February 11, 2005

Upcoming Challenges for the Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Regime

by Dr. Sean Howard

Six decades after the atomic bombing of Japan, the nuclear menace to peace and security remains high. Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, 30,000 nuclear weapons remain in the possession of at least nine states. Hundreds of tons of nuclear material – posing a threat to the environment and a temptation to terrorists – lie scattered across continents. Nuclear ‘modernization’ is continuing apace. And diplomatic efforts to reverse these trends are in disarray.

In May this year, the seventh Review Conference of the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the cornerstone of the global arms control regime, will be held in New York amid gloom over prospects for disarmament, concern over the pace of proliferation, and division over the way ahead. In August, the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be marked around the world.

These two events, the conference and the commemoration, are deeply connected. The Non-Proliferation Treaty offers by far the best means of achieving the end – complete nuclear disarmament – sought by the survivors of the bombings, the hibakusha, and so many others for so long. Every non-nuclear-weapon state on earth now belongs to the NPT, agreeing never to pursue nuclear weapons on two conditions: that they are allowed to operate non-military nuclear programmes; and that the five nuclear-armed members of the Treaty – the US, Russia, Britain, France and China – reduce and eliminate their own arsenals.

Since its inception, three major fault lines have appeared in the NPT regime, now combining to threaten its collapse: 1) three states – India, Israel and Pakistan – stand outside the Treaty and in possession of nuclear weapons; 2) the blurred line between ‘peaceful’ and ‘military’ nuclear programmes, together with a weak inspections regime, has enabled at least three states – Iraq, Libya and North Korea – to conceal bomb-making efforts, while also creating a large class of states, perhaps as many as 40, with the capacity to ‘go nuclear’ quickly and easily; and 3) the five nuclear-weapon states have dismally failed to honour their commitment to disarm, despite a landmark 1996 ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague that they have a clear legal obligation to do so.

In 1998, appalled by the lack of post-Cold War progress, seven states – Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden and South Africa – formed a ‘New Agenda Coalition’ calling on the five nuclear powers to set out at last on the path to the “final and total elimination of their nuclear weapons.” Thanks in large part to the pressure generated by this initiative, the NPT Review Conference in 2000 unanimously adopted a 13-step “disarmament action plan” including “an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” The 13 steps included: support for a ban on all nuclear testing; negotiation of a ‘fissile material cut-off treaty’ banning the production of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium; preservation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the main bulwark against destabilizing ‘missile defence’ deployments; a “diminishing role for nuclear weapons” in policy and doctrine; and the “engagement as soon as possible” of all the nuclear powers in disarmament talks.

Five years later, NPT states meet with the Action Plan in tatters, politely ignored in Beijing, London, Moscow and Paris, and publicly dismissed by Washington as an ‘historical’ and irrelevant document. If it is, then the blame lies largely with the Bush Administration, which in a few short years rejected the test ban; described the cut-off treaty as ‘unverifiable’; withdrew from the ABM Treaty and embarked on a missile defence programme openly contemplating the future basing of weapons in space; stressed its ‘right’ to use nuclear weapons not only first but against non-nuclear states; and began researching two new, ‘usable’ nuclear weapons, a ‘mini-nuke’ and a ‘bunker-buster’.

A preview of likely splits at the 2005 Review Conference came at the UN General Assembly last December, when the New Agenda countries tabled a resolution “reaffirming that nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation are mutually reinforcing processes requiring urgent irreversible progress on both fronts.” The resolution, restating support for the 2000 Action Plan, was adopted by 151 votes to 6, with 24 abstentions. China (which is busy modernising its arsenal) was the only nuclear-weapon state to vote in favour, backed by almost all developing nations and a handful of NATO states (including Canada). Russia and the rest of NATO abstained, while the six naysayers included four states with nuclear weapons: Britain, France, Israel and the US.

The stage is thus set for a polarised and unproductive meeting, with Washington’s insistence on ‘getting tough’ with suspected proliferators and cheats, notably Iran and North Korea, likely to be met with bitter denunciations of US hypocrisy, obscuring broader issues and frustrating the efforts of the great majority of NPT who wish to see the Treaty considered and implemented in its entirety. As the seven New Agenda foreign ministers warned in the International Herald Tribune last September: “Non-proliferation is vital. But it is not sufficient. Nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament are two sides of the same coin and both must be energetically pursued. Otherwise we might soon enter a new nuclear arms race with new types, uses and rationales for such weapons… And the primary tool for controlling nuclear weapons, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, risks falling apart, with further proliferation as a consequence.”

Speaking on the 59th anniversary of the atomic destruction of his city, Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba launched an ‘emergency campaign’ to revitalize the international disarmament agenda. Akiba stated: “The seeds we sow today will sprout in May 2005. At the [NPT] Review Conference in New York, the Emergency Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons will bring together cities, citizens, and NGOs [non-governmental organizations] from around the world to work with like-minded nations toward adoption of an action programme…to serve as the framework for eliminating nuclear weapons by 2020.” Akiba concluded: “We pledge to do everything in our power during the coming year to ensure that the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings will see a budding of hope for the total abolition of nuclear weapons. We humbly offer this pledge for the peaceful repose of all the atomic bomb victims.”

The Centre for International Studies is committed to increasing awareness and fostering debate of nuclear weapons issues throughout this potentially crossroads year for the NPT and the broader non-proliferation and disarmament regime. Specifically, working together with Peace Quest Cape Breton and other interested groups, the Centre plans to highlight the importance of both the NPT Review Conference and the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a series of discussions, presentations and information-sharing sessions, supplemented by occasional briefing papers and media articles.

Briefing prepared by CIS member Dr. Sean Howard, adjunct professor of political science at the University College of Cape Breton (sean_howard@uccb.ca).


Comments

 

 

 

 
Copyright © 2004 Cape Breton University. All rights reserved.