PDA

View Full Version : NPT at 35


Faithless
02-26-2005, 10:08 AM
If I'm reading the news correctly, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has not be in force for 35.

Starting May 1st, in New York, members of that treaty will meet at the United Nations Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (New York, 2-27 May 2005) (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/Reference_Paper_No._44.doc.htm)
The Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will hold their next review conference from 2 to 27 May 2005 in New York. The General Assembly, on 3 December 2004, reaffirmed the importance of achieving the universality of the Treaty and called upon States not party to it to accede to it as non-nuclear weapon States. It encouraged all States parties to make maximum efforts for a successful review conference in 2005 (resolution 59/76).

Chronology leading to the NPT and after (http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/chron.htm)

Annan urges action against spread of nuclear arms (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_25-2-2005_pg4_5)
UNITED NATIONS: Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned on Wednesday that the treaty to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons was being challenged and urged governments to accept short-notice intrusive inspections.

Among the examples he gave was the need for nuclear disarmament, the threat of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and the slow pace of a pact that would allow more robust inspections. Annan was speaking to a 23-member board of arms experts, who were keenly aware that North Korea declared it has nuclear weapons and that Europe and the United States differed on how to make Iran abandon a uranium enrichment program at the heart of its suspected nuclear weapons ambitions.

But he did not mention either country. “Like many of you, I am convinced that efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation must go hand in hand with progress in nuclear disarmament,” Annan said in a speech to the UN Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters.

He noted that in May there would be a five-year review conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, the cornerstone of arms reduction accords agreed 35 years ago.

“The NPT has served us extremely well over the past decades,” Annan said. “However, the regime faces serious challenges to its credibility.” The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN atomic arms watchdog, is lobbying for an “additional protocol,” to the NPT, which would allow short-notice and intrusive inspections that most countries in the world have not ratified.

“I trust you will give this and other proposals serious consideration,” Annan told the group that advises him on arms control.

But many arms experts believe the protocol is not enough. Iran has signed it but several military sites that inspectors would like to visit are technically off-limits to the IAEA, which only can go to declared nuclear sites.

The NPT has been signed by 188 countries but North Korea withdrew in 2003. Three de facto nuclear states - Israel, Pakistan and India have refused to join the accord. Under the treaty, only five countries - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China - are permitted to have nuclear arms and move towards disarmament. The other 182 nations have to renounce nuclear weapons for good.

Annan also said he wanted the May conference to discuss some of the proposals made in November by his high-level panel on UN reform. Among its recommendations was that the UN Security Council take “collective” measures against any state or group that launches a nuclear attack or or even threatens an attack on a nonnuclear weapon state.

“I will be urging states to agree soon on an agenda for the conference that addresses the most pressing challenges which you and the high-level panel have identified,” Annan said. The high-level panel also recommended countries stop building enrichment or reprocessing facilities until a global plan can guarantee that fissile materials went to “civil nuclear users”. Another major challenge, Annan said, was to find ways to prevent nuclear technology from being diverted to illegal weapons programs. reuters
.
US Plans Tidal Wave of Nuclear Proliferation (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0105-24.htm)
Published on Wednesday, January 5, 2005 by CommonDreams.org * by Ira Chernus


There’s another tsunami coming -- a tidal wave of nuclear proliferation. This one is human-made. So it can be prevented, if enough people know about in time. We do have an early warning system: the news media. When it comes to nuclear proliferation, though, our warning system is pretty much out of commission. We are nearly as defenseless as last week’s tsunami victims.

Oh, we do spend U.S. tax dollars to warn the world of the nuclear danger. On December 27, the Voice of America broadcast news of a UN report on proliferation: the international community "is approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation." At least 40 nations have the technology to build nuclear weapons at relatively short notice.

But the VOA only mentions two of those nations as dangers: Iran and North Korea. What about the other 38? Apparently, in this age of a “what-me-worry” president, we just aren’t supposed to worry.

At the tail end of its news item, the VOA adds this: “Nuclear issues will be discussed next year in New York, during the review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- the legal cornerstone of non-proliferation efforts. Under terms of the pact, non-nuclear states are bound not to acquire nuclear weapons while the five declared nuclear states (the United States, France, Britain, China and Russia) pledge to disarm. The four-week session in May will bring the 187 signatories together to debate whether the treaty needs to be revised and strengthened to meet the nuclear challenges in the years ahead.”

But neither the VOA, nor any U.S. news media, have reported the important news about that meeting in May: the Bush administration is going to New York not to strengthen the NPT, but to destroy it.

