• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Joint Public Issues Team

Churches working for peace and justice

  • Home Page
  • Who We Are
    • Six hopes for society
  • Issues
    • Economy
      • Tax Justice
      • Reset The Debt
      • Living Wage
    • Environment
      • Net Zero in My Neighbourhood
    • Poverty and Inequality
      • The Cost of Living Crisis
      • Universal Credit
      • Truth and Lies
      • Enough
      • Rethink Sanctions
      • Faith in Foodbanks
      • Housing and Homelessness
    • Asylum and Migration
      • Refugees
      • End Hostility
      • The Asylum System
    • Peacemaking
      • The Arms Trade
      • Nuclear Weapons
      • Drones
      • Peacemaking resources
    • Politics and Elections
      • Elections
      • Meet Your MP
      • Art of the Possible
      • Brexit
    • Other Issues
      • International Development
      • Modern Slavery and Exploitation
        • Forced labour in fashion
  • Get Involved
    • JPIT Conference 2022
    • Newsletter
    • Events
    • Walking with Micah
  • Resources
    • Advent
    • 10 Minutes on… podcast
    • Politics in the Pulpit?
    • Stay and Pray
    • Season of Creation
    • Prayers
    • Public Issues Calendar
    • Poetry
    • Small Group Resources
  • Blog

“We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

Blog, Peacemaking · 5 January, 2022

On Monday, Russia, United States, China, UK and France came together to state that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The ‘Reagan Gorbachev principle’, as it has become known, may seem to be a fairly obvious truth. But this is the first time that these five nuclear weapons possessing nations have declared this statement together. What then is its significance, and how should the five nuclear powers follow this up?

The original joint declaration by Reagan and Gorbachev came about after the two leaders met for a fireside chat in Geneva in 1985. This meeting set in process a series of discussions between Russia and the US on nuclear arms reductions, which bore fruit with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty in 1987 and eventually the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in 1991.

Most probably, the prime motivation for the declaration on Monday is the dwindling confidence in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on the part of some non-nuclear weapons states.[1]  This has come about by the failure of the United States, Russia, China, UK and France to diminish the importance of nuclear weapons in their security strategies.[2] This failure gives the impression that the five recognised nuclear states (N5) are not taking seriously their obligations under the NPT to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date”.

Today we are living in difficult and dangerous times and, consequently, reducing the risk of nuclear weapons use is more important than ever. International institutions and treaties are suffering a crisis of legitimacy. Russia is sending signals about further military action in Ukraine, and China is set on a collision course with the United States over Taiwan and claims to the South China Sea. China is developing its military and naval capacity at an unprecedented pace. Russia is developing new delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons including a long-range underwater torpedo while the US and the UK design and build new nuclear warheads.

Among the five, only China has declared that it will not use nuclear weapons in a first strike. The other four are all developing smaller nuclear warheads in order to provide a more ‘credible’ threat and refuse to promise that they will not use nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack.

Indeed, in the UK’s 2021 Integrated Review, the UK government even held out the notion that, in the future, our nuclear weapons could be used in an expanded role to deter an overwhelming cyber-attack on the UK. A peculiar irony of this statement is that it occurred in a paragraph that was intended to reassure non-nuclear states of the UK’s non-use of nuclear weapons against them. This illustrates a difficulty with declaratory statements on nuclear policy – they are too often contradictory. Last year the UK government announced that it would increase the stockpile of nuclear warheads from 180 to 260. Any attempt to reconcile that declaration with this week’s statement that “a nuclear war cannot be won” would have to rely on a logic that is so arcane, theoretical and tortuous it actually has no bearing in the real world.

