The NPT Review Conference

The 191 countries that have joined the NPT review the implementation of the treaty in a conference every five years. The 2022 conference was delayed due to COVID and took place under even more challenging and dangerous conditions. The negotiated outcome of the conference was blocked by Russia, who has once again used their nuclear weapons to justify acting against the interests of the global community.

One of the most concerning issues is the fact that Russia, an  NPT nuclear-weapon state and depositary, has invaded an NPT non-nuclear-weapon state, and has threatened to use nuclear weapons against anyone intervening in the conflict. These actions fractured the NPT community, heightened the risks of nuclear weapons being used, and increased the likelihood of nuclear proliferation.

Reductions in the weapon stockpiles of the nuclear-weapon states have not only ground to a halt, but in some cases gone into reverse. China is increasing its arsenal, and the United Kingdom has raised the cap on the maximum number of warheads it will retain.

These developments damage the NPT. They erode its authority, undermine its credibility and cripple efforts to fully implement the treaty and agreements made at previous reviews. 

The risk of use of nuclear weapons is growing, and proliferation pressures are rising as non-nuclear-weapon states confront the reality of aggression and threats by nuclear-armed states. Proliferation of nuclear weapons would only further increase the already unacceptable risks of use.

Fortunately, a large number of states have shown leadership and already begun work on this. In the period since the last NPT review conference, these states have negotiated, adopted and brought into force the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

In doing so, they have strengthened the global nuclear non-proliferation norm established by the NPT, reinforcing the treaty at a time of rising proliferation pressure, by creating and adhering to a comprehensive and absolute legal prohibition of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapon risks and realities 

A nuclear weapon detonation releases a million degree fireball, and instantly vaporises anything it touches. The blast, firestorms and radiation release would cause countless injuries, and death from burns or asphyxiation, and the lingering radioactive danger would impact those who managed to survive as well as those at a distance from the blast site. There is no way to contain these consequences inside a national border. 

Even limited nuclear conflict will overwhelm health care systems and cause cascading catastrophe including long-term health effects and famine. No city has enough hospital beds, ICU beds, burn treatment facilities, or health care professionals to respond to an attack involving even a single warhead.

Nuclear weapon exclusions are part of responsible investment

Exclusion policies preventing financial exposure to all types of controversial weapon producers are frequently elaborated to explain that controversial weapons are weapons that cause indiscriminate harm by design. ING for instance, says the “weapons under consideration are controversial because of the likelihood of civilians being injured as these weaponry systems are prone to indiscriminate effects and/or risk causing destruction over a wide area.” Others, like Pictet, also note that “their use is banned or restricted under international conventions.” Many name different types of weapons whose producers they will not finance, including cluster munitions, landmines, and weapons of mass destruction- biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

However, there are a number of significant investors and banks that continue to finance companies involved in the production of nuclear weapons. In its policy  “BNP Paribas makes an exception for government controlled nuclear weapon programs in NATO countries that are authorized to possess nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.” That caveat enables the bank to lend money to companies like BAE Systems which produces key components for the nuclear arsenals of France, the United Kingdom and the United States.

This interpretation of the NPT and of international law is misleading. The NPT requires all of its member countries to “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”.

Nowhere in the treaty does it say that these countries may retain their nuclear weapons indefinitely, rather the opposite, as they must negotiate the total elimination of their arsenals. To facilitate that process, the majority of UN member states negotiated the comprehensive Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which became international law in January 2021. 

A clear way forward

Fortunately, a growing number of financial institutions are building a norm that rejects any investment that might support nuclear weapons at any time. Investors representing 5% of global assets under management ($21.5 trillion) have adopted clear and comprehensive public policies excluding the companies involved in the production of nuclear weapons. 

Investors concerned about the continued risk for humanity represented by the possibility that nuclear weapons could be used and the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from the use of nuclear weapons can use the lack of agreement at this NPT Review Conference as a reminder to review their own controversial weapons policies and follow the lead of those who comprehensively reject any financial engagement with these weapons (and their producers).