NEW YORK — The Third Meeting of States Parties (3MSP) to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in New York on March 3-7, underscored both progress and challenges in global disarmament. In an interview with The Astana Times, expert Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova spoke about the treaty’s implementation, the evolving geopolitical landscape, and Kazakhstan’s role in advancing non-proliferation efforts.
Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova. Photo credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider
Mukhatzhanova, a director of the International Organizations and Nonproliferation Program (IONP) at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation (VCDNP) and a Japan Chair for a World without Nuclear Weapons, noted that as nuclear-armed states reinforce deterrence policies, maintaining momentum on disarmament requires stronger legal commitments and sustained political will.
“We’ve seen quite a bit of recommitment to nuclear weapons as some kind of guarantee of security and in one instance, even as an instrument to cover one’s aggression. So that is certainly a backward step in the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. So we need a shift—both among nuclear-possessing states and umbrella states—in their approach to the role of nuclear weapons and their commitment to them as a security guarantee,” said Mukhatzhanova.
Beyond symbolism: strengthening legal commitments
Adopted in 2017 and entering into force in 2021, the treaty is the first legally binding instrument prohibiting nuclear weapons. While some critics dismiss it as symbolic, Mukhatzhanova emphasized that the treaty imposes concrete legal obligations.
“The treaty is not just a symbolic declaration. It is a legally binding treaty with obligations. If we witness weakening of other instruments, it’s important that we have additional layers of obligations and commitments,” said Mukhatzhanova.
Parties to the treaty commit never to develop, test, produce, acquire, possess, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. They reject any role for nuclear weapons in their national security, meaning they do not benefit from extended nuclear deterrence, unlike countries in military alliances that permit it. This rejection helps reduce the prominence of nuclear weapons in international security. As more countries join and unequivocally renounce the role of nuclear weapons in their security, their overall significance further diminishes.
“The situation globally is rather dire. If anything, we’ve seen a recommitment to nuclear weapons on the part of those that have them,” said Mukhatzhanova.
The agreement’s effectiveness depends on expanding its membership and reinforcing its political weight. While nuclear-armed states have so far refused to engage, she highlighted the significance of maintaining pressure within other frameworks, including the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), where the five nuclear-weapon states are legally bound to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament.
However, Mukhatzhanova noted that making disarmament irreversible is not an immediate reality. Instead, this is a crucial moment to examine the lessons of the few disarmed countries and how they demonstrate the irreversibility of that decision.
Lessons from disarmament: South Africa and Kazakhstan
Mukhatzhanova pointed to historical examples of disarmament to highlight the conditions necessary for nuclear renunciation to be irreversible.
“South Africa is the only country that developed its own arsenal and then dismantled it (…) It made it completely unimaginable politically for the country to turn around its position on nuclear weapons,” she said, highlighting the technical and normative measures that ensured its decision remained final.
“Joining instruments like the treaty helps solidify that status and irreversibility of nuclear disarmament,” Mukhatzhanova added.
Kazakhstan, which inherited but did not develop its nuclear arsenal, took a different path. By actively positioning itself as a leader in disarmament, it raised the political cost of reversing its decision. Mukhatzhanova noted that this is one of the rare cases in which a country, at least briefly, had the option to maintain a nuclear arsenal, potentially pursue nuclear status, and ultimately choose to relinquish it.
Kazakhstan’s case is also significant because it was a young nation entering the international system and determining its role within it.
“The conditions were conducive for the country to say, ‘I am going to be a good actor, I am going to fit into the system and not be a disruptor,’” said Mukhatzhanova. However, she noted that a weakening global security framework could change such calculations for future states considering disarmament.
“If a country sees the system of international law being actively challenged, the calculus changes. They start thinking, ‘Do we really want to fit into this system as a good actor, or is it more beneficial to have something more tangible as protection?’” she said.
Mukhatzhanova highlighted that strengthening the international system is essential now more than ever. Kazakhstan and like-minded states play a key role in upholding the rule of law, demonstrating that security can be achieved through legal frameworks rather than nuclear arsenals or extended deterrence arrangements.
Kazakhstan’s leadership in humanitarian disarmament
Kazakhstan has been at the forefront of addressing the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, particularly in assisting victims and remediating environmental damage from past testing. These issues were central to discussions at the recent meeting.
“One of the distinguishing features of this treaty—it places a legal responsibility on states with affected communities to provide victim assistance and remediation (…) But it does not include mechanisms for holding accountable those responsible for the harm,” said Mukhatzhanova.
The accountability matter remains a fundamental gap. Kazakhstan and other affected states bear the primary responsibility for addressing the consequences, while the nuclear-armed states that conducted the tests remain outside the treaty’s legal framework.
“There is a lack of precedent for implementing victim assistance and remediation in the nuclear context, so states will need to look beyond disarmament frameworks for guidance,” she said.
One proposed solution is an International Trust Fund for affected communities, but discussions have stalled over financial and political concerns. Kazakhstan has played a key role in advancing this issue. However, Mukhatzhanova noted that challenges remain in securing contributions from nuclear-armed states, particularly Russia, the successor to the Soviet Union, which conducted nuclear tests at the Semipalatinsk site.
“Logically, one might expect it to contribute to remediation and assistance efforts. If Russia resists, international law provides mechanisms such as arbitration, where a state could be held accountable through existing institutions. But politically, I don’t see that happening,” said Mukhatzhanova.
Uniting against violation of non-proliferation norms
Mukhatzhanova underscored the importance of calling out behaviors that undermine non-proliferation norms. While political sensitivities may prevent some states from directly confronting nuclear-armed nations, collective action remains a powerful tool.
“It’s difficult for a single country to call out nuclear threats—whether in the context of the Ukraine war or elsewhere—if they have specific political sensitivities. But if a whole group of countries makes a statement together, there is strength in numbers,” said Mukhatzhanova.
She stressed that maintaining diplomatic ties should not come at the expense of condemning dangerous rhetoric.
“Once there is nuclear use, a whole lot of other considerations just fall away. The potential consequences are so devastating that they take precedence over trade agreements or political alliances,” she said.
As nuclear deterrence strategies become more entrenched, Mukhatzhanova noted that non-nuclear states must not passively accept this trajectory.
“There’s a danger of these states recommitting to nuclear deterrence for security and allowing other disarmament initiatives to slide. But as allies, they have an additional responsibility to keep pressing for disarmament,” said Mukhatzhanova.
