Norway and nuclear weapons

Since the last time I wrote about nuclear weapons in Ny Tid, Norway has voted no to progressive UN resolutions on nuclear weapons. In addition, the Government has cut all support for organizations working for a nuclear ban.
The no-votes in the UN and cut to progressive forces working against nuclear weapons represent a shift in Norwegian politics. This policy also looks strange in light of Høyre's own party program, which states that Norway must "work for stronger international cooperation against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and support the development of new humanitarian law instruments to strengthen existing disarmament agreements". The program goes on to say that "[b] nukes of nuclear weapons have unacceptable humanitarian consequences. The goal must therefore be a world free of nuclear weapons ”.
This sounds great, but is not worth more than the paper printed when the Right does not understand that an international ban on nuclear weapons just means strengthening existing disarmament agreements.

Stagnated. For the current agreements, such as the non-proliferation agreement, do not work. We have disarmed about 50 nuclear weapons since the height of the Cold War, but in recent years the process has stagnated – without the risk of nuclear proliferation diminishing. Both India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea received nuclear weapons after the non-proliferation treaty entered into force, and in today's wars with many non-state actors, nuclear proliferation poses a real threat. A nuclear ban will be a legal instrument to fill the existing void in international law. This will only be positive for the non-proliferation agreement, which in practice has stagnated and does not lead to further disarmament.
Furthermore, the United Nations' No No votes explain that the nuclear weapons states must be involved and that Norway cannot easily work for a nuclear ban outside NATO. However, there are no legal barriers to NATO members from working for a nuclear ban, even though NATO has nuclear weapons as part of its security policy strategy. In addition, Norway has previously worked outside NATO on similar issues. This is the case, for example, in efforts to put in place conventions against mining and cluster weapons in 2008, in which Norway played an important and active role.

Tough matter. The Right has said that they want a nuclear-free world, and they have supported the humanitarian initiative linked to the enormous impact nuclear weapons have on people, the environment and the climate. At the same time, they have no desire to move forward in the process of banning nuclear weapons and in this way to bring about real disarmament. What is the point of having a goal without working to achieve it? The Right has a goal of a nuclear weapons-free world, but will neither contribute to international agreements that can secure this, nor help support organizations working for nuclear weapons bans.

What is the point of having a goal without working to achieve it?

Anyone who has worked for a ban on nuclear weapons is aware of how tough this matter is. Here are so many learned notions and myths about nuclear weapons as a "necessary evil" for deterrence, balance of power and security policy. This matter is difficult to penetrate. Fortunately, the myths are beginning to crack, much because of a growing awareness of the enormous humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.

Should go in the gap. For nuclear weapons, nothing is supernatural. They are created by humans and can be destroyed by humans. But to make progress in the process, we need politicians who take their role as elected officials seriously. It is these people that we have chosen to join in negotiations, meetings and alliances where decisions are made. Unfortunately, the current government has been very disappointing in this area, and I really hope that Norway will show resilience and leadership again. Norway should have an active driving role for an international ban on nuclear weapons.