The United Nations vote to ban nuclear weapons made 85-year-old Setsuko Thurlow very happy. “I have been waiting for this day for seven decades and I am overjoyed that it has finally arrived,” she said.
She is one of the Hibakusha, the Japanese survivors of the atomic bombs that the US dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 ending World War Two. “This is the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons,” she hoped.
But there’s a few big problems to solve first. Although Scotland has backed the new UN treaty, Westminster and the world’s eight other nuclear weapons states have rejected it.
A clear majority of the world’s countries – 122 – voted to ban the bomb, but the minority of nations with the bombs and the most power boycotted the whole process. They say they will not sign the new treaty, and they will continue to hold sway at the UN Security Council.
The UN, for all its virtues, is still a deeply unequal forum. If the big boys don’t want to get rid of their big toys, there’s little the rest of the world can do to force their hand.
But it is not hopeless. International moves to control chemical and biological weapons faced initial opposition. It was a long struggle to adopt the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which the UK government is now an ardent fan.
The reactions of the nuclear states to the new UN treaty have been intriguing. Instead of loftily ignoring it, they have been working furiously behind the scenes to sabotage it - and yesterday queued up to loudly condemn it.
Are they rattled? Do they fear that the UN’s move could actually be historic, and start a process that will see the world turning its back on weapons of mass destruction? As Setsuko Thurlow would say, here’s hoping.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here