The EU Non -Proliferation and Disarmament Consortium convened in Brussels this December. The focus was set on the 2020 Review Conference of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which will take place from 27 April 2020 to 22 May 2020 in New York, United States.
The treaty which became effective in 1970 was and still is a milestone in the global disarmament efforts. But things have not been improving in the last fifty years.
A changed geo-political environment
The speakers at the Brussels meeting could widely agree, that the world is in a much more fragile and difficult political situation than at the times when the treaty was concluded - or even ten years ago. Today we find decreased trust between world powers, the tendency to use military means instead of political ones and much more competition than cooperation. One consequence of this changed environment is the eagerness to modernize nuclear arms. As far as the numbers are known, after the reduction of war heads in the last decades, today an increasing number and a “modernization” of the nuclear arsenal can be noticed.
What is frightening is, that new arguments for the usefulness of nuclear arms and their use can be heard. This even culminates in the saying “the bomb is back”.
Additionally, we see a rising number of non-state actors which are difficult to include in international rules and treaties. This general atmosphere of mistrust, technical advancements and new arguments to use nuclear weapons led to the erosion of disarmament agreements.
Last year, the US (and subsequently Russia) withdrew from the INF (Intermediate Range Nuclear Force) treaty and from the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement with Iran. And now the prolongation of NEW START, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which is due in 2021, is also at stake.
Also, technological progress has its - negative - impact. Cyber security is one of the main topics discussed. Widespread computer hacking already has its impact and attacks on cyber security can be considered – depending on the context - as acts of warfare. Additionally, the dissemination of fake-news as well as the advancements in Artificial Intelligence, AI, but also in autonomous weapon systems can be dangerous for peace. It is high time that red-lines for the use of cyber space, and AI are discussed on an international level – on an expert level, this discussion already started. Even though international and humanitarian law in principal is applicable, it would be crucial to discuss these red lines in times of peace as well and not only in times of war. Moreover, existing regulations would need adjustments and adaptions which take the new developments into account and which closes legal gaps, which could be misused. Finally, we can also witness the danger that the Outer Space more and more becomes a battlefield and an area of arms competition
Several speakers - most prominently the Assistant Secretary General of the UN and High Representative for Disarmament, Izumi Nakamiysu- expressed hopes that at least some principle declarations at the NPT Review Conference will support the policy of non-proliferation. The commitment of states to support non-proliferation and the reinforcements of their engagement in this context needs to be reaffirmed. It is furthermore crucial that topics like the emergence of nuclear drones and (anti-) missile systems which are capable to carry nuclear arms are included prominently into the debate.
Realistically speaking, it is unfortunately quite doubtful that the upcoming NPT Review Conference will be able to change the adverse political climate, especially since the big powers – more specifically the Trump administration – do not have an interest in promoting binding multilateral agreements.
Legally binding rules versus norms supporters by like-minded
The skepticism concerning the NPT Review Conference and the readiness to find new multilateral agreements has got new food by the talk given by the US Assistant Secretary of State, Christopher Ford. He delivered- as one Austrian participant at the Brussels meeting rightly said - a philosophical theory for the US/Trump policy of withdrawal from multilateral, binding agreements. Chris Ford differentiated between two partly complimenting but also alternative approaches to international issues.
On the one hand, there is the possibility to negotiate regulatory and prohibitory agreements. This approach is directed to all states and invites them to participate in the negotiations. The US is not principally against such treaties if it is also in its own interest. Since the policy of “America first”, though, the US tend to withdraw from any rule-based and binding approach on international issues, if it does not longer meet their interests.
On the other hand, there are normative approaches agreed-upon by “like minded states” and governments. They can elaborate rules for responsible state behavior. Community pressure can help to convince countries to abide to these rules. Countries who consistently violate these rules can be sanctioned for their irresponsible behavior.
It is obvious that the US are preferring this approach over the rule-based approach. Additionally, they want to be the decision -making power of what and or who is to be considered “like-minded”, what is seen as “responsible state behavior” and what a “violation” is. We already saw this approach in Iraq 2003 or just recently last year when the US in alliance with “like-minded” states, namely Israel and Saudi Arabia, announced its withdrawal from the JCPOA, the nuclear agreement with Iran.
