Why Nuclear Disarmament Cannot Be a One-Sided Conversation

At a recent Model United Nations conference, I spoke as the delegate of North Korea on the issue of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. While preparing for the committee, I realized that this topic is far more complicated than simply saying that all countries should give up nuclear weapons. Of course, the idea of a safer and more peaceful world is something almost everyone agrees with. But the real question is: how do we get there in a way that feels fair and realistic for every nation?

One of the biggest issues I found with many disarmament proposals is that they often assume countries will feel safe enough to give up nuclear weapons if stronger international agreements are created. In theory, that sounds ideal. In reality, however, history shows that many states do not fully trust outside powers to protect their interests. If a country feels threatened, it is unlikely to rely only on promises made by others. Security guarantees may sound strong on paper, but without binding commitments and clear enforcement, they can feel uncertain.

Another concern is the idea of creating a broad global security alliance similar to NATO. While this may seem like an innovative solution, I believe it ignores how different the world’s political realities are. NATO grew from a specific regional context, and expanding that kind of model globally may not automatically create unity. Instead, it could deepen existing divisions. Different countries have very different security needs, historical tensions, and political priorities. A single global framework may not be flexible enough to address all of them. Major powers, as seen historically, tend to dominate discussions surrounding disarmament, while smaller states rarely get to be heard and recognised.

I also think gradual disarmament, though often presented as the most practical path, becomes ineffective when it is too vague. If there is no clear timeline, no measurable benchmarks, and no real accountability, then “gradual” can simply become endless delay. We have already seen examples of international nuclear negotiations that remain stuck for years because of political disagreements. Good intentions alone are not enough. Gradual disarmament tends to be a guise under which countries can maintain their nuclear arsenals.

What this topic taught me is that nuclear disarmament cannot just be about ideals. It also has to be about trust, balance, and realism. If the international community truly wants progress, it must create solutions that address the fears and concerns of all states, not just the strongest or most influential ones.

Peace is not built by asking countries to disarm without assurance. It is built by creating a system where they genuinely believe they no longer need to arm themselves in the first place.

Picture Credits: The New Yorker