 |
||||||||
|
International nuclear disarmament, a fight between David and Goliath
Lee Jun-Kyu (Policy Director, Peace Network)/Nov. 17th 2006
NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), coming into force in 1970, possesses the danger of being used to protect the legitimacy of the nuclear powers (5 nuclear powers: U.S., Russia, U.K., France and China) by only focusing on the non-proliferation aspect. NPT was a treaty that aimed to prevent countries other than the five powers (US, UK, France, China and Russia) from acquiring nuclear weapons. The treaty is meaningful in that it attempts to prevent further spread of nuclear weapons but at the same time, it also recognizes the ‘nuclear rights’ of the five nuclear powers. This is the reason why there are criticisms that NPT, from its conception, possesses inherent unfairness.
Not only that, the nuclear powers only focused on preventing ‘horizontal proliferation’; stopping of new nuclear-weapons states. However, they themselves tacitly, forming a cartel, pursued ‘vertical proliferation’ of developing new forms of nuclear arsenals and enhancing efficacy of existing ones.
However, in article 6 of NPT it is stated, “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” It specifically mentions negotiations and treaties for reduction and disarmament of nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, there was no progress in this area due to lack of resolve and political will on the part of US and the four other nuclear powers. This is the reason why non-nuclear states and anti-nuclear/disarmament movements have been demanding continually for nuclear disarmament within the NPT regime. Looking in perspective, the NPT had begun with two different axes: non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and disarmament of them. It can also be thought that there exists tension between the two axes.
A step forward in nuclear disarmament in NPT
The issue of nuclear disarmament came to the fore in the NPT system at The 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. The conference was held also to decide the extension of the treaty. At this meeting, the NPT was extended indefinitely under the condition that the nuclear powers provide legally biding Negative Security Assurance (NSA) to the non-nuclear states and that the nuclear powers make commitment to hold disarmament treaties for reduction of existing nuclear arms. The five nuclear powers have promised to “pursue in goof faith in disarmament” and to provide “security assurances” to non-nuclear states.
However, the promises made by nuclear powers, on which the indefinite extension was conditioned under, were not properly fulfilled. In the annual NPT meetings, (Preparatory Committee meeting of the Review Conference) no concrete plans for nuclear disarmament was drawn. In this crisis, in 1998, New Agenda Coalition was formed. The commencing eight members were: Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden. Among them, Slovenia, under US’s appeasement and pressure, withdrew at early stage. Their slogan was, “A Nuclear Weapons Free World: The Need for a New Agenda.”
After the formation of “New Agenda Coalition,” it acted jointly with the non-aligned group of states in pressing the nuclear states to make a covenant for total abolition of nuclear weapons and to make specific measures for nuclear disarmament. Placements of non-strategic nuclear arsenals and the issue of preemptive use of nuclear weapons were also continually questioned.
The results were shown in the 2000 NPT Review Conference. In the ‘final document’ of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, it was written, “the nuclear powers shall undergo total abolition of their nuclear arms” and that specific measures for nuclear weapons abolition shall be enumerated and carried out through 13 practical steps. Especially, this specifying of 13 practical steps for disarmament in the ‘final document’ was seen as the biggest achievement.
American unilateralism going against nuclear disarmament
However, efforts for disarmament and abolition of nuclear weapons have faced difficulties as American unilateralism increased. US and the nuclear states have been, from the start, passive in disarmament but Bush administration’s breaking out of ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty in order to proceed with Missile defense (MD) was a critical blow. Resulting from this move, the START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) process was also stopped. This is going clearly against the steps enumerated in the 2000 NPT Review Conference.
START was a treaty between US and Russia concerning reduction of strategic weapons, signed during the thawing period of the Cold War. Signed in 1991, it states that both nations are to reduce the number of strategic nuclear warheads below 6000. Following this, through START II and START III strategic arms reduction was to be proceeded.
However, when US breached ABM Treaty in order to initiate its Missile Defense, the START process stopped. When the Russians ratified START II in 2000, they put in a condition that “START II does not come into force until US Congress ratifies the ABM Treaty protocol.” But US, pushing forward with their MD, did not ratify the protocol and eventually under the Bush administration, in December 13th 2001, withdrawal from ABM Treaty was announced. START II stopped before coming into force.
