Speech by Melissa Parke, Executive Director, ICAN
Thank you to Kate and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) for the opportunity to speak here today at this critical juncture when nuclear tensions and risk are at an all-time high.
Today, the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists – a metaphorical representation of the planet’s proximity to total destruction – is set at just 90 seconds to midnight.
In this context, the increased calls by prominent European politicians for more US nuclear weapons to be stationed in Europe, or for Europe to further develop a nuclear sharing practice of its own, is a new kind of insanity.
Let me ennumerate some of the reasons these calls for a Eurobomb are ill-considered.
1. Nuclear weapons are the only devices ever created by humans that have the capacity to destroy all complex life on earth. That is why almost every country in the world has committed under the NPT never to acquire nuclear weapons. Between the UK and French arsenals and the US’ nuclear sharing arrangements under NATO, there are already 600 nuclear weapons ready to deploy in Western Europe, Russia also has an unknown number of nuclear weapons intended for use in Europe, as well as its weapons stationed in Belarus. Together these are enough to wage nuclear war on a catastrophic scale that could kill billions in mere hours. These weapons make European cities prime targets for a nuclear attack and, based on the range of the aircraft that would carry them, are intended for use in Europe.
2. The more countries that deploy nuclear weapons, the greater the risk of their use – whether intentional or by accident. Nuclear sharing further complicates decision-making and increases the risk of miscalculation, miscommunication and potentially catastrophic accidents.
Any new nuclear sharing arrangements in Europe would be a dangerous and escalatory move that could provoke a further response from Russia. This would undermine the security of European countries rather than enhance it, would weaken the NPT, and would be illegal under international law.
The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) explicitly bans countries from hosting the nuclear weapons of another state, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is very clear that transfer of control or accepting control over the nuclear weapons of a nuclear weapons state is prohibited under articles 1&2.
Developing a Eurobomb would also mean proliferation. It would gravely worsen the international security situation and of course undermine the NPT, which is already under pressure for the failure by the nuclear weapons states to honour their disarmament commitments and for practices such as nuclear sharing.
The debate around the Eurobomb is not new and is full of unanswered questions. Who would effectively control such a weapon? A rotating nuclear suitcase? Which countries would pay for it? Where would these weapons be stationed?
In any event, the EU countries Ireland, Austria and Malta have joined the TPNW. It is therefore not possible for the EU as such to possess its own nuclear weapons. This highlights the impact of the TPNW on avoiding regional proliferation.
The debate about europeanising the French nuclear arsenal is not new either. In fact it is often discussed when the French government realises how much money they spend on these inhumane, militarily useless weapons. ICAN’s latest spending report shows that in 2023 France spent 6 Billion USD on its nuclear arsenal. All this while the national budget is under pressure and the European Commission has officially warned France over the budget deficit. France’s credit rating has been downgraded from AA to AA-. It is reasonable to assume that from the French government point of view, the so-called ‘europeanisation’ of the French nuclear arsenal would be all about other European countries paying for French nuclear weapons without France relinquishing any of its control over them.
The French have so far not shared any information on the French nuclear arsenal with allies. France is the only NATO member that is not part of the Nuclear Planning Group of NATO.
Since 2010, NATO has described itself as a “nuclear alliance”. It regularly asserts that so long as nuclear weapons exist in the world it will remain such an alliance. The problem with this, apart from its circular reasoning, is it closes the door on NATO’s own stated objective of creating “a security environment for a world without nuclear weapons”.
There is nothing in the North Atlantic Treaty that requires NATO to be a nuclear alliance. It is a political determination, not a legal one.
Clearly there are vastly different views about nuclear weapons in NATO and European states. A number of NATO states, including Germany, Norway and Netherlands have participated as observers in the MSPs on the TPNW. As mentioned earlier, some EU members, namely Austria, Ireland and Malta are strong advocates for nuclear disarmament and have adopted a principled position against nuclear weapons, on security, humanitarian, environmental and ethical grounds by joining the TPNW.
So, instead of nuclear fantasies about a Eurobomb it’s time for other EU members to prioritise collective human security and follow the lead of Austria, Ireland and Malta and join this crucial disarmament treaty. Joining the TPNW would strengthen both the NPT and the TPNW and ensure a future on a liveable planet.
As made clear in Annie Jacobsen’s best-selling new book Nuclear War: A Scenario, nuclear weapons are not just some abstract thing that magically assures stability between rivals… they are weapons of mass destruction that will be used one day. The threat is real and it is the responsibility of all states to bring us back from the brink.
Next year will be the 80th anniversary of the US atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and what have we learned?
Next month, ahead of the 79th anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ICAN will launch a new report on the impact of nuclear weapons on children.
In a nuclear attack, it is children who would suffer most of all because:
1. children’s small bodies are significantly more vulnerable than adults to the effects of nuclear weapons: heat, blast and radiation;
2. children, especially babies and young children, depend on adults for their survival and are therefore more vulnerable in the aftermath of a nuclear attack, with support systems destroyed and parents injured or killed.
We have a collective moral duty to honour the memories of the thousands of children killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as those harmed by the development and testing of nuclear weapons globally.
And we must pursue the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world with determination and urgency, lest there be any more victims, young or old.
Under international humanitarian law and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, governments have a legal obligation to protect children against harm in armed conflict.
If we care about the children of Europe and of the world, it is essential that we eliminate nuclear weapons, not add to them.