The State of Our Nuclear World
|
The following global scan was written as a follow-up to the May 2005 edition of Perspectives Magazine: The Nuclear Weapons Debate.
Over the last year, debate about nuclear non-proliferation has centered on Irans nuclear ambitions, which has dominated headlines. Iran maintains that it aims solely to develop nuclear energy for peaceful civilian purposes, which it is allowed to do under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1970 (NPT). Others are critical of this intent andthe United States in particularinsist that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and must be stopped.
In May, the Developing Eight (D-8), a coalition of predominately Muslim countries, issued the Bali Declaration, which one analyst called, simply a statement in support of peaceful nuclear energy, which is a universal right. Though Iran saw the declaration as a statement of support, other D-8 members remain wary of Irans nuclear aims. Even those who affirm Irans right to peaceful nuclear technology have urged Iran to explicitly state its opposition to nuclear weapons development and adopt a greater degree of transparency when dealing with the international community. Although the U.S. continues to press the United Nations Security Council to begin the process of imposing punitive action against Iran, many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in support of non-proliferation have drawn attention to underlying hypocrisies with the nuclear regime itself. Nuclear developments throughout the world, they note, unearth a bigger question: how to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons while avoiding setting double standards. While nations strive to maintain their security, NGOs dedicated to non-proliferation have scrutinized how fair the process is and, in some cases, question whether nuclear technology can ever be made truly safe. David Krieger of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation argues in a report, for example, that the actions of the U.S. when dealing with Iran would carry far more weight if U.S. nuclear policy did not contain so many double standards. Krieger, along with other groups like the Arms Control Association, cite U.S. refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and its opposition to a verifiable fissile material cut-off treatywhich would regulate the materials necessary to make nuclear weaponsas examples of failures to move toward disarmament, as it has promised to do under the NPT. Krieger argues that these inactions and U.S. nuclear rhetoric encourage other states to pursue weapons in order to keep up, citing Iran and North Korea as examples. In the wake of North Koreas missile tests in July 2006and amid the diplomatic wrangling surrounding those teststhere is renewed concern too about that countrys nuclear aims. In September 2005, six-party negotiations between North Korea, South Korea, the U.S., Russia, Japan, and China ended with a deal in which North Korea agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program if the U.S. and other nations pledged aid and security guarantees. The deal quickly fell apart though, and no progress has been made in implementing it since. North Korea has said it will consider rejoining talks if the U.S. lifts financial sanctions. Wade Huntley with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation argues that the U.S. and its allies must respond to the missile tests, but without aggressive posturing. According to Huntley, escalation will only encourage North Korea to invest more into its nuclear program, especially as it emulates Iran, which has parlayed a far less advanced nuclear program into increasing attention and sweetened offers. India is another country that is both outside the NPT and in possession of nuclear arms, yet its engagement with the U.S. and its allies over nuclear issues is strikingly different. In March, U.S. President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Mammohan Singh struck a deal in which the U.S. agreed to export nuclear technology and fuel to Indias civilian nuclear program. In return, India will allow inspections of its civilian nuclear facilities, but weapons facilities will remain off-limits. Supporters, including International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, argue that the plan will bolster Indias energy production and strengthen its role as a non-proliferation partner. Bush administration officials are urging Congress to support the deal. They say that although India is not party to the NPT, it is a unique case. Those who oppose the deal counter that because India has a military nuclear program, which is not subject to IAEA inspections, it will be impossible to ensure that U.S. assistance is not diverted to nuclear weapons development. As recently as 1998, the U.S. had imposed sanctions against both India and Pakistan after both countries carried out nuclear weapons tests. The U.S.-Indian nuclear plan would implicitly endorse, if not indirectly assist, the further growth of India's nuclear arsenal, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in a recent Time magazine article.
But, is peaceful nuclear energy even realistic? Some think it is and point to the 31 nations that have nuclear power plants and the 16 percent of the worlds needed energy that already comes from this source. Others though, disagree. Alice Slater, President of the Global Resource Action Center for the Environment, says in a column that peaceful nuclear energy is an oxymoron for the 21st Century and believes that developing such technology is a gateway to nuclear weapons proliferation. Some environmental advocates, like those at Greenpeace International, also question the potential ramifications of nuclear energy on the environment. As the U.S. and other nations continue to tout their own version of what constitutes safe nuclear energy, non-proliferation advocates continue their campaign for measures that will make U.S. nuclear policy more secure and legitimate. Although NGOs were pushing for more concrete steps to be taken at last years NPT review conference, it ended without much progress. That is a particularly unsettling development in light of a June 2006 report by former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and the independent Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission. According to the report, the world is experiencing a serious, and dangerous, loss of momentum and direction in disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. The commission, which deals with the proliferation of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, further notes, so long as any state has such weaponsespecially nuclear weaponsothers will want them. So long as any such weapons remain in any states arsenal, there is a high risk that they will one day be used, by design or accident. Any such use would be catastrophic. John Burroughs of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, agrees with the findings of the report and adds that the U.S. must take the lead on effective nuclear weapons policy. Proliferation must be reversed where it began: in the United States, said Burroughs. |
Printable version
top of the page