Nuclear weapons are one of today’s most critical international issues. We face rising tension between nuclear-armed states such as the United States, the Russian Federation, and the People’s Republic of China. From the border between Russia and Ukraine to the Taiwan Strait, growing military activity in those regions concerns the global community. Hence the recent joint statement by the five nuclear-armed states -- China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States -- gave us, the NPT-abiding non-nuclear-armed states, a credible assurance that the current military build-up would not end in total annihilation. I commend the decision of these five countries. However, the world needs a more robust security guarantee that ensures fundamental certainty about the usage of nuclear weapons: A No First Use policy by all nuclear-armed states.

Undoubtedly, using nuclear weapons against a nuclear-armed state will result in a chain reaction of atomic missile exchange. That is why the beginning of the NPT starts with acknowledging the dire outcome of nuclear war and why the states need to make every effort to prevent far-reaching consequences. Yet, we are still witnessing the modernization of nuclear weapons by nuclear-armed states, which gives off the impression that they are planning to utilize the weapons when they deem it necessary. This Post-Cold War trend comes from a strategic discourse, which argues nuclear weapons from the Cold War paradigm are not fit for use in modern warfare. How did the world end up with this nuclear hypocrisy where we support the ideas of the NPT and turn a blind eye to the modernization of nuclear weapons? I believe this is caused by the lack of a No First Use policy.

Except for China and India, all nuclear-armed states reserve the option to use their nuclear weapons first to provide solid security guarantees to their nations and partners. In the case of the US, its nuclear umbrella covers much wider partners around the globe than the Chinese or Russian nuclear umbrella. Thus, it could be argued that the adoption of a No First Use policy by the US is likely to undermine the credibility of its security guarantees to its partners. However, I would say that this argument only increases the likelihood of mistrust between the nuclear-armed states, which has already resulted in the modernization of nuclear weapons. The only way to break this vicious circle is to implement a No First Use policy as a multilateral agreement by all nuclear-armed states. Even though a No First Use policy is highly symbolic, it will truly usher in an open discussion for the world without threats of nuclear wars, where nuclear weapons would only serve the purpose of deterrence.

The world must openly discuss implementing a No First Use policy and develop a coherent diplomatic strategy to encourage nuclear-armed states to pause the modernization of their nuclear weapons. It will also be a gesture of goodwill that levels the playing field for North Korea to pursue denuclearization proactively, ultimately paving a road for achieving lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula through dialogue and diplomacy. I hope the recent joint statement will motivate the five nations and other nuclear-armed states to declare a No First Use policy formally.

This article was contributed by Democratic Party Chairman Song Young-gil. Views expressed here are his own. -- Ed.

By Song Young-gil
Chairman of the Democratic Party of Korea