Opinion
The world should take up China's nuclear no-first-use treaty proposal
Summary
- Such a pact would offer the planet a better alternative than the status quo on nuclear weapons. Whether Beijing reaches out to India for support could reveal whether it’s more than posturing. Pakistan and North Korea, notably, have not taken a no-first-use stance.
The world is too distracted with ongoing wars and high-stakes election campaigns to pay attention to a remarkable proposal from China. At the United Nations Conference on Disarmament held in Geneva this February, one of Beijing’s senior officials dealing with nuclear weapons policy declared that “nuclear-weapon states should negotiate and conclude a treaty on no-first-use of nuclear weapons against each other or make a political statement in this regard."
There had been some indications towards the end of 2023 that China was planning to engage the United States in a new phase of discussions on nuclear security, but the proposal in Geneva is as breathtaking as it is promising. The world—and India — must approach it constructively.
Now, it is easy to be sceptical about China’s intentions. Although China has always maintained a no-first-use doctrine—Mao Zedong believed atomic weapons were paper tigers—it has used a ‘cat’s paw’ technique of letting its proxies hold out nuclear threats against its strategic adversaries.
So Pakistan’s posture checks India as North Korea’s does the United States and its allies. The cat won’t strike first, but its paws might. Also, the expansion of China’s nuclear arsenal and the deployments of its delivery mechanisms are arguably not consistent with a no-first-use doctrine.
Also read: US and allies clash with China and Russia over North Korea's launches and threats to use nukes
Yet, nuclear strategy is nothing if not paradoxical, so the hugely consequential facts that China employs proxies and is beefing up its arsenal shouldn’t be reasons to dismiss Beijing’s proposals out of hand. A global no-first-use arrangement makes more sense than any other arms control framework extant or proposed.
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) system is a failure and its perpetuation is only of interest to the five countries that use it to claim they are ‘legitimate’ nuclear powers. Universal nuclear disarmament seems like a great idea, but some theorists believe it makes for a more unstable world.
Whatever the case, it is unrealistic to expect states to give up currencies of power and prestige, not least when the world order has crumbled and big powers are brazenly flouting international law. In this context, global no-first-use is attractive because it’s a way station: It is better than the status quo, not too painful, and a move in the right direction overall.
There is a new urgency for the world to pin down nuclear risks. In my previous column, I argued that “in the face of the climate crisis, war is no longer only a moral crime against humanity. It is a material one against the survival of the species." A nuclear exchange might literally tip the planet into a different climate regime.
Our conception of what is ‘mutually assured destruction’ (MAD) no longer needs hundreds of nuclear missiles directly incinerating hundreds of millions of people. Even a limited nuclear exchange will suffice, not only killing millions of people, but throwing a megatonne of carbon into the atmosphere. A 2009 estimate by Stanford’s Mark Z. Jacobson found that a small exchange would cause over 690 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emission, higher than the UK’s annual total at that time.
China’s proposal must be taken more seriously. In the United States, the Joe Biden administration seems inclined to carry forward the conversation, but it’s unlikely Washington will move before the presidential election scheduled on 5 November. Britain will probably follow the US lead.
Russia, which has strengthened its ties with China, seems to be getting behind the Chinese proposal. It remains to be seen how France will respond. But the matter is too serious to be left to the self-serving NPT clique alone. A broader coalition of powers, many which are part of the G20 but also some that are not, needs to be brought together to create sustained pressure towards this end.
Also read: What are tactical nuclear weapons and what is Russia's policy?
A global no-first-use regime is in India’s interest and New Delhi should support the idea. Unfortunately, Beijing’s dogmas are getting in the way. As much as China would like India’s support—especially against the United States—Beijing holds that India is not a nuclear power and is thus loath to engage New Delhi in international discussions.
Yet, India’s involvement is necessary for any global no-first-use treaty to be feasible. If China invites Indian participation in global no-first-use talks, then the world will know that Beijing’s proposal is genuine.
A wise leadership in Beijing will recognize that India and China have common interests on this issue. The onus should be placed on China to bring North Korea and Pakistan into the arrangement.
A global no-first-use declaration or even a treaty is merely the first step. A lot of details have to be worked out. Cheating, defection and enforcement are serious problems that do not yet have clever theoretical solutions. But a world with a self-declared no-first-use policy is arguably better than the status quo.
Also read: India reaffirms its policy of no first use of nuclear weapons
Given the existential stakes, that’s good enough a reason to take it up seriously. There is a Chinese saying that a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. Actually, it begins with the determination to take that first step.