Such theatrical Cold War postures were not lost on Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan when they got together for their evening fireside talk in Geneva in 1985. Neither President was fully confident that their administrations could be relied upon to give the type of measured advice that would avert a nuclear conflict. They were both committed to doing what they could to achieve nuclear disarmament.  They both supported the elimination of nuclear weapons. Initially they believed that they could take their two nations a long way towards achieving that goal and it is sobering to acknowledge that sadly this ambition faltered. Even so, the restatement by the N5 of the Reagan Gorbachev principle while simultaneously opposing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is a further apparent contradiction. The TPNW is built upon important principles in international law that all five states support.[3] In the spirit of Gorbachev and Reagan’s determination to make the world a safer place without nuclear weapons, should not the five nuclear weapons states engage more constructively with the TPNW and its supporters?  Surely they could do so even if they regard its ultimate goal (and therefore its signing) as out of their reach at this moment.

This week’s declaration by the N5 is valuable and welcome. The NPT Review Conference (whenever it finally takes place) can be shored-up if the N5 undertake further work to demonstrate exactly what the Reagan Gorbachev principle means in 2022. As Reagan said in 1985 “Genuine confidence must be based on deeds, not just words. That is the criterion for the future.”  A no first use declaration (or sole purpose statement) on the part of the each of the N5 states would be a logical follow-on and would give substance to the statement made on Monday.

We are under no illusions that working collaboratively on nuclear policy will be easy for the N5. The relations between China, the United States, Europe and Russia will remain tense over the coming years. Conventional forms of deterrence will continue to play a part in moderating and influencing state behaviour. But our governments must not allow progress in nuclear disarmament to be hijacked by the worsening tensions between them. Following through on the Reagan Gorbachev principle requires that the five recognised nuclear-armed states and their leaders look beyond short-term national interests and act on their global responsibility to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

[1] The statement was intended for the eve of the five-year Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference which was scheduled 4th to 28th January. Unfortunately it was announced last week that this meeting of 191 nations in New York has been postponed (for the third time) due to Covid.

[2] This is in spite of a commitment to do so in the action plan coming out of the 2010 NPT Review Conference.

[3] Principles of distinction and proportionality in International Humanitarian Law.

 

Click here to see the UK Faith Leaders one-minute video on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

 

Click here to TAKE ACTION on nuclear weapons with your bank or pension provider.

 

 

Filed Under: Blog, Peacemaking Tagged With: NPT, nuclear weapons, TPNW

Steve Hucklesby

Steve's background is in international relief and development, having worked for 10 years on programmes in conflict and post-conflict settings in Africa and Asia. He is committed to exploring Christian responses to conflict and injustice, covering areas such as non-proliferation, ethical investment and climate change.

Previous Post: « JPIT’s Review of 2021
Next Post: Universal Credit: Why do we think more threats and less choice helps the unemployed? »

Primary Sidebar

Search

Recent Posts

  • Local elections: what have they got to do with climate change?
  • Homes for Ukraine – One Year On
  • Response to the ‘Illegal Migration Bill’ – March 2023
  • Ukraine Invasion – One Year On
  • JPIT’s Review of 2022
  • What does Government Support for Asylum Seekers really provide?
  • God with Us – the Refugees of Calais and Dunkirk
  • How can we respond to COP27?
  • Statement on the conclusion of the COP27 Climate Conference in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt
  • COP27 – what should we be looking for?
  • “He has filled the hungry with good things” – What we need from the Autumn Budget
  • What are the stories we should tell about the humanitarian crisis at Manston Airport Asylum centre?
  • How can we be sure that the products we buy are not the result of modern slavery?
  • Why I hate Warm Banks (and why my church is opening one)
  • How does our theology call us to challenge Poverty?
  • Introducing Alfie
  • Biden says nuclear risk is the highest since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis
  • Churches respond to risk to benefit levels
  • Briefing on the ‘Mini Budget’ for the Enough to Live group
  • Introducing Hazel

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter

Footer

Follow us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Quick links

Stay and Pray
Politics in the Pulpit
Faith in Politics podcast
Public Issues Calendar
Useful Links

Our work

About Us
Meet the Team
Join the Team 
Internship
Our Newsletter

Contact us

25 Marylebone Road
London NW1 5JR

Tel: 020 7916 8632

enquiries@jpit.uk

Copyright © 2023 · Showcase Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in