US FOREIGN POLICY WEEK 2 ES. SAY

The Washington Post

Monkey Cage  AnalysisL

The 2017 Nobel Peace Prize

winner wants to ban nuclear

weapons. Here’s why the U.S.

is opposed.

By By Rebecca Davis GibbonsRebecca Davis Gibbons   December 11, 2017December 11, 2017

On Sunday, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (On Sunday, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICANICAN) received the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. ICAN) received the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. ICAN

won the won the prizeprize “for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and “for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and

for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons.” Beatrice Fihn, the executive director offor its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons.” Beatrice Fihn, the executive director of

ICAN, accepted the prize along with anti-nuclear activist ICAN, accepted the prize along with anti-nuclear activist Setsuko ThurlowSetsuko Thurlow, an 85-year-old survivor of the Hiroshima atomic, an 85-year-old survivor of the Hiroshima atomic

bomb.bomb.

But the United States — along the United Kingdom and France — reportedly But the United States — along the United Kingdom and France — reportedly snubbedsnubbed the prize winners by sending  the prize winners by sending lower-lower-

ranked diplomatsranked diplomats instead of ambassadors to the ceremony. The United States and its close allies took a strong stance against the instead of ambassadors to the ceremony. The United States and its close allies took a strong stance against the

Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear WeaponsTreaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) that ICAN helped establish. Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on (TPNW) that ICAN helped establish. Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on

July 7, the TPNW prohibits its signatories from possessing, threatening the use of, transferring, testing or stationing nuclearJuly 7, the TPNW prohibits its signatories from possessing, threatening the use of, transferring, testing or stationing nuclear

weapons.weapons.

Why the strong opposition from the United States? U.S. officials have lobbed a variety of criticisms against the treaty, claimingWhy the strong opposition from the United States? U.S. officials have lobbed a variety of criticisms against the treaty, claiming

variously that it will have variously that it will have little effectlittle effect on disarmament, as no states possessing nuclear weapons plan to join; that it will on disarmament, as no states possessing nuclear weapons plan to join; that it will

undermineundermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and that nuclear reductions through treaties negotiated among the nuclear the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and that nuclear reductions through treaties negotiated among the nuclear

possessor states are the possessor states are the only feasibleonly feasible path toward disarmament. path toward disarmament.

But there is a more immediate, although rarely stated, concern: This new treaty could undermine the cohesion of NATO, anBut there is a more immediate, although rarely stated, concern: This new treaty could undermine the cohesion of NATO, an

explicitly explicitly nuclear alliancenuclear alliance..

The United States pressured NATO allies to oppose the treatyThe United States pressured NATO allies to oppose the treaty

In November 2016, before the U.N. General Assembly vote on a resolution to begin negotiations on a nuclear ban treaty, theIn November 2016, before the U.N. General Assembly vote on a resolution to begin negotiations on a nuclear ban treaty, the

United States sent an United States sent an informal diplomatic paperinformal diplomatic paper to its NATO allies outlining the ways in which the proposed treaty would to its NATO allies outlining the ways in which the proposed treaty would

undermine the stability of the international system, delegitimize nuclear deterrence, and complicate NATO planning andundermine the stability of the international system, delegitimize nuclear deterrence, and complicate NATO planning and

nuclear burden-sharing. It states, “We strongly encourage you to vote ‘no’ on any vote at the UN First Committee on startingnuclear burden-sharing. It states, “We strongly encourage you to vote ‘no’ on any vote at the UN First Committee on starting

negotiations for a nuclear ban treaty.”negotiations for a nuclear ban treaty.”

This pressure was successful; no U.S. allies voted in favor of the U.N. resolution, although the Netherlands abstained. In theThis pressure was successful; no U.S. allies voted in favor of the U.N. resolution, although the Netherlands abstained. In the

end, the Netherlands was the only U.S. ally to participate in negotiations, as its legislature end, the Netherlands was the only U.S. ally to participate in negotiations, as its legislature required it to do sorequired it to do so. U.S. pressure on. U.S. pressure on

NATO allies and partners surrounding this treaty continues.NATO allies and partners surrounding this treaty continues.

In September, In September, Defense NewsDefense News reported that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis sent a letter to Sweden — a NATO partner — reported that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis sent a letter to Sweden — a NATO partner —

threatening future U.S. military cooperation if Stockholm joins the TPNW.threatening future U.S. military cooperation if Stockholm joins the TPNW.

Should the United States be worried that NATO allies might join the treaty?Should the United States be worried that NATO allies might join the treaty?

Although the United States might still be concerned that its NATO allies might join the treaty in the future, here are threeAlthough the United States might still be concerned that its NATO allies might join the treaty in the future, here are three

reasons why current trends appear to work in favor of the U.S. position.reasons why current trends appear to work in favor of the U.S. position.

1) Most NATO members are putting the alliance first1) Most NATO members are putting the alliance first. First, most NATO member . First, most NATO member governmentsgovernments have spoken have spoken outout against against

the the treatytreaty, claiming it is at odds with their alliance commitments. One country of particular concern for the United States was, claiming it is at odds with their alliance commitments. One country of particular concern for the United States was

Norway. Under its labor coalition government from 2005 to 2013, Norway provided significant funding to ICAN and, in 2013,Norway. Under its labor coalition government from 2005 to 2013, Norway provided significant funding to ICAN and, in 2013,

held the first of three well-attended international held the first of three well-attended international conferences on the humanitarian effectsconferences on the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons use. When this of nuclear weapons use. When this

government lost the election in 2013 to a conservative coalition, ICAN lost a major source of support. Many in the disarmamentgovernment lost the election in 2013 to a conservative coalition, ICAN lost a major source of support. Many in the disarmament

community hoped a return of a labor coalition would lead to Oslo’s support of the new treaty. In elections this September,community hoped a return of a labor coalition would lead to Oslo’s support of the new treaty. In elections this September,

however, the conservative coalition retained power. The Netherlands is another government in which there is some domestichowever, the conservative coalition retained power. The Netherlands is another government in which there is some domestic

support for the treaty, but its leaders have also support for the treaty, but its leaders have also declareddeclared they would not support it. they would not support it.

