5 April 2023, NIICE Commentary 8615
Krishnaveer Singh Chahar
The Ukraine-Russian war has brought a new found attention to nuclear weapons and their use in wars. Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons more than once to thwart west’s efforts to support Ukraine, though without success. After the end of the cold war, nuclear weapons disappeared from debates and discussions. In 1985, when presidents of the US and the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev declared that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”, it heralded an era of hope for nuclear arms control. The thaw between the US and the Soviet Union ensued various arms control treaties such as Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). However, most of the arms control treaties that reduced the threat of nuclear arms race have either expired or become obsolete. After Russia’s suspension of the New START in February, 2023, there is no treaty which limits intercontinental range nuclear weapons. Though Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is still in force, it has done little towards complete nuclear disarmament. Now, Russia has announced that it will deploy tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) in Belarus, Russia’s long-time ally. Though these weapons will be in the control of Russia, it still raises concerns about nuclear proliferation. This has raised questions about the future of nuclear arms control. Are we heading towards an era of nuclear arms race? Has the time come to reformulate arms control regime in a way that address the current challenges like TNWs? Should we look at horizontal and vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons in a different way? Perhaps, this is an opportunity to create an arms control regime that is inclusive.
Arms Control in Distress
The suspension of the New START, the last remaining arms control treaty between the US and Russia has put the future of arms control regime in jeopardy. However, the suspension of New START does not mean that the treaty is dead. Russia has not withdrawn from the treaty; it has merely suspended its participation. Russian foreign ministry said that the country will comply with the restrictions imposed by the treaty. Though without any inspection due to suspension of participation there is no way to verify any violations. If violations do occur, it will become all the more difficult to reverse the suspension of treaty. It seems that the Russian President is using the treaty as a leverage to pressurise the US to stop supporting Ukraine. However, the US said Russia’s “noncompliance and suspension of the New START treaty will not stop the United States from continuing to fully support Ukraine.” This means the treaty will remain suspended for the near future. For arms control to be effective, it is important that there is enough trust for negotiations between the parties, which at the moment does not seem to exist. If the US-Russia relations deteriorate further, it might just start a nuclear arms race.
The Ukraine-Russia war has also brought attention to Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNWs). As mentioned above, Russia showed its intention to deploy TNWs in Belarus. TNWs are short range and low yield nuclear weapons meant to be used on the battlefield. Again, like the suspension of New START, this move also has its roots in the Ukraine war. By this, Russia has raised the stakes of war and intends to increase its capacity to target NATO members. Putin has made it clear that the Russian move is not in violation of any international treaty and Russia is merely doing what the United States has always done in western Europe. Russian President was referring to nuclear weapons deployed by the US at NATO bases in western Europe. The move is significant because before this Russia has never stationed its nuclear weapons outside of its borders. It is first such move after the signing of NPT in 1968. In hindsight, one can argue that such a move is in violation of article 1 and 2 of the NPT. Article 1 of the NPT states that, “Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly”. Similarly, according to the article 2 of the NPT, “Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transfer or whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly.”
Risks of Proliferation
Both the articles clearly state that any transfer or control of nuclear weapons whether directly or indirectly is not allowed under the NPT. Therefore, deployment of nuclear weapons by Russia in Belarus irrespective of control violates NPT. If countries keep violating the existing treaties, it would not bode well for the future of arms control. It might lead to trust deficit in the international community and can lead to rampant insecurity. The nuclear arms control regime is already facing challenges from countries like North Korea and Iran. North Korea, despite signing the NPT ended up developing nuclear weapons before withdrawing from the treaty in 2003. It was a gross violation of the treaty by an NPT member. This shows that the arms control regime is unable to deal with violators effectively to deter states. The cost imposed should be too high to deter such violations by the member states. Another challenge is from countries that never signed NPT and acquired nuclear weapons later. The challenge is how to bring them under arms control umbrella. If there are NWS not part of nuclear arms control, the threat of nuclear war will never be eliminated. Thus, the recent violations by Russia increase the threat of a nuclear war.
In the backdrop of this move, one question that need to be asked is that – is it another form of horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons? If Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) start deploying nuclear weapons in ally’s territories, what is the use of a treaty like NPT? A state can expand its nuclear arsenal (vertical proliferation) and deploy them in an ally’s territory to extend its reach. Such a situation raises the risk of a nuclear war and arms race. Nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to war. Nuclear weapons are seen as peace-making weapons because they act as deterrent to war. However, Russia is using nuclear threat to thwart western support to Ukraine, though without any success. Using nuclear threats raises chances of miscalculations and misperceptions and erodes trust in nuclear arms control.
Conclusion
Though arms control is in a rickety state it also provides an opportunity to restructure a new arms control regime that address the current challenges. For the arms control regime to be effective, it is necessary that the regime is inclusive. Nuclear states like China, India and Pakistan are not part of any treaty that limits the type of weapons and their range. The world cannot be safe until everyone is safe. Bilateral treaties, though form an important part of arms control do not provide an effective regime while there are pariah nuclear states like North Korea. Nuclear arms control regime is facing difficult challenges that need some difficult yet consensual answers for the regime to work properly.
Krishnaveer Singh Chahar holds a Post Graduate degree in International Politics from Jamia Millia Islamia, India.
