View previous stories
	Why condemn threats to use nuclear weapons? by International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons   ICAN Briefing paper - October 2022   Russia’s threats to use nuclear weapons have heightened tensions, reduced the threshold for use of nuclear weapons, and greatly increased the risk of nuclear conflict and global catastrophe.   This risk is further heightened by responses from other governments that imply possible retaliation with nuclear weapons, and by commentary and analysis examining scenarios in which nuclear weapons might be used in the Ukraine conflict, and evaluating the consequent military implications.   These developments are normalising the idea of using nuclear weapons and eroding the decades-old taboo against their use. It is therefore vital that the international community consistently and categorically condemn any and all threats to use nuclear weapons. Consistent and unequivocal condemnation from governments and civil society can stigmatise and delegitimize nuclear threats, help restore and strengthen the norm against the use of nuclear weapons, and reinforce disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.   Delegitimization is effective   Condemnation of threats is not just empty rhetoric: delegitimization works. It has been shown to influence the behaviour of nuclear-armed states. Like nearly all states, nuclear-armed states attach significant value to maintaining legitimacy in the eyes of the wider international community. Loss of legitimacy can mean loss of international political support, making pursuit of national interests more difficult, and in serious cases leading to isolation, ostracism, sanctions and significant economic consequences - which in turn might lead to domestic instability and unrest.   So when pursuing their national aims - however selfishly, cynically or aggressively - nuclear-armed states all make serious efforts to justify their actions under international law and portray them as normal, accepted practice that follows established precedents. For example, all five of the NPT nuclear-weapon states claim to be complying fully with the disarmament obligations of the treaty, and with international humanitarian law. Russia was at pains to use provisions of the UN Charter to justify its invasion of Ukraine.   Even non-binding resolutions of the UN General Assembly are treated very seriously: both Russia and the United States have expended enormous energy on gathering votes for recent resolutions on the conflict in Ukraine.   This means that they are sensitive to criticism that could result in a loss of legitimacy and international support. For example, Russia has reacted to widespread criticism of its nuclear threats in connection with the Ukraine conflict both by walking back the threats (clarifying that any use of nuclear weapons would be in accordance with Russia’s stated nuclear doctrine) and by attempting to justify its actions as being in line with accepted international practices - including, bizarrely, by citing the US nuclear bombing of Hiroshima as a “precedent”.   Russia also responded strongly and at length to the declaration adopted by the first meeting of states parties to the TPNW which unequivocally condemned “any and all nuclear threats”, even though the declaration did not name Russia or specify any particular threat.   And not only did international criticism of Russia’s most recent nuclear threats prompt the Russian government to clarify its position and stress that it has not changed its nuclear doctrine, responses from Western nuclear-armed states - such as the US describing nuclear threats as “irresponsible” and the Secretary-General of NATO stating that “Any use of nuclear weapons is absolutely unacceptable, it will totally change the nature of the conflict” - have amplified and generalised the delegitimization effect.   It is worth noting that much of the nuclear-armed states’ opposition to the TPNW - both before its negotiation and afterwards - has been explicitly (and correctly!) based on the fear that the treaty would have the effect of delegitimizing nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence. The United States warned its NATO allies in 2016 not to support the negotiation of a ban treaty because the treaty would aim to “delegitimize the concept of nuclear deterrence upon which many U.S. allies and partners depend”. A NATO statement issued as the TPNW was about to enter into force said that NATO members “reject any attempt to delegitimise nuclear deterrence”   Delegitimization also works through non-governmental channels. There is a long record of pressure from consumers and civil society affecting the behaviour of corporations, and many of these approaches also apply to nuclear weapons. As public stigma against nuclear weapons grows, corporate involvement in nuclear weapons becomes more commercially risky. ICAN has already made substantial progress in persuading banks, pension funds and other financial institutions to divest from corporations involved in producing and maintaining nuclear weapons.   The entry into force of the TPNW, rendering nuclear weapons illegal under international law - like biological and chemical weapons, antipersonnel landmines and cluster munitions - has added significant leverage to this effort.   Delegitimization in practice   The key elements for successfully delegitimizing threats to use nuclear weapons are:   Focusing on what would actually happen if the threat were to be carried out. Any use of nuclear weapons would have wide-ranging and catastrophic humanitarian consequences [especially in densely populated regions].   