ABM Treaty, signed by US and Russia in 1972, is a treaty that strictly prohibits each party placing systems to intercepts missiles of the other. Therefore, by leaving a room for vulnerability in each other’s defense, the fear of a counter attack would prevent either party from making the initial assault. In other words, it is an arms restriction treaty based on ‘deterrence theory.’ However for US, wanting the capability of ballistic missile interception from land, sea and even from the space, it was mere hindrance to their ambition. US’s desires for MD has, not only broke ABM treaty, but also impeded the process for nuclear disarmament.
US’s MD hindering nuclear disarmament does not stop here. When your opponent strengthen their shield, you either have build a shield matching the opponent’s strength of defense or build a stronger spear to cut through your opponent’s shield. This is the reason why Russia, to par with US’s MD, is going forward with their development of new forms of nuclear weapons.
Under such a circumstance, the Moscow Treaty between Russia and US signed on May 24th 2002, can only but be a mere ‘display’. At point of extension of START process, president Bush and Putin agreed to reduce the number of strategic warheads down to 1700 to 2200. However, this treaty specifies reducing the number of warheads under placement but does not mention the actual dismantling of the warheads. This is because US wanted to store the nuclear warhead rather than dismantling them.
On this, Iran in 2005 NPT Review Conference, make a cynical remark that the US has replaced the basic principle of nuclear disarmament from ‘destruction of nuclear weapons’ to ‘decommissioning the warheads’.
Failure of 2005 NPT Review Conference
Of course, if Moscow Treaty is observed, that in it self, is significant. However, whether it will be followed or not remains unclear. In particular, unless US’s ‘nuclear hegemony’, continuing still in post-Cold War era, changes, the criticism on US being the biggest hindrance to efforts in international non-proliferation and abolition on nuclear weapons is not likely stop.
US’s nuclear hegemony and Bush administration’s unilateralism have coupled together to increase criticisms by the international society. In particular, the Bush administration has made preemptive strikes an official strategy and in including nuclear arsenals in this preemptive strategy, has made de facto withdrawal from Negative Security Assurance of ‘not attacking or threatening with nuclear arms’. (Main examples would be 2002 Nuclear Posture Review and National Security Strategy report) Such policy is a severe blow to international non-proliferation order.
Too add to this, US is modernizing its existing nuclear power in order to destroy underground facilities of rogue states such as North Korea and is continuing to develop new forms of nuclear weaponry to destroy underground facilities (vertical proliferation). Bush administration is also refusing to ratify CTBT. As can be seen, such nuclear strategy of Bush administration is causing a ‘domino’ effect of vertical proliferation among the nuclear powers. In April 2005, president Putin, while at a meeting with military officers, disclosed that new nuclear weaponry is under development and in October of the same year, The Independent reported that ‘prime minister Blair had ordered development of new nuclear weapons’. These are only a few of many cases.
The reason why 2005 NPT Review Conference ended without much progress is along the same lines. The non-aligned states, ‘New Agenda Coalition’ and international anti-nuclear and disarmament groups wanted the 2005 Conference to give impetus to realization of the 13 practical step of the final document in 2000. Especially, Bush administration’s aggressive nuclear strategy and proliferation in DPRK and Iran were hot issues. But in the last session, with adoption of a final document merely summarizing the conference agenda, the conference ended without any real progress.
Above anything else, it has been revealed that US’s desire to use NPT as a means of carrying out their national interest has become increasingly outspoken since Bush administration. US was indifferent to the agendas concerning nuclear disarmament but proposed a plan to put unqualified sanctions against North Korea and Iran who seceded from the NPT. But such plan, clearly manifesting US’s unilateralism, fell apart due to strong opposition by countries like Egypt and Iran.
What’s more, in 2006, US signed a deal on nuclear cooperation with India, a non-member of the NPT, which possesses nuclear weapons. Pakistan, in the arms race with India, tested their nuclear weapon in 1998 and because of this, had received economic sanctions from US and other Western states but when it agreed to aid US’s attack on Afghanistan in 2001, Pakistan became allies with the US. Israel, although does not admit having nuclear weapons, the view that they possess at least 60 to 80 nuclear weapons has no dissenting opinions. Through massive political, military and economically support of US, Israel is keeping its strong military presence in the Middle East. Such paradoxical stance of the US is providing the inducement to countries like North Korea and Iran to build their own nuclear weapons. It would not be an exaggeration to say that US is not only the hindering factor in nuclear disarmament but also is providing the very cause of nuclear proliferation.
