Why the New Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Is So Polarizing

Why the New Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Is So Polarizing
A retired Minuteman 1 ballistic missile at the entrance to Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota. In 1971, the Minuteman 1 was replaced by the Minuteman 3, which forms the foundation of the U.S. nuclear defense strategy (AP photo by Charlie Riedel).

Few noticed the negotiations at the United Nations for a legally binding prohibition on nuclear weapons, until they were quickly completed last month. On July 7, 122 states voted in favor of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which prohibits parties from engaging in activities related to the development, deployment or use of nuclear weapons, and lays out pathways to eventually disarm those states that possess them. The ban is likely to reinforce existing divides between countries that rely on nuclear weapons for their security, and those that don’t—an outcome for which proponents and opponents of the treaty both bear responsibility.

The way the treaty was negotiated was in many ways unusual. It did not involve any of the countries that possess nuclear weapons, nor did it involve most that rely on them within nuclear alliances. Only the Netherlands, which hosts U.S. nuclear weapons on its territory, participated in the talks, largely because of domestic political pressure. The treaty was also negotiated in “unprecedentedly limited time,” as noted by the head of Sweden’s U.N. delegation. The entire process lasted just over four months, with the majority of work completed in a mere three weeks. Some experts dubbed it a “shotgun treaty.”

Both the speed of negotiations and the nature of participation were largely by design. Proponents of a nuclear weapons ban are frustrated at what they perceive to be slow progress on disarmament, exemplified by the crisis in U.S.-Russia arms control, along with nuclear modernization by the Security Council’s five permanent members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. In mid-2016, those concerns helped cement the determination of more than 130 countries to enhance the norms against the possession and use of nuclear weapons. In order to not lose momentum, a core group of states agreed that next steps needed to be taken while this small window of political opportunity existed, and that they needed results in 2017.

Keep reading for free!

Get instant access to the rest of this article by submitting your email address below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:

Or, Subscribe now to get full access.

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

What you’ll get with an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review:

A WPR subscription is like no other resource — it’s like having a personal curator and expert analyst of global affairs news. Subscribe now, and you’ll get:

  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • Regular in-depth articles with deep dives into important issues and countries.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.
  • The Weekly Review email, with quick summaries of the week’s most important coverage, and what’s to come.
  • Completely ad-free reading.

And all of this is available to you when you subscribe today.

More World Politics Review