Editorial: As the meeting of States Parties to the TPNW closes, “division” must be overcome
Mar. 9, 2025
Three months have passed since the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations (Nihon Hidankyo). Although it was expected to give a boost to an international conference, it left a strong impression of being “halfway.” The third meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) held at United Nations Headquarters in New York, the United States, has come to a close.
Without the participation of nuclear powers, how can we enhance the effectiveness of the treaty banning the production, possession and use of nuclear weapons? The adopted political declaration can be called some positive results, because it has reaffirmed the resolution for a world free of nuclear weapons in an unstable international situation, and called on the nuclear weapon states to reduce and eliminate the weapon on the grounds that the theory of nuclear deterrence threatens the existence of all human beings.
Although the discussion on the establishment of an international trust fund to assist victims of nuclear weapons use or testing, a major topic of the meeting, needs to continue, they were able to sound the alarm on the use of fast-advancing artificial intelligence (AI) in nuclear weapons, which would increase the risk.
It was also significant that people of various generations who are active in non-profit organizations (NPOs) from Japan, the A-bombed nation, including high school peace ambassadors, gathered and united their thoughts. However, a depressed feeling has also grown.
We would like to protest once again the Ishiba government’s refusal to attend the meeting as an observer on the grounds that the country is under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. At the same time, we must face the reality that the “divide” between those states that possess nuclear weapons or depend on nuclear deterrence and those that do not has become clear.
This time, not a single country from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which relies on U.S. military power, participated. It is unfortunate that Germany, Belgium and Norway, NATO members who attended the last two meetings as observers, sat this one out.
Moreover, I feel that a televised address to the nation by French President Emmanuel Macron during the conference period put a damper on it. In his speech, he announced that he would consider extending France’s nuclear umbrella to the European continent in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s approach to Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.
France, which possesses 290 nuclear warheads, the fourth largest in the world, has stuck to maintaining its own nuclear capability, such as deployment on its submarines. Its nuclear strategy is distinct from that of the United States, which deploys its nuclear weapons on the territory of five NATO nations, including Germany and Italy, and places the operation of the weapons under joint control. Its intention may be to position the weapon jointly with other European nations as a deterrent against Russia, rather than to immediately strengthen its nuclear capability.
However, if he says he cannot count on the U.S. nuclear weapons, isn’t it logical to seek security that does not depend on nuclear weapons, an inhumane weapon that costs a huge amount of money? What has President Macron seen at the Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima two years ago, where he visited for the summit meeting of the G7 (Group of Seven industrialized nations)?
It was just then that a member of the Assembly from French Polynesia, which has suffered the damage caused by repeated nuclear tests by France, made an intensive appeal for relief and the abolition of nuclear weapons at the meeting of the States Parties. I hope that, as a leader, Mr. Macron will fully accept the representative’s woeful cry.
“There is no evidence that nuclear deterrence has saved us from nuclear war, conversely, it poses high risks to us all,” said the mayor of Hannover, Germany, also one of the Vice President Cities of Mayors for Peace, during the debate at the meeting. With this year marking the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings, we will be sending out information about what would happen if a nuclear weapon were used. We would like to wrap the theory of nuclear deterrence with a growing international public opinion and overcome the divide.
(Originally published on March 9, 2025)
Without the participation of nuclear powers, how can we enhance the effectiveness of the treaty banning the production, possession and use of nuclear weapons? The adopted political declaration can be called some positive results, because it has reaffirmed the resolution for a world free of nuclear weapons in an unstable international situation, and called on the nuclear weapon states to reduce and eliminate the weapon on the grounds that the theory of nuclear deterrence threatens the existence of all human beings.
Although the discussion on the establishment of an international trust fund to assist victims of nuclear weapons use or testing, a major topic of the meeting, needs to continue, they were able to sound the alarm on the use of fast-advancing artificial intelligence (AI) in nuclear weapons, which would increase the risk.
It was also significant that people of various generations who are active in non-profit organizations (NPOs) from Japan, the A-bombed nation, including high school peace ambassadors, gathered and united their thoughts. However, a depressed feeling has also grown.
We would like to protest once again the Ishiba government’s refusal to attend the meeting as an observer on the grounds that the country is under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. At the same time, we must face the reality that the “divide” between those states that possess nuclear weapons or depend on nuclear deterrence and those that do not has become clear.
This time, not a single country from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which relies on U.S. military power, participated. It is unfortunate that Germany, Belgium and Norway, NATO members who attended the last two meetings as observers, sat this one out.
Moreover, I feel that a televised address to the nation by French President Emmanuel Macron during the conference period put a damper on it. In his speech, he announced that he would consider extending France’s nuclear umbrella to the European continent in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s approach to Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.
France, which possesses 290 nuclear warheads, the fourth largest in the world, has stuck to maintaining its own nuclear capability, such as deployment on its submarines. Its nuclear strategy is distinct from that of the United States, which deploys its nuclear weapons on the territory of five NATO nations, including Germany and Italy, and places the operation of the weapons under joint control. Its intention may be to position the weapon jointly with other European nations as a deterrent against Russia, rather than to immediately strengthen its nuclear capability.
However, if he says he cannot count on the U.S. nuclear weapons, isn’t it logical to seek security that does not depend on nuclear weapons, an inhumane weapon that costs a huge amount of money? What has President Macron seen at the Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima two years ago, where he visited for the summit meeting of the G7 (Group of Seven industrialized nations)?
It was just then that a member of the Assembly from French Polynesia, which has suffered the damage caused by repeated nuclear tests by France, made an intensive appeal for relief and the abolition of nuclear weapons at the meeting of the States Parties. I hope that, as a leader, Mr. Macron will fully accept the representative’s woeful cry.
“There is no evidence that nuclear deterrence has saved us from nuclear war, conversely, it poses high risks to us all,” said the mayor of Hannover, Germany, also one of the Vice President Cities of Mayors for Peace, during the debate at the meeting. With this year marking the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings, we will be sending out information about what would happen if a nuclear weapon were used. We would like to wrap the theory of nuclear deterrence with a growing international public opinion and overcome the divide.
(Originally published on March 9, 2025)