Nonetheless, the fact that the effort in disarmament and abolition of nuclear weapons is making slow but steady progress should not be overlooked. Although the way to disarmament of nuclear weapons may be symbolized as a fight between David and Goliath, finding a way to defeat Goliath and gathering strength and wisdom to do so, is a task that’s laid before us. The task of disarmament and abolition of nuclear weapons is the universal task for the humanity.
For David’s Victory
In particular, the progress that had been made by ‘New Agenda Coalition’, non-aligned states and international disarmament and anti nuclear movements in the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences, shall be the foundation on which the strength will be gathered to fight with nuclear powers who are folding fast on to their nuclear rights and the desire to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, although 2005 Review Conference did not make much progress, ‘international control on uranium enrichment facilities and reprocessing facilities’ and a ‘5-year moratorium on building new enrichment facilities’ were suggested. Such measures can be the starting point in preventing proliferation and, going on from there, to disarmament.
On the other hand, the fact that ‘another approach’ to nuclear disarmament, creation of nuclear-free zones, is being increasingly more debated, receives a note. A nuclear-free zone does not immediately lead to disarmament, however by increasing the ‘zone’ free of building, placing and bringing in of nuclear weapons, can create the de facto effect of nuclear disarmament.
Especially, we must look into the discussions about the ‘Northeast Asian Nuclear-free Zone’ and suggestions on multilateral controlling system of fissile materials. Since one of the causes of North Korean nuclear crisis is the inherent paradox and discord within the international nuclear order. In other words, to peacefully resolve North Korean nuclear crisis and to create and stabilize a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, a broader perspective of participating in the international nuclear disarmament efforts is wanted.
*Article in December issue of “Mal”
Translated by Park, Jun-Oh
Lee Jun-Kyu (Policy Director, Peace Network)/Nov. 17th 2006
NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), coming into force in 1970, possesses the danger of being used to protect the legitimacy of the nuclear powers (5 nuclear powers: U.S., Russia, U.K., France and China) by only focusing on the non-proliferation aspect. NPT was a treaty that aimed to prevent countries other than the five powers (US, UK, France, China and Russia) from acquiring nuclear weapons. The treaty is meaningful in that it attempts to prevent further spread of nuclear weapons but at the same time, it also recognizes the ‘nuclear rights’ of the five nuclear powers. This is the reason why there are criticisms that NPT, from its conception, possesses inherent unfairness.
Not only that, the nuclear powers only focused on preventing ‘horizontal proliferation’; stopping of new nuclear-weapons states. However, they themselves tacitly, forming a cartel, pursued ‘vertical proliferation’ of developing new forms of nuclear arsenals and enhancing efficacy of existing ones.
However, in article 6 of NPT it is stated, “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” It specifically mentions negotiations and treaties for reduction and disarmament of nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, there was no progress in this area due to lack of resolve and political will on the part of US and the four other nuclear powers. This is the reason why non-nuclear states and anti-nuclear/disarmament movements have been demanding continually for nuclear disarmament within the NPT regime. Looking in perspective, the NPT had begun with two different axes: non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and disarmament of them. It can also be thought that there exists tension between the two axes.
A step forward in nuclear disarmament in NPT
The issue of nuclear disarmament came to the fore in the NPT system at The 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. The conference was held also to decide the extension of the treaty. At this meeting, the NPT was extended indefinitely under the condition that the nuclear powers provide legally biding Negative Security Assurance (NSA) to the non-nuclear states and that the nuclear powers make commitment to hold disarmament treaties for reduction of existing nuclear arms. The five nuclear powers have promised to “pursue in goof faith in disarmament” and to provide “security assurances” to non-nuclear states.