These consequences mean that threats to use nuclear weapons cannot and must not be discussed purely in terms of geopolitics and military strategy and tactics.   Even so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons, of the kind that some speculate Russia might use in the Ukraine conflict, typically have explosive yields in the range of 10 to 100 kilotons. In comparison, the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945, killing 140,000 people, had a yield of just 15 kilotons.   A single nuclear detonation would likely kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and injure many more; radioactive fallout could contaminate large areas across multiple countries.   There can be no effective humanitarian response following the use of a nuclear weapon. Medical and emergency response capacities would be immediately overwhelmed, exacerbating the already massive number of casualties.   Widespread panic would trigger mass movements of people and severe economic disruption. Multiple detonations would of course be much worse. Emphasising that nuclear threats affect all states, not just the target(s) of the threat.   Given the wide-ranging and catastrophic impact of any use of nuclear weapons, a nuclear threat against one country is a threat against all countries.   This is not just about Russia and Ukraine. Nuclear threats are not just a matter for the adversaries concerned, or for nearby countries. Like climate change and pandemic disease, the terrible risks posed by nuclear weapons constitute a global problem and require a global response.   It is therefore in the interest of all states - and the responsibility of all states - to confront and condemn threats to use nuclear weapons and to take action to reinforce the norm against their use.   Invoking international law and highlighting commitments made by the state issuing the threat.   Any threat to use nuclear weapons is a violation of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons also explicitly prohibits threats to use nuclear weapons.   Any use of nuclear weapons would almost certainly violate international humanitarian law.   Russia’s threats to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine are incompatible with its stated nuclear doctrine, its commitments under the Budapest Memorandum, its statement in January 2022 with the other NPT nuclear-weapon states that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”, and commitments agreed by review conferences of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.   Clearly and categorically condemning any and all threats to use nuclear weapons. Any and all threats to use nuclear weapons are unacceptable, whether they are implicit or explicit and regardless of the circumstances.   All nuclear threats are irresponsible, regardless of which country makes them and why. There are no “responsible” nuclear threats.   At their first meeting in June, the states parties to the TPNW unequivocally condemned “any and all nuclear threats, whether they be explicit or implicit and irrespective of the circumstances”. Other states should issue similar condemnations.   * A Strategy of Global Collective Suicide by William Hartung. (Tom's Dispatch: Posted on January 14, 2025)   Almost 80 years later, it’s sadly all too easy to forget that two nuclear weapons were once used with devastating effect on this planet. Here’s just a small description by one survivor of the atomic destruction of the Japanese city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, that can be found in the book Unforgettable Fire: Pictures Drawn by Atomic Bomb Survivors: “Most of the A-Bomb survivors were burned all over their bodies. They were not only naked, but also their skin came off. They were wandering around looking for their parents, husbands, wives, and children in the city of Hiroshima which had been reduced to ashes.”   Only recently, one of the dwindling group of survivors of that American bombing, Shigeko Sasamori, died. She had been a child of 13 when her city was blown to smithereens and, though unlike so many of her compatriots, she lived to tell the tale, one-third of her body was severely burned. Unbelievably enough, she would be one of the 25 “Hiroshima maidens,” all disfigured by the first atomic bombing on this planet, chosen to receive medical help a decade later in New York City.   Her death, as the New York Times reported in an obituary, came only “two months after the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Nihon Hidankyo, a grass-roots Japanese organization of atomic bomb survivors, for its efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons.”   Unfortunately, as William Hartung reminds us today, global nuclear arsenals, including the American one, continue to grow and now hold weapons that make the bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem more like BBs. To take just the three leading nuclear powers, the U.S., Russia, and China, each could, unaided, turn this planet (and undoubtedly several more like it) into giant graveyards.   While it’s true that, since Nagasaki was destroyed on August 9, 1945, no nuclear weapon has ever again been used in war, there are now believed to be more than 12,000 nuclear warheads on this planet. Nine countries possess them and, in a significant nuclear conflict, the Earth could be thrown into a state of “nuclear winter” in which billions of us could die of starvation, and yet, as Hartung makes all too vividly clear today, the vast U.S. nuclear arsenal is still in the process of being expanded (the term, hideously enough, is “modernized”) to the tune of perhaps $1.7 trillion to $2 trillion in the coming decades. Let him explain: http://tomdispatch.com/angling-toward-armageddon/ Visit the related web page
