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).