FRIDAY saw the world witness the birth of a new international law in the shape of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), when the 90-day deadline passed after Honduras became the 50th nation to put pen to paper in October.
TPNW goes by another more meaningful name: the Ban Treaty. Up to Jan 22, 61 countries, including Malaysia, have ratified the TPNW.
Unsurprisingly, none of the infamous nine nuclear power countries—the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel—have got onboard the TPNW.
The nine are said to have 13,000 nuclear warheads between them. For this reason, many think the TPNW to be a pointless treaty. We disagree. There are three reasons for this. One, the Ban Treaty delegitimises the use of nuclear weapons.
Let's not forget when the TPNW was adopted in July 2017, it was approved by nearly two-thirds of the United Nations member states. The list is growing as more and more countries want the world to be rid of nuclear weapons.
The reasons are no older than 75 years: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where more than 100,000 died and many more maimed for life at the hands of the so-called "civilised" US.
We were close to a similar crazy Washington minute during the dying days of the presidency of temperamental Donald Trump. As more countries come to see the point of the nuclear ban, the delegitimisation circle will be even wider.
Two, it compels the errant nine to take serious steps to reduce and finally eliminate the nuclear weapons. Or face isolation. If the speed with which the TPNW is gathering signatories is anything to go by, the first scenario is likely.
Be that as it may, the probability of a recalcitrant few holding on to their nuclear arms can't be ruled out. Finally, the TPNW strengthens the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, whose aim is eventual disarmament.
The first signs of nuclear powers taking this road of disarmament are beginning to emerge in Britain. On Thursday, The Guardian quoted the Foreign Office thus: the UK was "committed to the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons".
So is TPNW, we have to remind the Foreign Office. The difference between TPNW's and UK's "world without nuclear weapons" is one of movement more than timing. As it is, the UK's or that of the other eight nuclear powers isn't "gradual multilateral disarmament".
One reason for the push for a nuclear ban treaty is absence of movement towards any long term goal, distant though this may be.
The nine must do better. Consider the rogue move by the US. As the TPNW was gathering signatures, the US was reportedly on a mission to get some countries to "unsign" the treaty as former president George W. Bush "unsigned" the Rome Treaty, which set up the International Criminal Court.
American experts were on a mission, too. One such is nuclear physicist Peter D. Zimmerman, who, while calling the TPNW a treaty with noble aims, says in the Washington Post that a total nuclear arms ban isn't the answer.
Reason? Because nuclear weapons prevent nuclear wars and conventional wars, too. Said differently, what the nuclear physicist wants is leave the nine nuclear powers alone.
Never mind about North Korea, Israel won't exist if not for nuclear weapons, so he reasons.
Befuddling coming from one who has been involved in nuclear disarmament. Small wonder, gradual multilateral disarmament never happened.
TPNW is set to change this.