United States Institute of Peace • www.usip.org • Tel. 202.457.1700 • Fax. 202.429.6063

UNITED STates institute of peace

© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

“Parties to Nuclear-Weapon 

Free Zones continually point 

out that the zones are created 

for security reasons, not for 

moral righteousness or in the 

spirit of idealism. The establishment of zones is a new 

security posture that endeavors to keep nuclear weapons 

away from their areas of the 

world. They function under 

the assumption that more 

nuclear weapons make the 

world inherently less safe and 

demonstrate that countries 

do not need nuclear weapons 

to be safe from attack. ”

April 28, 2010 

Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones as a 

New Deterrent? 

Summary

•	 Deterrence is an outdated approach to the threat of nuclear weapons and does not meet the 

security needs of the post-Cold War era.

•	 Nuclear weapon-free states can establish a new regional security framework through the 

strengthening of existing and creation of new Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs). These 

zones operate under the assumption that more nuclear weapons make the world inherently 

less safe and demonstrate that countries do not need nuclear weapons to deter attack.

•	 The sanctioned nuclear weapon states have not signed certain provisions in the five existing 

NWFZ treaties, citing specific concerns about the negative security assurance clauses, which 

state that any signatory nation to a NWFZ treaty will not use or threaten to use a nuclear 

weapon against a member state. This undermines the existing zones and can, in fact, reward 

those who develop a nuclear weapon outside the established framework.

•	 Nuclear weapon states should provide greater incentives for joining existing zones and pursue 

new nuclear weapon-free zones in the Middle East and Arctic regions.

The Challenge

Although the Cold War ended over 20 years ago, bringing sweeping changes to the basic framework of international relations, deterrence is still the prevailing school of thought when it comes 

to the containment of nuclear threats. Its relevance to the primary 21st century nuclear threat of 

nuclear terrorism is unclear. Under the current deterrence system, states lacking nuclear weapons 

are free to find protection from attack under the security umbrella of a nuclear state. However, 

short of developing their own nuclear weapons program, they are left with few options for 

developing their own set of deterrents. 

Relying on deterrence in a world which has outgrown the bipolar international order of the 

Cold War is not only outmoded, it is downright risky. Nuclear weapons stockpiles are vulnerable to 

terrorists who have attempted to steal nuclear materials or the equipment and technology necessary to build a nuclear weapon.1 According to U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland 

Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan, al-Qaida has been actively trying to acquire a nuclear 

weapon for the past 15 years, and while they have not made much progress, their persistence as 

well as their contact with organized crime and criminal gangs is troublesome.2 Terrorists do not 

represent any state, making it almost impossible to create an effective deterrent against them. 

One state could threaten another with nuclear retaliation, but it is nearly impossible to credibly 

Janene Sawers

E-mail: jsawers@usip.org

Phone: 202.429.3853

peaceBrieF24
© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones as a New Deterrent? 

page 2 • PB 24 • April 28, 2010

threaten a terrorist organization since terrorist cells can operate inside the boundaries of several 

states. Deterrence also does not definitively contain the threat of nuclear technology proliferation. 

As shown by past nuclear sharing between France and Israel, China and Pakistan and Pakistan 

with Iran, Libya and North Korea, deterrence does not provide sufficient incentives for states not 

to share their own nuclear secrets with allies.3 Lastly, it is dangerous to use nuclear weapons as an 

asymmetric deterrence for more conventional attacks. This strategy could undermine the ‘taboo’ 

against the use of nuclear weapons that is vital to U.S. and global security. Clearly, a new security 

framework is necessary. 

The “Nuclear Posture Review,” released by the Department of Defense on April 6, recognizes these 

shortcomings and suggests a drawing down of the US reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence. 

However, states without nuclear weapons must have other viable security options to reliance on the 

deterrence regime. The creation and maintenance of Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs) provide 

a fundamentally different security alternative for those states who renounce nuclear weapons. 

The Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone 

The idea of Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones precedes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), 

emerging from a desire for an alternative means of defense against nuclear weapons. It was first 

conceptualized in the Rapacki Plan for denuclearization in Central Europe in 1956. Five nuclear 

weapon-free zones exist today: Latin America and the Caribbean, the South Pacific, Southeast Asia, 

Africa and Central Asia. Since the 1970s, a Middle East NWFZ has been suggested and discussed by 

a number of parties to the NPT. It has become increasingly important in the NPT Review process, 

particularly because the treaty in 1995 was indefinitely extended with the explicit goal of the 

creation of a NWFZ in the Middle East. Thus far, these efforts have made little progress due to the 

fact that Israel is not a party to the treaty.

Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones have emerged for a variety of reasons and under difficult circumstances. They occur in areas where nuclear weapons already exist as a means for controlling and 

disposing of the weapons left behind by the former Soviet Union (Central Asia). They occur in 

regions where countries were beginning to develop their own nuclear weapon technology and 

chose to renounce them (Latin/Central America and the Caribbean). They also occur in regions 

where the external testing of nuclear weapons led to growing concerns from countries within that 

zone (South Pacific). These treaties reflect a new security framework in which there are no threats 

of nuclear attack, and, therefore, there is no need for a deterrence mechanism. They also recognize 

that these NWFZs are not an end in themselves, but instead a step towards creating a better 

regional security framework and, possibly, a nuclear-free world.

While NWFZs form at different historic points, the basic texts of each treaty share specific 

commonalities. Each party to the treaty commits itself not to manufacture, acquire, test or possess 

nuclear weapons, but allow nuclear energy development as stipulated by the NPT. The treaties 

also contain limits on the transportation of nuclear weapons through the zone by other nuclear 

weapon states as well as mechanisms to ensure compliance within the zone, typically through 

the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections. Most importantly, the treaties require 

nuclear weapon states who sign the protocols to provide a negative security assurance to the 

member states of the zone, similar to those provided in the new U.S. Nuclear Posture Review.4 The 

treaties will only be made effective public international law when the nuclear weapon states ratify 

the protocols.

Parties to NWFZs continually point out that the zones are created for security reasons, not 

for moral righteousness or in the spirit of idealism. The establishment of zones is a new security 
© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones as a New Deterrent? 

page 3 • PB 24 • April 28, 2010

posture that endeavors to keep nuclear weapons away from their areas of the world. They function under the assumption that more nuclear weapons make the world inherently less safe and 

demonstrate that countries do not need nuclear weapons to be safe from attack. NWFZs also 

contribute to security through the inspection processes that most treaties have written into their 

protocol. These inspection stipulations bring the IAEA or other nuclear inspection groups, such as 

the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABACC), to the 

region, increasing the safety of existing peaceful nuclear materials.

A Moral Hazard? 

Not surprisingly, nuclear weapon states have been slow to sign NWFZ treaties, citing nuclear 

weapon transportation concerns and, more notably, hesitations about the negative nuclear assurances guaranteed by the protocols. The negative security assurances that any nuclear weapon 

state who signs the treaty will not use or threaten to use a nuclear weapon against a member 

state of the zone, regardless of the situation, have been controversial at times. When nuclear 

weapon states do sign, they often make assertive interpretive signing statements, adding their 

own addendums in order to nuance the requirements of the treaty. In a recent meeting of the U.N. 

Disarmament Commission, the Nigerian representative argued that “negative security assurances 

made by nuclear-weapon states to non-nuclear-weapon states should be unconditional, legally 

binding and unequivocal. The current voting patterns, however, [do] not reflect such a trend, but 

[have] been marked by a high level of abstentions on the part of the nuclear-weapon states and 

their allies.”5

By not signing the protocols for established NWFZs, nuclear weapon states have undermined 

their force as regional security frameworks and have provided few incentives for other regions and 

countries to similarly declare themselves NWFZs. In fact, Iran and North Korea, who have broken 

their international legal commitments to nuclear nonproliferation and attempted or succeeded in 

building their own weapons, demonstrate the strengthened bargaining hand that comes with the 

development of nuclear weapons. Strongly worded rebukes from the U.N. Security Council have 

not changed their course. India and Pakistan have used their nuclear weapon status to negotiate 

or attempt to negotiate agreements facilitating nuclear cooperation with the U.S. Faithful parties 

to NWFZ treaties and the NPT should benefit at the bargaining table from their nuclear weaponfree status, but often do not. While they arguably have a moral upper hand to the non-sanctioned 

nuclear weapon states, this does not translate to additional economic or security benefits. 

