From today to Sunday, the leaders of the G7 — Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the US and the UK — as well as high-level representatives from the EU are meeting in Hiroshima, Japan. Many of these leaders are visiting the city — one of two where nuclear weapons were used in August 1945 — for the first time. And since the nuclear threat is now higher than at any time since the end of the Cold War, they must not use this occasion to pass off the same decades-old non-proliferation measures as something new; rather, they must commit to concrete and credible disarmament measures based on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.
Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, who comes from a Hiroshima political family and had relatives who died in the 1945 bombing, decided to hold the G7 summit in the city precisely because of its history. In light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and subsequent nuclear saber rattling, maintaining international peace and pursuing nuclear disarmament rank high on the agenda. Kishida also has an eye on the Korean Peninsula, where, in the early months of this year, North Korea continued to ramp up missile testing, and the US and South Korea mounted joint military exercises involving nuclear-capable aircraft.
The global threat posed by nuclear weapons cannot be overstated. In terms of the scale of the devastation they cause and their persistent radioactive legacy, they are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. Their use would have a massive environmental impact; even a limited nuclear conflict would trigger widespread famine. In recognition of the far-reaching consequences, five of the nine nuclear-armed states affirmed in January last year “that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought” — a statement echoed by G7 leaders in their communique from Elmau, Germany, last year.
The casualties caused by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrate that any use of these weapons, even if it does not lead to all-out nuclear war, could kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and injure many more. Moreover, as the International Committee of the Red Cross has said, emergency-response systems and health infrastructure would be overburdened and unable to provide adequate assistance to survivors. Radioactive fallout would contaminate large areas, and widespread panic would cause mass movements of people and severe economic disruption.
The G7 foreign ministers issued a disappointing communique when they met in Nagano, Japan, last month, and their superiors must do better at the summit. Specifically, they can and should take four steps to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again.
First, they must unequivocally condemn any and all threats to use nuclear weapons in terms as strong as those used over the past year by the parties to the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the G20.
At last year’s summit, G7 leaders said they “condemn Russia’s provocative statements which signal the threat of use of nuclear weapons.” In Hiroshima, they need to condemn not only such statements, which have also been made by North Korea, but also preparations for using nuclear weapons, including nuclear exercises.
This is particularly important as Russia’s suspension of the New START treaty has halted information exchanges on such exercises. A lack of communication on this front significantly increases the risk of accidental conflict, because both the US and Russia maintain a launch-on-warning nuclear posture.
Next, they must formally recognize the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of using nuclear weapons. While in Hiroshima, G7 leaders are to meet with survivors of the 1945 bombing, who lived through “hell on Earth,” as one man described it. The US, French and British leaders who will talk to the hibakusha (as the survivors are called) possess the authority to launch even more powerful nuclear weapons. Consequently, they should publicly acknowledge that their use would condemn countless civilians to the same fate, rather than paying lip service to the ideal of a world without nuclear weapons.
Third, in response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent announcement of plans to deploy nuclear weapons in Belarus, the G7 leaders must agree to end the practice of stationing such weapons in third countries and engage Russia in dialogue to discourage it from following through. This would require the heads of state to reflect on their own “nuclear-sharing” policies: Italy and Germany — both G7 countries — as well as Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey host US weapons. This practice must be ended across the board, as it only increases the risk of a catastrophe.
Lastly, the G7 should make practical, actionable commitments to disarmament. Its leaders must respond to Russian and North Korean nuclear recklessness — and the rapidly escalating threat of confrontation — by developing a plan for engaging with all nuclear-armed states to negotiate the reduction and eventual elimination of their arsenals.
Fortunately, they do not have to reinvent the wheel: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, an internationally recognized multilateral disarmament framework, is already at their disposal. Almost half of UN member states have signed or ratified the treaty, and as more states get on board, the international norm against nuclear weapons would grow stronger. Eventually, they would be regarded as beyond the pale, just like chemical and biological weapons, landmines and cluster bombs.
As a venue, Hiroshima is a powerful symbol. Hiroshima Prefecture Governor Hidehiko Yuzaki has said that he hopes visiting the city would allow G7 leaders “to understand the reality of the atomic bombings, fully recognize the inhumanity of nuclear weapons, and understand once again that the only and certain way to escape the fear of their use is to abolish them.”
The G7 summit offers an unprecedented opportunity to show true leadership at a time of heightened nuclear tensions. It would be foolish – and dangerous — to settle for empty promises.
Daniel Hogsta is interim executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
Copyright: Project Syndicate#
It is a good time to be in the air-conditioning business. As my colleagues at Bloomberg News write, an additional 1 billion cooling units are expected to be installed by the end of the decade. It is one of the main ways in which humans are adapting to more frequent and intense heatwaves. With a potentially strong El Nino on the horizon — a climate pattern that increases global temperatures — and greenhouse gas emissions still higher than ever, the world is facing another record-breaking summer, and another one, and another and so on. For many, owning an air conditioner has become a
Election seasons expose societal divisions and contrasting visions about the future of Taiwan. They also offer opportunities for leaders to forge unity around practical ideas for strengthening Taiwan’s resilience. Beijing has in the past sought to exacerbate divisions within Taiwan. For Beijing, a divided Taiwan is less likely to pursue permanent separation. It also is more manipulatable than a united Taiwan. A divided polity has lower trust in government institutions and diminished capacity to solve societal challenges. As my co-authors Richard Bush, Bonnie Glaser, and I recently wrote in our book US-Taiwan Relations: Will China’s Challenge Lead to a Crisis?, “Beijing wants
Taiwanese students spend thousands of hours studying English. Yet after three to five class-hours of English as a foreign language every week for more than nine years, most students can barely utter a sentence of English. The government’s “Bilingual Nation 2030” policy would do little to change this. As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies would soon be able to translate in real time, why should students squander so much of their youth and potential on learning a foreign language? AI might save students time, but it should not replace language learning. Instead, the technology could amplify learning, and it might also enhance
National Taiwan University (NTU) has come under fire after an offensive set of proposals by two students running for president and vice president of the student council caused an uproar over the weekend. Among the proposals were requiring girls with “boobs smaller than an A cup” to take two national defense credits and boys with “dicks shorter than 10cm” to take home economics class, as well as banning people with a body mass index of more than 20 from taking elevators, and barring LGBTQ students and dogs from playing Arena of Valor during student council meetings. They also opposed admission