disarmament priority of the United Nations and we will continue to work with all member states and all other stakeholders to that end."   http://front.un-arm.org/hr-nakamitsu-video-messages/hr-nakamitsu-ican-act-on-it-forum.mp4 http://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/HR-briefingSC-ThreatInternationalPeace-1.pdf http://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/HR-statement-ICAN.pdf http://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/ http://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2023/states-invest-nuclear-arsenals-geopolitical-relations-deteriorate-new-sipri-yearbook-out-now http://www.icanw.org/ http://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm http://humanitariandisarmament.org/campaigns/   Aug. 2022   Humanity’s just one misunderstanding away from ‘nuclear annihilation’ warns UN chief. (UN News)   As geopolitical tensions reach new highs, and some governments are spending billions on nuclear weapons in a false bid for peace and security, countries must uphold the nearly 80-year norm against their use, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in New York on Monday.   The UN chief was speaking at the opening of the Tenth Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which runs through 26 August.   Mr. Guterres highlighted some of the current challenges to global peace and security, with the world under greater stress due to the climate crisis, stark inequalities, conflicts and human rights violations, as well as the devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.   He said the meeting is taking place amid these challenges, and at a time of nuclear danger not seen since the height of the Cold War.   “Geopolitical tensions are reaching new highs. Competition is trumping co-operation and collaboration. Distrust has replaced dialogue and disunity has replaced disarmament. States are seeking false security in stockpiling and spending hundreds of billions of dollars on doomsday weapons that have no place on our planet,” he said.   Currently, almost 13,000 nuclear weapons are now being held in arsenals around the world, he added.   “All this at a time when the risks of proliferation are growing and guardrails to prevent escalation are weakening. And when crises — with nuclear undertones — are festering, From the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula. To the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and to many other factors around the world.”   He said today, humanity was “just one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation.”   The Secretary-General underlined the importance of the non-proliferation treaty, saying it is needed “as much as ever”, while the review meeting provides an opportunity “to put humanity on a new path towards a world free of nuclear weapons.”   He outlined five areas for action, starting with reinforcing and reaffirming the norm against the use of nuclear weapons, which requires steadfast commitment from all parties to the treaty. “We need to strengthen all avenues of dialogue and transparency. Peace cannot take hold in an absence of trust and mutual respect,” he said.   Countries also must “work relentlessly” towards the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons, which begins with new commitment to shrink their numbers.   This will also mean reinforcing multilateral agreements and frameworks on disarmament and non-proliferation, which includes the important work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).   For his third point, Mr. Guterres focused on the need to address the “simmering tensions” in the Middle East and Asia.   “By adding the threat of nuclear weapons to enduring conflicts, these regions are edging towards catastrophe. We need to redouble our support for dialogue and negotiation to ease tensions and forge new bonds of trust in regions that have seen too little,” he said.   He urged governments to fulfill all outstanding commitments in the treaty, “and keep it fit-for-purpose in these trying times.”   http://bit.ly/3PLqkeZ http://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00573-0   Mar. 2022   Red Cross urgently appeals to states to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used, by Helen Durham - Director of Law and Policy, (ICRC)   The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is alarmed by recent statements made with respect to nuclear weapons.   Five years ago this month, as States were beginning the negotiations of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the ICRC recalled that "nuclear weapons are the most terrifying weapon ever invented. They are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, and in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time. They threaten irreversible harm to the environment and to future generations. Indeed, they threaten the very survival of humanity."   The ICRC and the Japanese Red Cross Society witnessed first-hand the suffering and devastation caused by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 as humanitarian personnel attempted, in near-impossible conditions, to assist the dying and injured. We cannot allow a repetition of this dark part of our past.   We know that a nuclear explosion would cause insurmountable challenges to humanitarian assistance. No State or humanitarian organization is prepared to respond to the enormous needs that a nuclear explosion would create. What we cannot prepare for, what we cannot respond to, we must prevent.   It is extremely doubtful that nuclear weapons could ever be used in accordance with the principles and rules of international humanitarian law.   The only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons are never used again is by prohibiting and eliminating them. The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, of which the ICRC is a part, has repeatedly expressed its deep alarm at the increasing risk that nuclear weapons will again be used by intent, miscalculation or accident and stressed that any risk of use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable, given their catastrophic humanitarian consequences.   The introduction of nuclear weapons renders armed conflicts significantly more dangerous and risks a global conflagration in which humanity will suffer irreparably. This is a wake-up call and a call for utmost caution.   States must now heed the Movement's call on all States to promptly sign, ratify or accede to, and faithfully implement the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Pending their elimination, all States and, in particular, the nuclear possessors and nuclear-allied States must take immediate steps to reduce the risk of intentional or accidental use of nuclear weapons, based on their existing international commitments.   In 2022, the first meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the 10th Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will provide key opportunities, but also tests, for States to make tangible progress towards achieving nuclear disarmament, a legal obligation of the international community as a whole.   Seldom have collective action and concrete, meaningful steps to free the world of the dark shadow of nuclear weapons been more urgent.   http://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-appeals-nuclear-weapons-never-used/   * The safety of our world is already at risk from accidental or intentional nuclear war. Artificial intelligence integration into the critical functions of nuclear command, control and communications systems could further destabilize this delicate dynamic, with calamitous consequences. AI rearchers underline the fatal risks:   http://futureoflife.org/project/artificial-escalation/ http://futureoflife.org/project/mitigating-the-risks-of-ai-integration-in-nuclear-launch/   * “International Security must rest on a commitment to joint survival rather than a threat of mutual destruction”, report from Olof Palme International Center, the International Peace Bureau and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC): http://commonsecurity.org/
	View more stories