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#
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues to bully Taiwan by conducting military drills extremely close to Taiwan in late May 2024 and announcing a legal opinion in June on how they would treat “Taiwan Independence diehards” according to the PRC’s Criminal Code. This article will describe how China’s Anaconda Strategy of psychological and legal asphyxiation is employed. The CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) conducted a “punishment military exercise” against Taiwan called “Joint Sword 2024A” from 23-24 May 2024, just three days after President William Lai (賴清德) of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was sworn in and
Former US president Donald Trump’s comments that Taiwan hollowed out the US semiconductor industry are incorrect. That misunderstanding could impact the future of one of the world’s most important relationships and end up aiding China at a time it is working hard to push its own tech sector to catch up. “Taiwan took our chip business from us,” the returnee US presidential contender told Bloomberg Businessweek in an interview published this week. The remarks came after the Republican nominee was asked whether he would defend Taiwan against China. It is not the first time he has said this about the nation’s
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)
The Yomiuri Shimbun, the newspaper with the largest daily circulation in Japan, on Thursday last week published an article saying that an unidentified high-ranking Japanese official openly spoke of an analysis that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) needs less than a week, not a month, to invade Taiwan with its amphibious forces. Reportedly, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has already been advised of the analysis, which was based on the PLA’s military exercises last summer. A Yomiuri analysis of unclassified satellite photographs confirmed that the PLA has already begun necessary base repairs and maintenance, and is conducting amphibious operation exercises