Articles 
NUCLEAR WEAPONS USE OR THREAT OF USE IS INADMISSIBLE. THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FRONT AND CENTRE IN STATEMENTS AND RESOLUTIONS AT FIRST COMMITTEE
Dear Delegate to UNGA First Committee:
On 15-16 November 2022, the G20, meeting in Bali, agreed as follows:
...4. It is essential to uphold international law and the multilateral system that safeguards peace and stability. This includes defending all the Purposes and Principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and adhering to international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilians and infrastructure in armed conflicts. The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible. The peaceful resolution of conflicts, efforts to address crises, as well as diplomacy and dialogue, are vital. Today’s era must not be of war.
This declaration was greeted with strong support by many in the peace and disarmament movement worldwide. There was agreement amongst many NGOs and activists that this section of the declaration needs to be reaffirmed elsewhere. (e.g. in the UNGA First Committee). Our meetings with delegates to the NPT Review Conference in August this year found that governments were broadly supportive of this view also.
In spite of having sent delegates (albeit perhaps belatedly) a series of memos from a number of people and organisations, the current meeting of UNGA First Committee, so far, seems to have taken place in a parallel universe of some kind in which the G20 meetings simply never took place.
Indeed, we understand that some delegates were actually unaware that the G20 has twice reaffirmed that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible – a stance that has not only political implications, but (arguably) legal ones, inasmuch as it tends to reinforce the 1996 ICJ decision.
Undoubtedly, the repeated reaffirmation of the words 'the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible' by bodies such as the G20 and the UN General Assembly does indeed make that use, an event that would be beyond catastrophic for both civilisation (so called) and the natural environment, less likely and more politically difficult.
In the meantime it is worthwhile to see who has actually assented to the statement that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.
Those who assented to the Bali declaration of 15-16 Nov 2022 were:
Presidents:
Joseph Biden (USA)
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey)
Alberto Fernández (Argentina)
Emmanuel Macron (France)
Cyril Ramaphosa (South Africa)
Joko Widodo (Indonesia)
Xi Jinping (China),
Yoon Suk Yeol (South Korea)
Prime Ministers:
Anthony Albanese (Australia)
Fumio Kishida (Japan)
Giorgia Meloni (Italy)
Narendra Modi (India)
Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud (Saudi Arabia)
Rishi Sunak (UK)
Justin Trudeau (Canada)
Chancellor:
Olaf Scholz (Germany);
Foreign Ministers:
Marcelo Ebrard (Mexico)
Carlos França (Brazil)
Sergey Lavrov (Russian Federation)
EU Presidents:
Charles Michel (Council)
Ursula von der Leyen (Commission)
According to analyst Manpreet Sethi:
One would have thought that the inclusion of these words 'The Use or Threat of Use of Nuclear weapons is inadmissible', effectively endorsed by the heads of states containing most of the world's population and accounting for most of its economic activity, was/is what would be called a 'no-brainer'. That it could not possibly be controversial.
It is essential that these words of the G20 in Bali and Delhi be repeated and receive as wide a currency as possible.
