The Republic of Marshall Islands (RMI) has had multiple trysts with atmospheric nuclear testing by the United States between 1946 and 1958. At the 2015 Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Review Conference, the then Foreign Minister Tony DeBrum narrated a first-hand experience of the 1954 Bravo shot at the Bikini atoll. The aim of doing so was to remind those member States present at the conference of the humanitarian costs of nuclear weapons and hopefully convince them to disarm.
In April 2014, the RMI, in furtherance of their international activism filed complaints at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against all nine states currently possessing nuclear weapons—China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This, however, was not the first instance of litigation initiated by the RMI. In the 1980s, the people of Marshall Islands brought lawsuits against the United States in US federal courts for property and other damages. During the course of the litigation, the US entered into the Compact of Free Association with Marshall Islands that established the Nuclear Claims Tribunal, which would have “final jurisdiction” to decide on any claims arising as a consequence of the Nuclear Testing Programme. Soon after the Compact entered into effect, the US courts dismissed all the cases asking for damages due to the establishment of the Nuclear Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded US $386 million in damages to the people of the island.
The RMI’s complaints at the ICJ against the nine nuclear powers alleged that the States failed to initiate nuclear disarmament negotiations in good faith, a breach of Article VI of the 1968 nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and of customary international law. Only India, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom participated in the lawsuits since others do not recognise the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ to mediate disputes between states.
In the cases of India and Pakistan, the 16-member panel of the ICJ in a 9-7 split ruled in favour of the nuclear states deciding that they do not have jurisdiction in the matter. In the complaint against United Kingdom, the bench was tied at 8-8. The tie was broken by the President of the Court, Judge Ronny Abraham, to decide in favour of the UK. Although the decision of the ICJ favoured the states with a nuclear arsenal, RMI’s lawsuits raises questions about the future relevance of such initiatives. Especially at a time when no nation wants to be caught in the middle of a global power struggle.
Disarmament in the Indo-Pacific
All of the nine nuclear powers, barring Israel and the United Kingdom, have a presence in the Indo-Pacific. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which was opened for signature in September of 2017, saw quick support from nine ASEAN states with the singular exception of Singapore, casting a doubt over the treaty. The wave of nuclear disarmament has been strongly felt in the region even during the pandemic with 16 countries ratifying the TPNW since September 30th.
All of the nine nuclear powers, barring Israel and the United Kingdom, have a presence in the Indo-Pacific. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which was opened for signature in September of 2017, saw quick support from nine ASEAN states with the singular exception of Singapore
The United States, in a letter addressed to signatories to the TPNW in October 2020, stated that the treaty “turns back the clock on verification and disarmament and is dangerous”, Though it is unlikely that the letter achieved its goal, the concern about the growing sentiment about nuclear disarmament amongst Nuclear Possessing States (NPS) is evident.
The Indian External Affairs Ministry denied participating in the negotiations to the TPNW and stated that no other state possessing nuclear weapons participated either. None of the US-allies in the Indo-Pacific, namely Australia, Japan, and South Korea, either attended the treaty negotiations or recalled their support to reliance on US nuclear deterrence.
Although none of the big powers in the Indo-Pacific region have openly come out in support of the TPNW, it is crucial to note that Japan and South Korea are reviewing the need to develop nuclear arsenals for their countries. RMI’s lawsuit at the ICJ might not have had a prominent legal consequence. However, the complaints were met with hostility and discontentment from the nuclear weapon states. Similarly, the TPNW, due to the lack of recognition or acceptance from any of the NPSs or umbrella nuclear states also has questionable enforcement capabilities. Hence, neither the nuclear activism nor the treaties are furthering the cause of a complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
The president-designate of the 2020 Review Conference for the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty questioned the effectiveness of the TPNW and reinforced that a nuclear regime cannot exist without the nuclear weapon possessing states in that system. Extrapolating this to the Indo-Pacific region, in the current context when the Quad is lobbying to counter Chinese expansionism, islands in the Pacific and ASEAN nations cannot effectively and successfully uphold their policy of nuclear disarmament without abstaining from aligning with either blocs. The consequences of such an approach might translate into reduction of trade, infrastructure and other strategic cooperation. The burden is on the non-nuclear weapon states to weigh the costs and benefits of their activism.
How the Quad membership helps India
The Indian government has been evading by taking an ambiguous position on nuclear disarmament for a few years now. After independence, India was an advocate for global nuclear disarmament. New Delhi’s policy towards disarmament has been termed rhetorical and inconsistent.
In 2017, the Ministry of External Affairs joined Japan and other countries in condemning North Korea’s launch of a nuclear missile. The joint statement came after a discussion on the security situation in the Indo-Pacific. Japan’s policy towards nuclear disarmament is directed by its experience of being the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings during wartime. Despite this, being a member to the US nuclear umbrella protection prevented Tokyo from joining the TPNW.
This indicates that India’s membership to the Quad can prove to be a benefit in framing its narrative and walking the tightrope between being an NPS and pursuing a policy of disarmament. The Quad was established with the objective of promoting a rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific. Countries such as the RMI and ASEAN members, which have signed the TPNW, must recognise that for an equilibrium or balance to exist in the region, complete disarmament is not a viable prospect. China is one of the five original nuclear-weapons powers with an expansionist presence in the Indo-Pacific. Pursuing a policy of complete and absolute disarmament in the Indo-Pacific comes with its perils as the cost not aligning with either side of the biggest power struggle in modern times would invariably result in being caught in the middle.
China is one of the five original nuclear-weapons powers with an expansionist presence in the Indo-Pacific. Pursuing a policy of complete and absolute disarmament in the Indo-Pacific comes with its perils as the cost not aligning with either side of the biggest power struggle in modern times would invariably result in being caught in the middle
Nuclear disarmament is, undoubtedly, a global goal sought to be achieved. However, prioritising international activism over a stable regional security situation bears its own crosses. India has been successfully navigating its policy of advocating for disarmament while continuing to be an overt nuclear power. Cooperation with Quad countries in making a push for the rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific would be an added advantage to its policy.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.