The third Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which bans all aspects of nuclear weapons from development to use, was held last week at the United Nations Headquarters. The parties adopted a statement that they would work relentlessly for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

Including observers, over 80 countries and regions took part. Many citizen groups also joined, including the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations (Nihon Hidankyo).

Disappointingly, some member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that had participated as observers in the past were not present. Their absence clearly exposed their emphasis on nuclear deterrence in the face of global instability. Japan, which skipped the previous two meetings, did not participate either.

Divisions between nuclear and non-nuclear states have deepened, underscoring the challenging path toward a "world without nuclear weapons." This is precisely why the world should heed the message that was delivered by the non-nuclear states. In particular, they strongly rejected the theory of nuclear deterrence, which posits that nuclear war is avoided because the states that possess such weapons hesitate to use them on each other out of fear of retaliation.

Deterrence, however, only holds if the will to use nuclear weapons has been expressed. The declaration warned, "Any use of nuclear weapons, whether intentional or accidental, would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences."

The participating members' criticism was fueled by Russia's "nuclear threats" and France's announcement at the same time as the meeting of its plan to extend its "nuclear umbrella" to allies across the European continent. French President Emmanuel Macron says his country can provide nuclear deterrence in place of the United States amid U.S. disregard for NATO. Germany has requested this, and countries like Poland are receptive.

However, the number of nuclear warheads in France's possession is far below that of Russia, its presumed adversary. If the aim is to extend its nuclear objective beyond self-defense to the security of other countries, enhancement of its nuclear capacity will probably be unavoidable.

The concern is that this could spark nuclear proliferation. In the Middle East, it would be no surprise if countries opposing Iran were inspired to pursue nuclear capabilities. The danger also extends to Asia. In South Korea, there is a strong argument for nuclear possession with an eye on North Korea. Even in Japan, there are smoldering discussions about nuclear sharing with the United States or the "introduction of nuclear weapons."

The result this brings is increased risk of nuclear warfare.

The world should seriously heed the warnings from non-nuclear-armed states. Japan must play a role in considering how to prevent the use of nuclear weapons without increasing the number of warheads, while finding ways to improve the harsh security environment.