2) Russian aggression makes this a tricky time to talk about disarmament2) Russian aggression makes this a tricky time to talk about disarmament. A second factor dampening NATO. A second factor dampening NATO

enthusiasm for the TPNW is Russian aggression, especially since 2014. Annexing Crimea, destabilizing Ukraine, enthusiasm for the TPNW is Russian aggression, especially since 2014. Annexing Crimea, destabilizing Ukraine, cheatingcheating on an on an

arms control treaty, conducting arms control treaty, conducting provocativeprovocative militarymilitary activitiesactivities near NATO borders and issuing nuclear near NATO borders and issuing nuclear threatsthreats are all behaviors are all behaviors

that have NATO leaders thinking twice about rejecting nuclear weapons.that have NATO leaders thinking twice about rejecting nuclear weapons.

In interviews I conducted with disarmament advocates at the U.N. negotiations this summer for a In interviews I conducted with disarmament advocates at the U.N. negotiations this summer for a forthcoming articleforthcoming article, many, many

indicated that Russia’s resurgence meant the treaty’s timing was less than ideal. Indeed, the change within Europe on this issueindicated that Russia’s resurgence meant the treaty’s timing was less than ideal. Indeed, the change within Europe on this issue

is well illustrated by German behavior. In 2009 and 2010, Germany and a is well illustrated by German behavior. In 2009 and 2010, Germany and a handfulhandful of other NATO states of other NATO states wantedwanted to to discussdiscuss the the

removalremoval of U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe. Earlier this year, in contrast, Germany of U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe. Earlier this year, in contrast, Germany revealed revealed that it had conducted a study on that it had conducted a study on

whether it would be legal for the state to fund the British or French deterrent in exchange for protection. Talk of removing U.S.whether it would be legal for the state to fund the British or French deterrent in exchange for protection. Talk of removing U.S.

nuclear weapons from Europe has waned significantly, and in 2014 at the nuclear weapons from Europe has waned significantly, and in 2014 at the Wales SummitWales Summit and in 2016 at the and in 2016 at the Warsaw SummitWarsaw Summit,,

NATO reaffirmed its role as a “nuclear alliance.”NATO reaffirmed its role as a “nuclear alliance.”

3) Most people just don’t pay much attention to nuclear weapons policy3) Most people just don’t pay much attention to nuclear weapons policy. A final factor working against adoption of. A final factor working against adoption of

the treaty in NATO states is the continued low salience of nuclear weapons among the general population. The threethe treaty in NATO states is the continued low salience of nuclear weapons among the general population. The three

humanitarian conferences in 2013 and 2014 brought awareness of nuclear weapons effects to a new generation of diplomats andhumanitarian conferences in 2013 and 2014 brought awareness of nuclear weapons effects to a new generation of diplomats and

advocates, but to the average citizen, nuclear weapons probably remain Cold War relics. For example, a poll of Europeansadvocates, but to the average citizen, nuclear weapons probably remain Cold War relics. For example, a poll of Europeans

younger than 30 published in 2017 younger than 30 published in 2017 concludedconcluded that “this generation is not on the verge of mobilization regarding nuclear weapon that “this generation is not on the verge of mobilization regarding nuclear weapon

issues and does not expect to actively engage in it.” Without significant and widespread domestic pressure to join the treaty, it isissues and does not expect to actively engage in it.” Without significant and widespread domestic pressure to join the treaty, it is

unlikely that leaders would risk disrupting relations with their NATO allies.unlikely that leaders would risk disrupting relations with their NATO allies.

PollingPolling conducted on behalf of ICAN suggests that when asked about a conducted on behalf of ICAN suggests that when asked about a nuclear ban treatynuclear ban treaty, many , many European populationsEuropean populations are in are in

favor of it, but polls rarely ask if the participants had heard of the treaty before taking the survey or whether they consider thefavor of it, but polls rarely ask if the participants had heard of the treaty before taking the survey or whether they consider the

risk of nuclear weapons in their daily lives. Without some major change or incident putting nuclear weapons at the forefront ofrisk of nuclear weapons in their daily lives. Without some major change or incident putting nuclear weapons at the forefront of

the population’s attention — current tensions over North Korea’s nuclear program do not seem sufficient thus far — this appearsthe population’s attention — current tensions over North Korea’s nuclear program do not seem sufficient thus far — this appears

unlikely to change.unlikely to change.

ICAN has done important work in bringing global attention to the effects of nuclear weapons. All leaders should have a clearICAN has done important work in bringing global attention to the effects of nuclear weapons. All leaders should have a clear

understanding of the risks involved in maintaining such weapons. It seems doubtful, however, that the new treaty will beunderstanding of the risks involved in maintaining such weapons. It seems doubtful, however, that the new treaty will be

splitting the NATO alliance anytime soon, as geopolitical trends are leading to a greater reliance on nuclear weapons and thesplitting the NATO alliance anytime soon, as geopolitical trends are leading to a greater reliance on nuclear weapons and the

broader public appears to lack interest in this issue.broader public appears to lack interest in this issue.

Rebecca Davis Gibbons is a visiting assistant professor in the Government and Legal Studies Department at Bowdoin College.Rebecca Davis Gibbons is a visiting assistant professor in the Government and Legal Studies Department at Bowdoin College.

* 17 Comments