永利集团登录网址:Nations of the world agree to ban nuclear weapons – now what?
来源：未知 作者：淳于谮嗪 时间：2019-03-02 07:07:03
AP/REX/Shutterstock By Debora MacKenzie On 7 July, most of the world’s countries voted to ban nuclear weapons. None of them, however, actually have The Bomb. Countries that do – or rely on a nuclear weapons for defence – boycotted the vote. Despite this its backers argue that a treaty making nuclear weapons illegal is a long-overdue step towards nuclear disarmament, a process that has withered under existing treaties. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, widely called the nuclear ban treaty, obliges countries “never, under any circumstances, to develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons”, or transfer, use or threaten to use them, or help other countries do so. It calls eliminating nuclear weapons “a global public good of the highest order”, necessary for “human survival, the environment, socioeconomic development, the global economy, food security and the health of current and future generations”. The treaty was supported by 3480 prominent scientists when negotiations began in March. Last Friday, 122 of the UN’s 193 countries agreed to the treaty, including the likes of Switzerland, Sweden and Brazil. Once 50 countries formally ratify the treaty, it will become international law. All nine states with nuclear weapons boycotted the vote, as did countries living under the “umbrella” of a nuclear-armed state. The only member of NATO to take part was the Netherlands, which cast the sole vote against it. The US, France and the UK declared the treaty “incompatible with the policy of nuclear deterrence which has been essential to keeping the peace… for over 70 years” and said it didn’t “address the security concerns that continue to make nuclear deterrence necessary” – or solve the problem of North Korea’s nuclear programme. Its backers, however, call the treaty an important condemnation of the existential risk faced by nuclear and non-nuclear states alike from the impacts of a nuclear weapon detonation, including nuclear fallout, economic chaos and nuclear winter. William Perry, a former US Secretary of State, called it “an important step towards delegitimising nuclear war as an acceptable risk of modern civilisation.” “While the treaty itself will not immediately eliminate any nuclear weapons, it can, over time, further delegitimise them and strengthen the legal and political norm against their use,” says Daryl Kimball, head of the Arms Control Association, a think tank in Washington DC. Nuclear states wouldn’t be opposing the treaty so strongly if it was a useless gesture, says Beatrice Fihn, head of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons in Geneva, Switzerland. “At the very least, it is a stunning rebuke to the nuclear states and their failure to fulfil their disarmament commitments,” says Joe Cirincione, head of nuclear think tank The Ploughshares Fund. However, Jeffrey Lewis of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California, fears the new treaty could weaken existing nuclear restraints, as it doesn’t require countries to adhere to the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), or impose its verified safeguards on nuclear activities. “It could be treated as a weaker alternative, aiding those states that want to undermine the NPT,” he says. The NPT didn’t make nuclear weapons illegal, but called on its five nuclear-armed members – the US, Russia, France, the UK and China – to pursue disarmament. They haven’t: all are investing heavily in modernising their nuclear arsenals. And since 1970, four more countries – India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea – have joined them. The NPT also recognises nuclear weapons as an option for some countries while banning them for others – and that makes some “have-nots” feel they need nuclear. North Korea is a case in point. It insists it only wants nuclear weapons because the US has them, recently calling them its only guarantee of survival against a nuclear-armed enemy. The new treaty is a hope that such nations may think otherwise if nuclear is declared illegal for everyone. More on these topics: