On the final afternoon of the recent 48th Labor national conference, Anthony Albanese took to the podium to announce that a future Labor government will sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. He declared that “people who change the world are ones that are ambitious”, after three days of intense negotiations on nuclear policy among senior Labor parliamentarians.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The Coalition government has not only refused to join the treaty, but boycotted the negotiating conference and opposed the process leading up to it. While claiming to wholeheartedly seek a world free of nuclear weapons, foreign affairs ministers Julie Bishop and Marise Payne have failed to act. Their preferred path is one that doesn’t challenge the nuclear-armed states, especially our powerful ally, and protects the status quo.
After words of caution from Senator Penny Wong and MP Richard Marles in October, supporters of the nuclear ban treaty within Labor had to move a mountain to get the leadership on side. Even with former foreign minister Gareth Evans warning against the treaty, out of deference to the United States, on the eve of the resolution the supportive majority won out. With 78 per cent of the federal caucus signed up to support the ban, 83 per cent of Labor voters on side, and two dozen unions adding their voice, Labor has a clear mandate.
Soon after the resolution passed unanimously, commentators rushed to dismiss the resolution as aspirational, ineffective and conditional upon whether nuclear-armed states join the treaty. This is not true; there are no binding caveats to the resolution. Labor must only “take account of” various factors ahead of signing and ratifying.
Conservatives within Labor tried to attach binding preconditions, but their attempts failed. As for whether the resolution is aspirational, in fact it is binding. Therefore, it is no longer a matter of whether a Labor government will join the TPNW - only when.
A recently published paper by Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic is clear that Australia joining the ban treaty would advance its stated goal of supporting nuclear disarmament without creating insurmountable legal obstacles to ongoing military relations with the United States. Australia signed up to the landmines and cluster munitions treaties when the United States did not, and still has not, signed on. The alliance relationship doesn’t bind us to include weapons of mass destruction in our defence policies. Further, the ANZUS Treaty contains no obligation to accept the policy of nuclear deterrence.
The threat posed by nuclear weapons is real and urgent. More than ever, our security depends on an effective rules-based international order and strong multilateral institutions. No nuclear-armed states have yet joined the treaty, but this will change. No treaty, whether on disarmament or human rights or climate change, has ever enjoyed universal support at the outset. Support is always built up over time. Monumental strides forward in human history rarely begin with all parties coming together to agree on a common course of action.
The majority of the world’s nations negotiated the TPNW based on their firm belief that it would have a profound impact on the behaviour of nuclear-armed states and their allies, even if its provisions would not, at the outset, be binding on those states. Treaties prohibiting other inhumane, indiscriminate weapons demonstrate this process; for example, the landmine ban treaty is widely regarded as a success, with massive reductions in use and production worldwide.
Within the nuclear weapon ban treaty’s first year of existence, money is moving. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund and the largest Dutch pension fund have decided to exclude nuclear-weapon-producing companies from their investment portfolios, citing the treaty as their reason. The Australian Medical Association and the Australian Red Cross have urged the Australian government to sign and ratify the treaty as a humanitarian imperative. Cities within countries opposed to the treaty are also joining the call for national action, including Los Angeles, Toronto, Manchester, Melbourne and Sydney. The ban treaty is a powerful new tool for advocacy, and nuclear disarmament is back on the political agenda.
Since the treaty opened for signature in September 2017, 69 states have signed on and 19 have ratified. The 50th nation to deposit its instrument of ratification will enable the treaty to enter into force and become permanent international law. With dozens of nations currently undergoing domestic processes to sign and ratify, entry- into-force is expected by 2020.
It is beyond time for Australia to quit our role as nuclear enabler for the United States. The nuclear weapon ban treaty presents us with a persistent question; will we join the global majority and contribute to the consensus against these WMDs, or remain implicated in the nuclear threat? Labor’s commitment clears a pathway forward for the next Government.
Gem Romuld is the Australian director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear
Weapons and a recipient of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize.
