The world’s superpowers agreed to prevent a global nuclear war by avoiding an arms race on Jan. 3. The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) — the U.S., U.K., China, Russia and France — signed a joint pledge agreeing that nuclear wars were impossible to win. This pledge from the countries, which has reportedly been in the works for a long time, comes during a period of looming conflict and tensions between the members themselves.
This statement is reminiscent of resolutions made by people on New Year’s. Travel more. Eat healthy. Workout everyday. Spend time with family. Organize better. Quit a bad habit.
Add another futile resolution to the list: prevent nuclear war.
Every year the same cliched resolutions are made in hopes that this may be the year that they finally accomplish their goal. Yet, these promises are notoriously popular only for the month of January; by the end of the year, most folks forget what goals they had originally set. If individuals struggle to fulfill their goals without extreme scrutiny, how can governments be expected to stick to their often performative pledges?
But with the immense popularity of New Year’s resolutions, it isn’t possible to simply forget them and not set any goals at all. Sometimes, people are successful in accomplishing their goals; if they work in the public sphere, they may especially share their ideas with their audience and showcase a review of their successes or failures.
This notion doesn’t simply apply to private individuals, it applies to governments too. When failing in front of the very people they are accountable to, repeating mistakes should be easy to avoid. However, the UNSC’s permanent members seem to forget that nearly all previous treaties and summits regarding war, aggression and violence have been ignored by members multiple times.
Statements tend to be just that: statements. Even though the five nations are the only ones recognized by the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, several other nations exist that have the power to use their nuclear weapons to begin a conflict, or use it as a means to end one — Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea — while others continue to develop or procure their own weapons.
This statement discounts the fact that other nations are attempting to become as strong as the superpowers, and it creates a biased viewpoint for the world’s citizens. This allows them to believe that promising reduction of the risk of war does not terminate ongoing conflicts that are still promoting violence and human rights abuses.
If one state refuses to use weapons of mass destruction, another one will. And if the nations were truly dead set on creating lasting and effective changes regarding the risks of war, they would address the root causes of international conflict — resource exploitation and land invasion with multiple rights abuses — and cooperate with one another.
However, such sweeping change cannot be implemented unless the countries themselves realize the fragility of pledges. In order to truly reduce the risk of nuclear war and destructive disputes, there needs to be a real, enforceable reduction in the nations’ nuclear weapons stockpiles. Not just to disarm countries that aren’t democracies, but also for countries that have ongoing dissension with their neighbors or those in their regions.
Unbiased, third-party organizations need to be able to oversee actual effective action taking place, instead of the people of the world having to wait for “constructive dialogue with mutual respect and acknowledgment of each other’s security interests and concerns” to be an effective measure against the already aggressive actions being undertaken by Russia and China towards their neighbors.
As a new year begins, it is time to recognize that words without mass movements or proof of action are just empty letters. Any political promises or pledges without real policy to complement them, international or otherwise, are simply tactics to create temporary and false optimism. Wasting resources in the creation of weapons will not benefit anyone in the long run; to really create lasting effects with international promises of peace, there should be research and time devoted to how nuclear energy can be made usable for the larger public domain. Until then, the only relatability that governments offer to citizens will be their performative enthusiasm for New Years’ goals.
Nandini Sharma is an Opinion Staff Writer. She can be reached at nandis2@uci.edu.