However, the promises made by nuclear powers, on which the indefinite extension was conditioned under, were not properly fulfilled. In the annual NPT meetings, (Preparatory Committee meeting of the Review Conference) no concrete plans for nuclear disarmament was drawn. In this crisis, in 1998, New Agenda Coalition was formed. The commencing eight members were: Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden. Among them, Slovenia, under US’s appeasement and pressure, withdrew at early stage. Their slogan was, “A Nuclear Weapons Free World: The Need for a New Agenda.”
After the formation of “New Agenda Coalition,” it acted jointly with the non-aligned group of states in pressing the nuclear states to make a covenant for total abolition of nuclear weapons and to make specific measures for nuclear disarmament. Placements of non-strategic nuclear arsenals and the issue of preemptive use of nuclear weapons were also continually questioned.
The results were shown in the 2000 NPT Review Conference. In the ‘final document’ of the 2000 NPT Review Conference, it was written, “the nuclear powers shall undergo total abolition of their nuclear arms” and that specific measures for nuclear weapons abolition shall be enumerated and carried out through 13 practical steps. Especially, this specifying of 13 practical steps for disarmament in the ‘final document’ was seen as the biggest achievement.
American unilateralism going against nuclear disarmament
However, efforts for disarmament and abolition of nuclear weapons have faced difficulties as American unilateralism increased. US and the nuclear states have been, from the start, passive in disarmament but Bush administration’s breaking out of ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty in order to proceed with Missile defense (MD) was a critical blow. Resulting from this move, the START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) process was also stopped. This is going clearly against the steps enumerated in the 2000 NPT Review Conference.
START was a treaty between US and Russia concerning reduction of strategic weapons, signed during the thawing period of the Cold War. Signed in 1991, it states that both nations are to reduce the number of strategic nuclear warheads below 6000. Following this, through START II and START III strategic arms reduction was to be proceeded.
However, when US breached ABM Treaty in order to initiate its Missile Defense, the START process stopped. When the Russians ratified START II in 2000, they put in a condition that “START II does not come into force until US Congress ratifies the ABM Treaty protocol.” But US, pushing forward with their MD, did not ratify the protocol and eventually under the Bush administration, in December 13th 2001, withdrawal from ABM Treaty was announced. START II stopped before coming into force.
ABM Treaty, signed by US and Russia in 1972, is a treaty that strictly prohibits each party placing systems to intercepts missiles of the other. Therefore, by leaving a room for vulnerability in each other’s defense, the fear of a counter attack would prevent either party from making the initial assault. In other words, it is an arms restriction treaty based on ‘deterrence theory.’ However for US, wanting the capability of ballistic missile interception from land, sea and even from the space, it was mere hindrance to their ambition. US’s desires for MD has, not only broke ABM treaty, but also impeded the process for nuclear disarmament.
US’s MD hindering nuclear disarmament does not stop here. When your opponent strengthen their shield, you either have build a shield matching the opponent’s strength of defense or build a stronger spear to cut through your opponent’s shield. This is the reason why Russia, to par with US’s MD, is going forward with their development of new forms of nuclear weapons.
Under such a circumstance, the Moscow Treaty between Russia and US signed on May 24th 2002, can only but be a mere ‘display’. At point of extension of START process, president Bush and Putin agreed to reduce the number of strategic warheads down to 1700 to 2200. However, this treaty specifies reducing the number of warheads under placement but does not mention the actual dismantling of the warheads. This is because US wanted to store the nuclear warhead rather than dismantling them.
On this, Iran in 2005 NPT Review Conference, make a cynical remark that the US has replaced the basic principle of nuclear disarmament from ‘destruction of nuclear weapons’ to ‘decommissioning the warheads’.
Failure of 2005 NPT Review Conference
Of course, if Moscow Treaty is observed, that in it self, is significant. However, whether it will be followed or not remains unclear. In particular, unless US’s ‘nuclear hegemony’, continuing still in post-Cold War era, changes, the criticism on US being the biggest hindrance to efforts in international non-proliferation and abolition on nuclear weapons is not likely stop.
US’s nuclear hegemony and Bush administration’s unilateralism have coupled together to increase criticisms by the international society. In particular, the Bush administration has made preemptive strikes an official strategy and in including nuclear arsenals in this preemptive strategy, has made de facto withdrawal from Negative Security Assurance of ‘not attacking or threatening with nuclear arms’. (Main examples would be 2002 Nuclear Posture Review and National Security Strategy report) Such policy is a severe blow to international non-proliferation order.
