On 23 December 2016, United Nations Conference decided to adopt a resolution (the A / RES / 71/258) to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons. However, not all the countries adopted unanimously the General Assembly proposal: among the countries that voted against that you proceed or who abstained many of those in possession of nuclear weapons, from China to emerging nuclear powers such as India, Russia and Pakistan, but also (and this should have surprised) countries such as France, UK, USA, Australia, Israel, Japan, South Korea and many other European countries.
“The existence of nuclear weapons is still a threat to humanity. The need for a breakthrough in disarmament has never been so urgent as it is today “- said Kim Won-Soo, General Secretary of the United Nations.

The reason of this decision was the letter signed by Christina Cheshier representative of the United States to NATO, dated October 17, 2016, with which the Americans “strongly encouraged” the allies to “vote NO to any vote at the UN Committee for the Prohibition of nuclear weapons “. An invitation that many countries, in December and even in recent days, confirmed they accepted.

Despite the boycott of many important countries, the motion was approved. Few days ago were held the first meeting to define the contents of the Treaty. Surprisingly, the session was held in an auditorium virtually desert: tens of nations, including all those mentioned above, decided not to take part and work for the Treaty considering nuclear disarmament as unrealistic scenario. In the speech given by Elayne Whyte Gómez, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the United Nations, who chaired the session was heard only by very few people (and even these seemingly disinterested). The same official website of the UN officially speak of “the absence of concrete results after two decades of negotiations for multilateral nuclear disarmament.” An absence that threatens to perpetuate itself in what is (or rather was) “the first real debate on nuclear disarmament in twenty years.”

The UN experts referred of a “growing frustration in recent years” due to the fact that many countries continue “to rely on nuclear weapons in security doctrines and to fund programs to modernize and reinforce nuclear weapons” available. There are still more than 15,000 nuclear weapons (data NU), stored in the arsenals of many countries and many of these have not signed either the NPT: US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

Nowadays nuclear weapons remain the only mass destruction weapon that has not yet declared globally outlawed (such as biological weapons, chemical weapons, landmines and cluster bombs, and other). And this despite the nuclear disarmament was a priority of the United Nations since its birth in 1945.

The decision expressed by the majority of the countries of the UN in December is likely to be a flop. This confirms that the situation is much more serious than anyone can imagine: all countries that have nuclear weapons have no intention to deprive themselves of what experts consider “only a deterrent in case of war”: for the country that decides to use them would be enormous risk of being itself a victim of the radiation produced by these weapons. What makes these virtually unusable weapons are the consequences of what happens in a country almost always have uncontrollable effects on the entire planet (think of what happened in Fukushima and before Chernobyl ).

Persisting to renounce using or even having nuclear weapons it’s just a power game where few states are trying and demonstrate to the rest of the world they are the ones in charge.
The latest demonstration, if ever it necessary, that in recent years the actual weight of the United Nations on international policy decisions has fallen. To the point where, year after year, to be perhaps inadequate when it comes to making important decisions.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.