More positive commitments against nuclear war

Almost one year ago, the International Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which Australia's Nobel Peace Prize winning  ICAN played a key role in formulating, "came into force". 

From my post on that: 

That means it is, as of this day, a part of international law. It is now illegal to (and I am simplifying here - text is here) develop / test, manufacture, have, transfer, receive, threaten to use or use nuclear weapons (multi-language version at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2017/07/20170707%2003-42%20PM/Ch_XXVI_9.pdf).

Now, from this media report:

China, France, Russia, the UK and the US have agreed that a nuclear war "cannot be won and must never be fought." 

There was also affirmation that "nuclear weapons — for as long as they continue to exist — should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war."

This (will also included a commitment to support ongoing efforts against proliferation) is a major commitment ("to pursue negotiations in good faith") between a key set (but not all) of those nations with nuclear weapons, and that these parties, some of whom have strong divisions on other matters, issued this as a "rare" joint declaration is VERY encouraging. 

It doesn't remove nuclear weapons, and thus doesn't fulfil the requirements of the International Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, but it is a major step towards that. 

See also here, here, and here.

The text of the full statement, from here, is: 

"The People’s Republic of China, the French Republic, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America consider the avoidance of war between Nuclear-Weapon States and the reduction of strategic risks as our foremost responsibilities.

We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.  As nuclear use would have far-reaching consequences, we also affirm that nuclear weapons—for as long as they continue to exist—should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war.  We believe strongly that the further spread of such weapons must be prevented.

We reaffirm the importance of addressing nuclear threats and emphasize the importance of preserving and complying with our bilateral and multilateral non-proliferation, disarmament, and arms control agreements and commitments.  We remain committed to our Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, including our Article VI obligation “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

We each intend to maintain and further strengthen our national measures to prevent unauthorized or unintended use of nuclear weapons.  We reiterate the validity of our previous statements on de-targeting, reaffirming that none of our nuclear weapons are targeted at each other or at any other State.

We underline our desire to work with all states to create a security environment more conducive to progress on disarmament with the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons with undiminished security for all.  We intend to continue seeking bilateral and multilateral diplomatic approaches to avoid military confrontations, strengthen stability and predictability, increase mutual understanding and confidence, and prevent an arms race that would benefit none and endanger all.  We are resolved to pursue constructive dialogue with mutual respect and acknowledgment of each other’s security interests and concerns."

 

As an example of the problems to be overcome, there is also this, from my coming weekly human rights post: 

Iran is threatening retaliation against #45 and others over the killing two years ago of one its military leaders by the USA unless there is a "fair" international trial
(a "fair" trial is likely impossible - for a start, any insistence on sharia law, for instance would be unacceptable: the ICC is the only "fair" international venue for trial of individuals, but the USA will not give up one of it's own for any international trial.
Any retaliation by Iran, however, is unlikely to involve missiles as their current material suggests [they don't have the range/orbital capacity, although that may change eventually, and I doubt North Korea would want the risk of allowing Iran to use its locale/submarines and missiles - apart from the certainty of a US response, it would anger China, which North Korea still depends on for many of its survival needs],
but might involve a "dirty" bomb [they have expertise at violent extremism [terrorism] and some nuclear materials] against US interests, but unlikely on continental US territory or Hawaii.
I hope those in possible target areas will be properly protected [travel warnings etc may be issued], and that the international community effectively manages the situation with Iran [which might require an attack of rationality - or at least management of its RWNJ "hawks" on the part of the USA] );