The recent resolution of the US Congress demanding sanctions against those companies which help to build “Northstream 2“, the gas connection between Russia and Germany is another example of this foreign policy concept. Even when it comes to the climate issue, we see a narrow and short-term interest driven policy, not only by Trump, but strongly reinforced by him.
It was obvious that the Russian speaker, Mikhail Ulyanov, Moscow’s representative at the International Organizations in Vienna reacted by underlining the importance of the regulatory approach and repudiating the normative approach presented by the US representative. He criticized especially the withdrawal from the JCPOA, which, of course, puts Russia in a delicate position. Russia has some common interests with Iran e.g. in Syria, but has no interest that Iran acquires nuclear weapons. Ulyanov is certainly correct when he sees in the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal a new factor of instability in the already unstable region.
Ulyanov - and also a Chinese representative - could also not agree with the US proposal to have trilateral disarmament talks between the US, Russia and China. What about the nuclear arsenal of France and the UK, both asked? Chris Ford replied that China today presents the most dynamic developments in the field of warheads and delivery systems. However, the US demand for such talks is basically in line with the general policy of the US - defining China as the big enemy.
Even though one might go in line with many of the Russian arguments, we should not forget that Russia itself is as unilaterally oriented as the US even though they might not be speaking of “like-minded” states. However, their intervention in Ukraine including occupying and annexing the Crimea peninsula, its activities in Syria and its military activities in Africa clearly show the principal approach of neglecting international law and agreements.
A very special case: Middle East
The NPT Review Conference will also deal with the Initiative to establish a zone free of weapons of mass destruction: free of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, in the Middle East: WMDFZ. It is a long-standing endeavor to establish such a zone. The last meeting - a preparatory conference for the NPT meeting next year - was held in November. Unfortunately, Israel and the US could not be convinced to take part, and this weakened the impact of the gathering. It was a meeting of all Arab countries, Russia and at last minute also the UK and France participated. The EU and the Arab League have been observing.
Israel argued that first the regional conflicts and disputes must be dealt with and the US supported this position. If a resolution of the regional conflicts should come first or an agreement on disarmament should come first is like the question what was first, the egg or the hen. Those who were engaged in the preparation of the WMDFZ conference argued, that a comprehensive disarmament agreement in the region would enormously boost agreements on all kind of regional conflicts. But one could also argue the other way around: any agreement solving the regional conflicts would make an agreement on a zone free of weapons of mass destruction possible.
2020 - 75 years UN and 50 years NPT
In 2020 we should celebrate important steps for peace and multilateral agreements to “rule” the world. In 1945 at the end of World War II the United Nations were founded. In 1970 the Non-Proliferation Treaty came into force. But unfortunately, there are many developments which are bringing us back to times of new rivalries and a negative attitude towards multilateralism.
New actors are challenging the state authorities and international organizations. New technologies like those used to influence the cyberspace and artificial intelligence result in new dangers and difficulties to control them. Additionally, some governments and leaders do not recognize the usefulness of multilateral and binding agreements. The predominance of national interests, the reliance on competition instead of cooperation, the downgrading of political instruments and the upgrading of military means, including nuclear arms etc. are endangering peace and global stability.
What about the European Union?
Fortunately, there are always private and official actors which are ready to continue their efforts for multilateralism and international agreements concerning security and peace. In this respect the EU - as demonstrated at the recent meeting in Brussels - is not giving up its efforts. But the EU is neither strong enough nor is it independent enough to play a decisive role. The majority of EU member states are members of NATO and as we could recently observe at the NATO summit in London, the pressure of the US is still strong.
Another crucial topic which needs to be discussed openly is that many EU member-states are also big exporters of arms. This is not only true for Germany and France, but also for smaller states like Sweden or the Czech Republic. Until now, we do not have a common arms-export policy or guiding principles in the context of arms exports.
Nevertheless, the EU could play a stronger independent role and that would also fit into the concept of the new Commission President Van der Leyen who said that the commission will be a “geopolitical” one. Let us hope we see some positive results of that strategic orientation. In today’s world a geo-political force must fight for disarmament and for a better use of our resources.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.