The U.N. Security Council, particularly the nuclear weapon states, must provide stronger incentives for states that choose not to pursue nuclear weapon technology. The upcoming NPT review 

conference at the UN will allow countries a forum to discuss these issues. President Barack Obama’s 

recent announcement that the U.S. “will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against 

non-nuclear weapon states that are party to the [NPT] treaty and in compliance with their nuclear 

non-proliferation obligations”6

 provides a model for other nuclear weapon states to follow. 

The U.N. Security Council can provide the necessary incentives to hinder the development of 

nuclear weapons by urging the nuclear weapon states to render a declaration of intent to sign 

and ratify the protocols for all existing NWFZs, especially the negative security assurance clauses. 

This should be a main goal of the upcoming NPT Review Conference, and could also be raised in 

U.N. Security Council discussions of NPT compliance and potential enforcement actions. Nuclear 

weapon states must also show the political will to negotiate their own disarmament treaties with 

the input and help from nuclear weapon-free states, engaging them in the disarmament process.
© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones as a New Deterrent? 

page 4 • PB 24 • April 28, 2010

Creating New Zones 

Showing greater support to existing NWFZs will also provide increased incentives for the creation 

of new zones. This should be a high priority for the U.N. The Middle East NWFZ, first proposed 

in the U.N. General Assembly in 1974 and every year thereafter, is a critical topic for the future 

viability of the NPT and should be the first target area. Lessons on how to establish new zones can 

be learned from past NWFZ negotiation processes. First, states in the region must reaffirm their 

commitment to building a NWFZ in the Middle East. Several representatives from Middle Eastern 

states including Qatar (representing the Arab Group), Libya and Saudi Arabia recently did so at 

a U.N. Disarmament Commission meeting on March 30.7 Second, each state in the region must 

indicate their seriousness about addressing the issue, thereby creating a sense of credibility and 

confidence in each other. Third, the states must discuss the practical aspects of the treaty: What are 

we prohibiting? What is the geographical scope of the region? What are the verification procedures? When will the treaty enter into force?, and other such questions. Fleshing these topics out 

before the actual negotiation begins can help create an environment where countries will engage 

with one another and the idea of a NWFZ.

However, the Middle East poses unique challenges specific to its region that must be overcome 

before a NWFZ can be established. While NWFZs have been created in regions where nuclear 

weapons either existed (Central Asia) or nuclear technology was in development (Latin America), 

these countries voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons seeing the strong security benefits of living 

in a nuclear-free zone. The area encompassed by the proposed Middle East zone is fraught with 

regional tensions. Israel, particularly, has no incentive to abandon its own nuclear program when 

they face the prospective existential threat of Iranian nuclear proliferation coupled with threatening public statements. Strengthening the negative security assurances in the protocols will be 

necessary, but not sufficient for Israel’s involvement, which currently relies upon an understood 

positive security assurance from the US. States who are members of NWFZs can contribute to 

the creation of a Middle East zone by demonstrating their own security without the deterrent of 

nuclear weapons. The U.N. member states who are party to the NPT, especially the U.S., must strive 

to engage Israel in the NPT and regional security dialogues surrounding safe nuclear disarmament. 

A (slightly) less politically fraught suggestion for a new NWFZ is the Arctic Basin. If the polar 

icecaps continue to shrink due to climate change, commercial navigation will be possible through 

the area, making transportation of nuclear weapons through the region an option. During the 

Cold War, the Arctic area served as an important military arena. Today, Russia can easily equip 

its Northern Fleet with nuclear weapons, and the U.S. has a longstanding policy of refusing to 

confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on its warships.8 With the recent renegotiation 

of the START treaty and U.S. and Russian commitments to draw down their nuclear stockpiles, 

U.N. member states should seize the momentum on the issue and urge the creation of a NWFZ 

in the Arctic region as a preemptive measure. There is a precedent for maritime region NWFZs: 

the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, which prohibits all nuclear weapons on the continent, and the 

1971 Seabed Treaty, which prohibits the stationing on nuclear weapons or support facilities on 

the seabed outside territorial waters.9 While numerous entities would have to be a party to the 

negotiations—including Russia, the U.S., Canada, Scandinavian countries, the Inuit and others—

initiating talks about nuclear weapons in this region will head off issues that could develop once 

the area becomes more open to maritime navigation. Preemptive action and discussions can ease 

the way for creating a new NWFZ and enhancing security in the region.
© USIP 2010 • All rights reserved.

