|
Vol.
XXIX No. 24
June 12,
|
FAILURE
OF NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE
Global
Disarmament Groups Slam US
Prabir
Purkayastha
NOT
unexpectedly, the Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) month long (from May 2
to May 27) five-yearly Review Conference failed after the US spent the entire
period either arguing about procedure or demanding that disarmament obligations
of nuclear weapon states were outside the scope of discussions. According to the
US, only strengthening of the provisions to prevent non-nuclear states should
have been discussed in the Review Conference. Even the 13-steps to disarmament
decided when the non-nuclear weapon countries agreed for an indefinite extension
of the NPT in 1995 were sought to be negated.
THE
US CONDEMNED
A
coalition of over 2000 groups from 90 countries blamed the United States and
other nuclear weapons states for the failure of the Review Conference. Susi
Snyder, secretary general of the Womens International League for Peace and
Freedom charged, Clearly, the US delegation never wanted to strengthen the
Treaty. Instead, they have spent four weeks behind closed doors refusing to
recognise agreements they made 5 and 10 years ago. They have bottled up all
substantive discussion by haggling over arcane procedures. They have
demonstrated a lack of compromise and an unwillingness to move the global
non-proliferation regime forward.
This
year is the 60th year since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were dropped. Though
the cry of the Hibakusha– that this tragedy should never be repeated– has
become a worldwide call for the abolition of nuclear weapons, tens of thousands
of nuclear weapons still threaten the survival of humanity. The US,
which led the war on Iraq, is now preparing for more wars; it threatens various
countries with nuclear weapons and is even moving towards weaponising of space.
ELIMINATING
NUCLEAR
WEAPONS
Thirty-five
years after the signing of the NPT, the global bargain — that
non-nuclear countries would not develop nuclear weapons, and that five
nuclear-armed countries would take good-faith disarmament steps for the eventual
elimination of nuclear weapons — is in deep crisis. While the non-nuclear
weapon countries kept their side of the bargain, nuclear disarmament of the
nuclear weapons countries was, at best, meagre. Even this halting disarmament
process between the US and Russia has come to a standstill after 1991-92. Other
measures that increase the threat of nuclear weapons are: the US strategy
doctrine (The Nuclear Posture Review), which states that nuclear weapons can be
used against non-nuclear weapon countries, and even in a first strike
(preventive and pre-emptive war), India and Pakistan having gone
openly nuclear, North Korea withdrawing from the NPT, etc.
Meanwhile,
there is an attempt by the nuclear-armed states, particularly the US, as visible
before and during the Review Conference to de-link the non-proliferation part
from the larger nuclear disarmament agenda. While ratcheting up the pressure on
countries such as Iran for a far more intrusive fuel cycle inspection regime,
even arguing for denial of peaceful nuclear energy, it is simultaneously
creating a new generation of nuclear weapons like bunker buster earth
penetrating bombs and mini nukes and initiating the star wars programme of
militarising outer space. While demanding strict adherence to NPT for all
West Asian countries, the US continues to shield Israel and its estimated
arsenal of 200-300 nuclear bombs.
It
is in this context that those opposing nuclear weapons- the vast majority of the
people and countries of the world must step up the pressure on all nuclear
weapons countries for a time-bound plan for the total elimination of nuclear
weapons. In the interim, it must also demand that nuclear weapons be de-alerted
and a pledge given for no first-use against other nuclear countries and no-use
against all non-nuclear armed countries. Given the role that India played in the
anti-nuclear weapons campaign earlier, it is imperative that India returns to
its original position and move towards a nuclear weapons-free South Asia.
With
the nuclear weapons states reneging on their commitments, the de-linking of
nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation means asking non-nuclear weapons
countries not to build the complete nuclear fuel cycle, which includes uranium
enrichment and therefore nuclear weapons capability. Since the NPT allows for
the fuel cycle to be built for peaceful nuclear energy purposes, all that is
required further is one last step for conversion of the fissile material into a
nuclear weapon. Therefore the pressure to amend the NPT and disallow this part
of the fuel cycle. With the example of North Korea, there are also pressures to
incorporate clauses that will prevent countries from withdrawing from the NPT.
LEGITIMATE
SECURITY
CONCERNS
The
problem with a preoccupation with the non-proliferation agenda is that it does
not address the reason why non-nuclear weapon states are attracted to nuclear
weapons in the first place. If Israel has a monopoly of nuclear weapons in West
Asia and the US demands the right to use nuclear weapons in preventive
wars such as in Iraq, the pressure on non-weapons neighbour states to turn
nuclear grows. We may condemn them for doing so, but cannot deny that it is a
response to the worsening of tensions, both regionally and internationally.
Condemning them is not enough; we need also to address what they perceive as
their legitimate security concerns. Reacting to attempts by the US to blame Iran
and Egypt and others for the failure of the NPT Review Conference, Snyder, of
the Womens International League for Peace and Freedom stated, But that
begs the question. Egypt, for example, has been very vocal about the importance
of acknowledging past agreements and bringing Israel into the Treaty. And Iran
has consistently called for a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East. Both
of these actions would strengthen the non-proliferation regime. When the US
refuses to even discuss these issues, then they are the ones sabotaging the
Treaty.
In
this context, to de-link the steps for nuclear disarmament from that of
non-proliferation is to argue that nuclear weapons states have rights to bear
nuclear arms and even use them (the current stockpile of nuclear weapons is
estimated to be in the region of 20,000-30,000 wear-heads), while all others
have to be abide by the original contract. In the long term, this assumes that
an immoral global order of this type can be sustained indefinitely. Most
countries and anti-nuclear weapons movements have strongly stressed the
illegality of nuclear weapons and have urged that both parts of the original
contract must be implemented. However, with the one-sided stance of the nuclear
weapons states, particularly the US, there is little chance of moving on the
disarmament agenda.
There
are serious concerns about the proliferation of nuclear technology. But it is
impossible to prevent that proliferation while the nuclear weapons states insist
on maintaining large stockpiles of weapons themselves, noted
Alyn Ware of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy. Its like a parent
telling a child not to smoke while smoking a pack of cigarettes in their face.
It is not going to work…
DISAPPOINTING
ATTITUDE OF NUCLEAR
WEAPONS STATES
Reacting
to this attitude of the nuclear weapons states, Malaysia’s foreign minister,
Syed Hamid Albar, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, complained
that ”the nuclear weapons states continue to believe in the relevance of
nuclear weapons,” contrary to the spirit of the NPT. ”We are greatly
disappointed” by ”unsatisfactory progress” toward disarmament by the big
powers, said New Zealand’s Marian Hobbs, speaking for a coalition of
disarmament-minded states.
While
the non-nuclear weapons states were looking for concrete disarmament measures
from the nuclear weapons states, the US made it clear in the Review
Conference that Iran and other non-nuclear states have to make the necessary
concessions or should be denied the right to peaceful nuclear energy. It is not
surprising that with the gulf remaining as wide as this, the review conference
started without even being able to draw up an agreed agenda. The NPT Review
failing to even draft a weak final statement was therefore not a surprising
conclusion of the conference
With
the failure of the Conference, one can at best echo the Canadian chief delegate
Paul Meyers statement that if “there is a silver lining in the otherwise
dark cloud of this Review Conference, it lies in the hope that our leaders and
citizens will be so concerned by its failure that they mobilise behind prompt
remedial action” The call for nuclear disarmament is not a distant dream
that can be put on the back burner. Nuclear weapons are a dangerous and a
persistent threat to the existence of all life on this globe. It is only the
political will exercised by the global community to pursue nuclear disarmament
the complete abolition of nuclear weapons — that can eliminate this threat.
