123 countries support nuclear weapons ban

UN headquarters New York NY

 In the UN Disarmament and International Security committee, 123 countries voted in favor of a ban on nuclear weapons, 38 opposed the motion, and another 16 abstained.

The complete resolution can be found here. A meeting is to be held at the UN in New York in March of 2017 to negotiate a legally binding instrument prohibiting nuclear weapons leading towards their total elimination. There was strong opposition from nuclear-armed countries and their supporters. Those supporters include Australia, Canada, and NATO countries in Europe. Sweden and Malta voted in favor of the resolution. Of nuclear nations, all voted No including Israel except for China which abstained and North Korea which voted yes. The role call of votes can be seen here. Most smaller countries voted for the resolution. Many enemies agreed in supporting the motion including Saudi Arabia and Iran. Many other Gulf States also supported the resolution. As mentioned earlier even North Korea was in support of the resolution. The Guardian reports incorrectly that it opposed the treaty. The motion will now go to a full vote in the General Assembly some time in December.

​Australia has been outspoken in support of the vote against the proposal even as the treaty is becoming more popular among many countries. Australia has pressed for a "building blocks" approach that involves engaging with nuclear powers to reduce the 15,000 global stock of nuclear weapons. Australia, as well as others, depend upon US nuclear power as a defense. Richard Sadleir, assistant secretary in the Australian Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade said:“We do not support a ban treaty. A ban treaty that does not include the nuclear weapons states, those states which possess nuclear weapons, and is disconnected from the rest of the security environment, would be counterproductive and not lead to reductions in nuclear arsenals."

Professor Tilman Ruff of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons called the vote a historic step ending two decades of paralysis on the issue of multilateral disarmament. Ruff said:"The numbers are especially encouraging given the ferocious pressure on countries to vote no by the nuclear-armed states, who see that this will fundamentally challenge their continued possession of nuclear weapons. The treaty will fill the legal gap by which the most destructive of all weapons – nuclear weapons – are the only weapon of mass destruction to not yet be outlawed by international treaty.”Ruff accused Australia of doing US dirty work. He found it inconceivable that Australia which has signed every treaty banning unacceptable weapons would not sign on to a ban on nuclear weapons.

​Critics argue that without the participation of states that actually have nuclear weapons the treaty would not just be useless but counterproductive. The response of ban supporters is that the treaty would create moral suasion such as has happened with the cluster and landmine conventions which many powerful countries reject. It also provides an international norm prohibiting nuclear weapons development, possession and use. Many non-nuclear states are simply fed up with the lack of action of nuclear powers on the issue.The nuclear states want to keep their weapons and many are spending huge sums modernising them rather than reducing their number. The nuclear states favor the non-proliferation treaty that keeps them in a monopoly position with respect to the weapons. An outright ban would negate that advantage. Yet that is the policy that more and more nations support.

---