Back in August 1945, a matter of weeks after witnessing first-hand the suffering and devastation wrought by the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) appealed for nuclear weapons to be banned outright, just as poison gas was outlawed in the aftermath of the First World War. A few months later, the United Nations General Assembly called – in its very first resolution – for ‘the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction’.

Since then, a norm prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons has gradually taken shape. The first regional treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons was adopted in 1967 in Latin America and the Caribbean and was followed by four other such treaties covering the South Pacific, Southeast Asia, Africa and Central Asia. The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which remains a cornerstone of nuclear disarmament non-proliferation, not only bars its 186 non-nuclear-armed States Parties from ever acquiring nuclear weapons, but creates an international legal obligation to eliminate nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, efforts to address the humanitarian and environmental impact of nuclear testing led to a partial test-ban in 1963 and the adoption, more than three decades later, of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

Set against this backdrop of hard-won history, the TPNW’s globally applicable prohibition norm complements the regional nuclear-weapon-free zones that 116 States are party to across the world today. Its unequivocal ban on nuclear testing compensates that of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty which, 25 years after its adoption, has unfortunately yet to enter into force. By providing legal pathways for the elimination of nuclear weapons, moreover, the TPNW is a concrete step towards fulfilling existing nuclear disarmament obligations, notably those under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And importantly, by foreseeing assistance for victims of nuclear testing and use and for remediation of contaminated environments, the Treaty explicitly and directly addresses the catastrophic humanitarian consequences caused by these weapons.

Three days later, in Nagasaki, the Red Cross team rushed to ground zero to alleviate the suffering of the second bomb’s victims. The unspeakable suffering and devastation witnessed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would forever mark the Japanese Red Cross Society. Even today, the Japanese Red Cross hospitals continue to treat patients for cancers and illnesses attributable to the atomic bombings of those two cities. This disturbing reality, unbeknownst to many, demonstrates that the effects of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in time.

Japan was not, however, the only country to suffer from the effects of nuclear weapons. More than two thousand nuclear tests were carried out after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima, exposing a high number of people to the harmful effects of ionizing radiation. In 1954, the crew on the Japanese fishing boat Daigo Fukuryu Maru was contaminated by nuclear fallout from a nuclear test at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The crew suffered acute radiation syndrome and the event drew massive public attention in Japan. Just as the effects of a nuclear detonation cannot be contained it time, it clearly cannot be contained in space either.

These are the reasons why the Japanese Red Cross Society and the wider Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement have consistently advocated for the position that nuclear weapons must be prohibited and eliminated. As the former President of the Japanese Red Cross Society, Mr. Tadatsugu Shimazu, wrote in his memoires:

‘One strong belief did never fade away in my mind that even if all other countries hesitate, get bored, or oppose to appeal to people about the fear of nuclear weapons, Japan has to keep doing it and indeed only Japan has the right to do so.’

It would result in disappointment to expect the TPNW to deliver on a world without nuclear weapons instantaneously. Instead, the Treaty must be seen for what it is: a legal starting point for a long-term effort to achieve comprehensive nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. This is how international law works. The prohibitions of the TPNW establish a clear standard – a benchmark against which all efforts towards a world without nuclear weapons will be judged.  We must now work, over the coming years and decades, to promote adherence to these prohibitions. Every signature and every ratification will bring us closer to realizing the potential of this Treaty.

Once in force, the Treaty may also help reduce the risk of nuclear use by further stigmatizing these weapons – by strengthening what has sometimes been referred to as ‘the nuclear taboo’. The Treaty sends a clear signal that any use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable from a moral, humanitarian and now also legal perspective. Such a signal may have an effect beyond the Treaty’s membership. We know that other treaties, while only legally binding upon its parties, have created expectations of behaviour that have also influenced the policies of States not yet party. Looking ahead, the Treaty’s meetings of States Parties, the first of which is to be organized within 12 months of its entry into force, provides opportunities that must not be squandered to amplify this signal.

These efforts are rooted in a succession of resolutions and action plans adopted by the Council of Delegates of the Red Cross and Red Crescent under the leadership of President Maurer and then President of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Mr. Tadateru Konoe. The 2017-2021 Movement Action Plan on the Non-use, Prohibition and Elimination of Nuclear Weapons commits the entire Movement to ‘promote adherence to and full implementation of the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by all States, as a crucial step towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons’.

While the entry into force of the TPNW is a historic victory, it is indeed important not to forget that this Treaty is a response to the compelling evidence and testimonies of suffering caused by nuclear weapons and a means to ensure that these weapons are never used again. We must continue to raise awareness of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, especially among younger generations. More than 75 years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there is still no – and probably will never be – adequate humanitarian response capacity to meet the needs of victims of nuclear weapons. As humanitarians, we must continue to ask the uncomfortable question: ‘Who should assist the victims of nuclear detonations, and how?’

The experiences of survivors of past atomic bombings (hibakusha) and nuclear testing remains a central part of these efforts. As an organization uniquely aware of the effects of nuclear weapons, the Japanese Red Cross Society will continue to hand down its experiences to the next generation and contribute to the wider Movement’s efforts in this respect.