Too add to this, US is modernizing its existing nuclear power in order to destroy underground facilities of rogue states such as North Korea and is continuing to develop new forms of nuclear weaponry to destroy underground facilities (vertical proliferation). Bush administration is also refusing to ratify CTBT. As can be seen, such nuclear strategy of Bush administration is causing a ‘domino’ effect of vertical proliferation among the nuclear powers. In April 2005, president Putin, while at a meeting with military officers, disclosed that new nuclear weaponry is under development and in October of the same year, The Independent reported that ‘prime minister Blair had ordered development of new nuclear weapons’. These are only a few of many cases.
The reason why 2005 NPT Review Conference ended without much progress is along the same lines. The non-aligned states, ‘New Agenda Coalition’ and international anti-nuclear and disarmament groups wanted the 2005 Conference to give impetus to realization of the 13 practical step of the final document in 2000. Especially, Bush administration’s aggressive nuclear strategy and proliferation in DPRK and Iran were hot issues. But in the last session, with adoption of a final document merely summarizing the conference agenda, the conference ended without any real progress.
Above anything else, it has been revealed that US’s desire to use NPT as a means of carrying out their national interest has become increasingly outspoken since Bush administration. US was indifferent to the agendas concerning nuclear disarmament but proposed a plan to put unqualified sanctions against North Korea and Iran who seceded from the NPT. But such plan, clearly manifesting US’s unilateralism, fell apart due to strong opposition by countries like Egypt and Iran.
What’s more, in 2006, US signed a deal on nuclear cooperation with India, a non-member of the NPT, which possesses nuclear weapons. Pakistan, in the arms race with India, tested their nuclear weapon in 1998 and because of this, had received economic sanctions from US and other Western states but when it agreed to aid US’s attack on Afghanistan in 2001, Pakistan became allies with the US. Israel, although does not admit having nuclear weapons, the view that they possess at least 60 to 80 nuclear weapons has no dissenting opinions. Through massive political, military and economically support of US, Israel is keeping its strong military presence in the Middle East. Such paradoxical stance of the US is providing the inducement to countries like North Korea and Iran to build their own nuclear weapons. It would not be an exaggeration to say that US is not only the hindering factor in nuclear disarmament but also is providing the very cause of nuclear proliferation.
Nonetheless, the fact that the effort in disarmament and abolition of nuclear weapons is making slow but steady progress should not be overlooked. Although the way to disarmament of nuclear weapons may be symbolized as a fight between David and Goliath, finding a way to defeat Goliath and gathering strength and wisdom to do so, is a task that’s laid before us. The task of disarmament and abolition of nuclear weapons is the universal task for the humanity.
For David’s Victory
In particular, the progress that had been made by ‘New Agenda Coalition’, non-aligned states and international disarmament and anti nuclear movements in the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences, shall be the foundation on which the strength will be gathered to fight with nuclear powers who are folding fast on to their nuclear rights and the desire to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, although 2005 Review Conference did not make much progress, ‘international control on uranium enrichment facilities and reprocessing facilities’ and a ‘5-year moratorium on building new enrichment facilities’ were suggested. Such measures can be the starting point in preventing proliferation and, going on from there, to disarmament.
On the other hand, the fact that ‘another approach’ to nuclear disarmament, creation of nuclear-free zones, is being increasingly more debated, receives a note. A nuclear-free zone does not immediately lead to disarmament, however by increasing the ‘zone’ free of building, placing and bringing in of nuclear weapons, can create the de facto effect of nuclear disarmament.
Especially, we must look into the discussions about the ‘Northeast Asian Nuclear-free Zone’ and suggestions on multilateral controlling system of fissile materials. Since one of the causes of North Korean nuclear crisis is the inherent paradox and discord within the international nuclear order. In other words, to peacefully resolve North Korean nuclear crisis and to create and stabilize a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, a broader perspective of participating in the international nuclear disarmament efforts is wanted.
*Article in December issue of “Mal”
Translated by Park, Jun-Oh
