On July 7th 2017 the UN formally adopted a treaty banning nuclear weapons.  The treaty was adopted by a vote of 122 in favour to 1 against (Netherlands), with 1 abstention (Singapore), and it prohibits a full range of nuclear-weapon-related activities; including the development, testing, production and manufacture, acquisition or possession of nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices.  In addition to which, the treaty bans use of or the threat of the use of these weapons.  The vote was boycotted by all of the nine countries known or believed to possess nuclear weapons — the United States, Russia, Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel – in addition to all of the countries (except the Netherlands) which form part of NATO – whose military technologies include a nuclear arsenal.  The antipathy (of a minority) to this treaty is such that some (The United States of America, France and the United Kingdom) even went as far as formally declaring their refusal to acknowledge the treaty: the UN ambassadors from the United States, Britain and France said their countries don’t intend to ever become party to the treaty, stating that it “…clearly disregards the realities of the international security environment” and “is incompatible with the policy of nuclear deterrence, which has been essential to keeping the peace in Europe and North Asia for over 70 years.”  They went on to say that they would not respect this treaty because the treaty offers no solution to “…the grave threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear program, nor does it address other security challenges that make nuclear deterrence necessary,”.  Furthermore, they indicated that a ban that wouldn’t address these concerns and “…cannot result in the elimination of a single nuclear weapon and will not enhance any country’s security..  “It will do the exact opposite by creating even more divisions at a time when the world needs to remain united in the face of growing threats.”

Despite such protestations, the treaty will come into force once 50 member countries of the United Nations formally ratify the treaty – which will begin on September 20th 2017.  Once ratified, it will enter into International Law and should therefore be adhered to by the member states of the United Nations.

What then..?  Will those countries armed with nuclear weapons decide to obey International Law and begin a programme of disarmament?  Or will they continue down the road that they have already stated in that they wish to ‘strengthen’ the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty already in place instead?  Many of the countries which boycotted the talks for this treaty are considered to be democracies – a system of government which entitles all members to a vote and then adopts the decision of the majority (in some form or other).  Surely a country which operates both as a democracy and within a democracy should respect the decisions arrived at through democratic process?  If not, if these countries decide to flout this particular International Law what does this then say for democracy?

It would perhaps be understandable if the member in question decided to rescind its membership from the said democracy – were Britain to say “as we cannot agree to this treaty, we remove ourselves from this democratic union entirely” – this at least would be consistent with a member exhibiting respect for the democratic process.  Yet this is not the case, Britain (in this case) may refuse to adhere to this single law, whilst at the same time expecting other member states to adhere to other laws and Resolutions from the same body.

As a citizen living in one of the aforementioned democracies I find that I am bound by the laws and regulations of the land (whether or not I am aware of the law in question); this means that I am bound by all of them and at all times.  The judiciary of the democracy in which I live would not consider as mitigation in a court of law, that I had decided against respecting a specific law for my own personal reasons (be they deeply held or not) – present day democracies are not run as à la carte restaurants.  Can you imagine standing in front of a judge indicating your refusal to pay a speeding fine because you fundamentally disagree that imposing speed limits will in anyway reduce the number of accidents on the road?! In addition to expecting the same judge to ask your neighbour to keep the noise down at night?!  (Is this not after all a similar reasoning as that which was provided by three of the largest democracies in the world when explaining why they would not respect the treaty should it be ratified?)

If therefore it is not acceptable for an individual citizen (as a member of a democratic body) to suddenly refuse to adhere to the laws of a democratic body of which they form part, how can it be any more acceptable for an individual country (as a member of a democratic body) to suddenly refuse to adhere to laws that they may not like?  The example that would be set by this (and sadly I fear that it is an example which has already been set by many countries who are both members of the United Nations and whom are currently in breach of UN resolutions), is that democracy is a system which we can adopt when it pleases us, and which can be ignored whenever it suits.

If you ask others to respect democracy – surely you also have to respect democracy …you cannot have your cake and eat it!