On July 3, China’s Foreign Ministry announced that the country intends to sign protocols related to the 1995 Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone Treaty, often referred to as the Bangkok Treaty.
Reports suggest that Russia is also prepared to sign the protocols, and there are hints that the US might be considering a similar move.
However, the sudden readiness of Beijing and Moscow to engage with this treaty doesn’t necessarily indicate a move towards peace in the region. In fact, many interpret this willingness as a potential war signal.
As the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) identifies China as a comprehensive strategic partner, the nation is vocal about its support for establishing a nuclear-free zone in Southeast Asia. During a regular press briefing, a spokesperson from China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated that “China is poised to lead in signing protocols to the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone Treaty,” emphasizing continued communication with ASEAN countries.
The Bangkok Treaty is an agreement embraced by all ten members of ASEAN, symbolizing a commitment to keeping Southeast Asia free from nuclear and other mass destruction weapons.
Additionally, the treaty reinforces the significance of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
This treaty marks the establishment of the world’s third nuclear-weapon-free zone, joining others in Latin America and the Caribbean, the South Pacific, Africa, and Central Asia.
There are protocols within the treaty aimed at being signed by five states recognized by non-proliferation treaties as nuclear weapon holders. These protocols prohibit the use or threat of using nuclear weapons in these zones. Yet, to date, none of the five nuclear-armed states have actually signed these protocols.
But signing these protocols—what’s the risk?
Some experts argue this move echoes previous attempts by China and Russia to establish a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, which pressured Israel while simultaneously attempting to limit US influence in that area. Now, they appear to be trying the same tactic in Southeast Asia.
After the announcement on July 3, Richard Fisher from the International Centre for Evaluation Strategy noted that these protocols might signal an escalation in tensions, particularly concerning Taiwan and the Philippines.
Fisher adds that while this treaty might not offer genuine protection against China’s nuclear capabilities, it does prevent the US from positioning nuclear weapons in the Philippines—a move designed to counter potential aggression from China.
As tensions rise regarding Taiwan, it’s suggested that Beijing is leveraging the notion of nuclear-weapon-free zones as a strategy to stop US deployments that could protect its interests.
Fisher estimates that China’s ballistic missile submarine program could lead to a significant increase in nuclear warheads by 2035. However, some, like Peter Huessy, question the credibility of countries with growing arsenals advocating for nuclear-free zone treaties.
There’s a certain irony in China promoting such treaties while simultaneously expanding its military capabilities. Xi Jinping has exhibited increasingly combative rhetoric lately, often emphasizing the need for military readiness.
In addition to rhetoric, Xi’s administration is overseeing a remarkable military buildup compared to any seen since World War II, involving not only military readiness but also potential mobilization of civilians.
Given these aggressive military preparations, the intention behind signing the Bangkok Treaty protocols seems questionable at best.
Furthermore, China’s history raises concerns about its compliance with treaty obligations, particularly regarding the proliferation of nuclear technology—a topic that has fueled skepticism since the 1970s.
This history calls into question why the international community should trust Beijing to honor its commitments now.
In the end, the treaty favors one side. While Beijing expects others to abide by their commitments, it appears to act without restraint when it comes to its own obligations. So, while China and Russia might sign the Bangkok Treaty protocols, the US should refrain from doing so.
Countries in the region rely on the US “nuclear umbrella” for protection, guaranteeing they could rely on America’s might in the face of threats. Now wouldn’t be the right time to reconsider that fundamental commitment to allies in East Asia.