United States 

Institute of Peace

1200 17th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

202.457.1700

www.usip.org

About This Brief

The United States Institute of 

Peace and the Elliott School of 

International Affairs at the George 

Washington University co-sponsored 

a conference in March 2010 on 

“The Contribution of Nuclear 

Weapon-Free Zones to the Global 

Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament Regime.” The conference explored numerous aspects 

of NWFZs including challenges to 

creating NWFZs, peaceful nuclear 

energy development within zones 

and coordination among the zones 

for global disarmament. To view 

the keynote address from the 

conference, given by Jennings 

Randolph Senior Visiting Scholar 

Amb. Jayantha Dhanapala, please 

visit http://www.usip.org/events/

nuclear-weapon-free-zones. 

Janene Sawers, the author of this 

Peace Brief, is a senior program 

assistant with the Jennings 

Randolph Fellowship Program for 

International Peace.

USIP provides the analysis, training and 

tools that prevent and end conflicts, 

promotes stability and professionalizes 

the field of peacebuilding.

For media inquiries, contact the office 

of Public Affairs and Communications, 

202.429.4725

Conclusion 

NWFZs make a positive contribution to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. They demonstrate 

a new security posture where states do not need a nuclear weapon to be safe from attack, but 

more importantly they show that full nuclear disarmament and world peace are goals that can be 

pursued at the same time, not sequentially. The global community does not have to wait for international peace to begin full disarmament. As the U.N. representative from Nepal, Gyan Chandra 

Acharya, stated at the most recent U.N. Disarmament Commission meeting, “disarmament is not a 

choice; it is a compelling security imperative. Global peace and security lies in collective prosperity, 

not in armaments.”10

Endnotes

1. Two such incidents include a 2006 arrest of a Russian man in Georgia with nearly 80 grams of 

highly enriched uranium and a 2007 attack of a nuclear facility by an armed group in South Africa.

2. “Official: Terrorists seek nuclear material, but lack ability to use it.” CNN, April 13, 2010. 

Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/13/nuclear.terrorists/ 

3. See Matthew Kroenig’s “Exporting the Bomb: Why States Provide Sensitive Nuclear Assistance” 

in the American Political Science Review, February 2009.

4. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones : Establishment 

of Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zones. Retrieved April 6, 2010. http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/

Nuclear/NWFZ.shtml

5. U.N. General Assembly Disarmament Commission : 2010 Substantive Session (2010, March 30). 

Nuclear Weapon Disarmament Tops Agenda in Disarmament Commission, But Speakers Call for Halt to 

Illicit Arms Trade, Creation of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Middle East. Retrieved April 5, 2010. http://www.

un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/dc3216.doc.htm

6. The White House: Office of the Press Secretary (2010, April 6). “Statement by President Barack 

Obama on the Release of Nuclear Posture Review.“ Retrieved April 6, 2010. http://www.whitehouse.

gov/the-press-office/statement-president-barack-obama-release-nuclear-posture-review

7. U.N. General Assembly Disarmament Commission : 2010 Substantive Session (2010, March 30). 

“Nuclear Weapon Disarmament Tops Agenda in Disarmament Commission, But Speakers Call for 

Halt to Illicit Arms Trade, Creation of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Middle East.” Retrieved April 5, 2010. 

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/dc3216.doc.htm

8. Pugwash Online: Conferences on Science and World Affairs (2007, August 24). “Canadian Pugwash Call for an Arctic Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone.” Retrieved April 12, 2010. http://www.pugwash.

org/reports/nw/canadian-pugwash.htm

9. Ibid.

10. U.N. General Assembly Disarmament Commission: 2010 Substantive Session (2010, March 30). 

“Nuclear Weapon Disarmament Tops Agenda in Disarmament Commission, But Speakers Call for 

Halt to Illicit Arms Trade, Creation of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Middle East.” Retrieved April 5, 2010. 

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/dc3216.doc.htm

Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones as a New Deterrent? 

page 5 • PB 24 • April 16, 2010