	Why planetary survival will depend on environmental justice by Vivek Maru Namati & Legal Enpowerment Network   Here’s a shameful fact about the 21st century: Standing up for the planet can get you killed.   In the Peruvian Amazon, three Indigenous leaders were murdered in the span of three weeks during February and March of this year: Herasmo García Grau, Yenes Ríos Bonsano and Estela Casanto Mauricio.   All of them were attempting to secure land rights over their territories to stop illegal deforestation by, among others, coca and oil palm plantations.   Jiribati Ashaninka, president of ORAU, an alliance of 15 Indigenous peoples in Peru, spoke to me in March by Zoom from his home in Ucayali, the region where the recent killings took place.   “Our communities have asked us leaders to fight" against land grabbing and illegal deforestation, he said. “They have asked us to claim our rights, and because of that we are at risk.”   The risk he describes exists outside Peru as well. Global Witness counted 212 publicly reported killings of environmental defenders worldwide in 2019, the largest number since it started tracking in 2012. (The 2020 count is not yet published).   Ashaninka said every murder sends a message. “Some of our leaders have gone silent on the issue of land rights,” he said. “Some have gone deeper into the forest to hide.” He said killings have occurred for years, but no one has ever been convicted.   Peru’s minister of internal affairs sometimes issues a report, he said, but “that isn’t useful when you’re dead.”   Deforestation could well turn the Amazon from a carbon sink into a carbon source (its already happening). By fighting for their home, people such as Grau, Ríos and Casanto are protecting all of us. But they aren’t given the kinds of legal protections extended to witnesses in criminal cases or corporate whistleblowers.   A new regional pact, the Escazú agreement, which comes into force in Latin America and the Caribbean on Earth Day, would be the first to require member nations to provide legal protections to environmental defenders.   The agreement also aims to make environmental regulation more responsive to communities facing harm. Member governments are required to disclose information about proposed industrial projects, ensure early and genuine community participation in permitting decisions, and create effective remedies when companies exceed pollution limits or seize land unlawfully.   The Escazú agreement is overdue. My organization Namati helps organize a network of more than 2,500 grass-roots justice groups from nearly every country in the world. The specifics vary, but the basic pattern is everywhere, from Odisha, India; to KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa; to Washington, D.C.: Communities with less power bear the brunt of environmental degradation, and when they try to stand up for themselves, they face intimidation and retaliation.   U.S. President Biden, has acknowledged this connection between environmental destruction and inequality by prioritizing environmental justice in his domestic plans.   But global environmental policy, including Biden’s approach to it, continues to be largely technocratic and top-down, focused on national commitments to transfer technology and reduce emissions. Those measures are necessary but not sufficient. The Escazú agreement shows what global environmental justice policy could look like.   You might wonder whether international agreements are worth much, given the severe power imbalances at play and the fact that many governments are embracing hyper-nationalism. But activists report that Escazú has already made a difference.   Gabriela Burdiles, a lawyer with the Chilean environmental justice group FIMA, told me that multilateral negotiations over Escazú have helped make environmental rights a prominent subject in the debate over Chile’s new constitution.   Aída Gamboa Balbín, who leads the Amazon program of the Peruvian organization Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, said that, without the Escazú negotiations, civil society would not have been able to persuade the Peruvian government to create its first court dedicated to environmental crimes, which happened in 2018.   In the 12 countries that have ratified Escazú, including Mexico, Bolivia and Argentina, the real work begins this week, when local environmental justice movements will start pushing for effective implementation.   Burdiles, who coordinates with advocates throughout the region, says having the common lever of the agreement will make those movements stronger.   If the Biden administration is willing to take environmental justice seriously abroad as well as at home, it should support negotiations for a global Escazú agreement as Part 2 of the Paris climate accord. It’s both a matter of justice and a matter of planetary survival.   “You can’t have climate change without sacrifice zones,” writes Hop Hopkins, an urban farmer and environmental justice organizer. “And you can’t have sacrifice zones without disposable people.”   Those who profit from sacrifice zones regularly collaborate across national borders. It’s time that those working to ensure that no community is disposable have the tools and legal framework to work across borders, too.   * Vivek Maru is founder and chief executive of Namati, a nonprofit organization that advances social and environmental justice and hosts the Legal Empowerment Network, which is open to people everywhere.   (Published by the Los Angeles Times, April 22, 2021)   http://namati.org/news-stories/ http://namati.org/network/ http://www.globalwitness.org/en/blog/how-land-and-environmental-defenders-protect-planet-and-how-we-can-protect-them/ http://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories