IT is a sobering, necessary warning. Accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on Sunday, the executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) warned that “the deaths of millions may be one tiny tantrum away”. Beatrice Fihn did not mention US President Donald Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un by name, but it is apparent that the very public wrangling between two mercurial leaders with nuclear arsenals under their command is a threat to global peace and stability. It is possible that some of the public sparring and trading of insults between Mr Trump and Mr Kim is boastful bravado. A weekend New York Times profile of Mr Trump in the White House noted that aides believe Mr Trump has “a deeper concern about the North Korea situation than his blithe, confrontational tweets suggest”. At the very least, however, Mr Trump and Mr Kim have introduced a flippancy and casualness in global nuclear discourse — a worrying change. Ms Fihn’s warning that the “destruction of cities and the deaths of millions of civilians” in a “moment of panic” is especially relevant given the personalities of the leaders of North Korea and the US.

In South Asia, Pakistan and India have managed to limit aggressive nuclear rhetoric — at least until now. But a militarisation drive in India and Pakistan’s determination to react to every Indian threat, whether real or perceived, has spawned a nuclear competition that can take on frightening dimensions if the nuclear conversation suddenly shifts. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s reckless accusations about Pakistani interference in the Gujarat state elections are an indication of how quickly domestic politics can have regional repercussions. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s vulnerability to a major terrorist attack by the banned TTP or other anti-Pakistan militant groups and the state’s insistence that the threat is often directed by India have the potential to unleash jingoism and war-mongering. The reality is that the security situation in South Asia means nuclear weapons will not be abolished for the foreseeable future. But Ican’s mission is the right one: a world without nuclear weapons is both morally right and practically necessary. Ms Fihn correctly stated, “We have a choice, the end of nuclear weapons or the end of us.” In wildly uncertain times, it is more important than ever to return to fundamental principles. Nuclear weapons are a manifestation of the world’s collective failures, not its successes. That must change one day.

Published in Dawn, December 12th, 2017