Do you want to know why? You could study every news outlet in the USA and not get an answer. You have to go to Japan, where the Kyodo News Agency reported a few days ago: “The United States plans to suggest that a 2005 international conference to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should invalidate a document adopted at a 2000 meeting in which five nuclear powers committed to an ‘unequivocal undertaking’ to a nuclear-free world, according to U.S. government and congressional sources.”

In other words, the U.S. wants to scrap the very heart of the NPT, the deal that says if all you non-nuclear nations stay that way, we nuclear nations will move steadily toward getting rid of our nukes. If the treaty were permanent, we’d be stuck with that deal. That’s why the U.S., under the Clinton administration, insisted that the treaty be reviewed and subject to change every five years.

Now the Bushies are planning, not merely to change it, but to make it meaningless. They want to tell all the non-nuclear states: “Y’all must stay non-nuclear, but we’ll have as many nukes as we want. We’ll make new nukes but keep the old. And if you don’t like it, just take a good look at Iraq, because you could be next.”

According to the Kyodo News Agency report, this makes perfect sense in Bush-logic: “A U.S. government official described the final accord adopted during the 2000 NPT review conference as a ‘simply historical document’ and pointed out the need to adopt a new document reflecting drastic changes in international security conditions, including the Sept 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.”

The NPT is an international treaty signed by the president and ratified by the Senate. Most of us thought that made it law. How silly of us. It’s not “a binding guideline or anything like that," the anonymous official explained. The idea that the U.S. should move toward nuclear disarmament is now “outdated,” so it must go.

“A congressional source also pointed out that an article in the NPT which requires nuclear powers to make a serious commitment to disarmament was created against the backdrop of a nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War,” the Japanese article continues.

Now that no other country has nuclear capability even remotely close to ours, why should we let all those little countries tell us what nukes we can or cannot have? When George W. was planning the invasion of Afghanistan, he reportedly said: “At some point, we may be the only ones left [in the coalition]. That’s okay with me. We are America.” No doubt his attitude about nukes is pretty much the same.

Administration policy now authorizes preemptive nuclear attack against nations that it says are close to acquiring nuclear weapons. No proof needed. Suspicion is good enough. And if the rest of the world is outraged, well, screw ‘em. We are America.

All this fits the Bush pattern of nuclear irresponsibility, which Lawrence Korb recently described in the Boston Globe. In the last four years, the U.S. withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, kept the Senate from ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, refused to commit itself to halting future tests, and began work on two new nuclear weapons. The U.S. now spends nearly $7 billion a year for nuclear research and upgrading US nuclear capabilities, and the spending curve keeps rising.

But if the administration demands this radical change to the NPT, it will take nuclear irresponsibility to a new level, because it will effectively destroy the Treaty. If the U.S. won’t even pay lip service to the idea of a non-nuclear world, why should Iran, North Korea, or any other nation renounce their right to have their own nukes? If the U.S. is boosting its own nuclear program, why shouldn’t others follow suit? The only reason the Bushies will give them is fear of U.S. attack. That takes away the last fig-leaf of moral justification from U.S. non-proliferation efforts. It turns the world into a schoolyard where the U.S. is the reigning bully, ruling by nuclear intimidation alone.

Our news media keep telling us that it’s only Iran and North Korea we need worry about. But any country can be added to the “axis of evil” list. The British press is now reporting that Egypt has done nuclear weapons research too. As long as the Egyptians are “good guys,” we won’t hear much about that in the U.S. media. But if the Egyptians step out of line, they could easily end up part of the “axis.”

The message coming from the Bush administration and the U.S. media is clear. It’s not about the danger of weapons of mass destruction. It’s about using the fear of that danger, along with our own growing nuclear arsenal, as a club to rule the schoolyard roost.

Iran and North Korea are already showing quite effectively that the schoolyard bully approach won’t work. Either all nations make the same commitment to a nuclear-free world, or we end up where the UN report sees us going: “the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation." Which route is safer for America? It should be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, we face four more years of a scarecrow administration with no brain.

May 1, as the NPT meeting in New York begins, will be a day for massive demonstrations to warn the wold of the coming nuclear tidal wave. It will be a day to say “No” to Bush’s brainless nuclear bully approach and “Yes” to a nuclear-free world. It’s not too early to begin sounding the alarm. Those of us who care about the safety of America and the world can’t wait for the mainstream news media to do it. We have to take care of that business ourselves.

AliBabaIncorporated
02-26-2005, 10:53 AM
If I'm reading the news correctly, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has not be in force for 35.
Ah, so that's why Israel was allowed to go nuclear. :tongue:

Faithless
02-26-2005, 11:07 AM
Ah, so that's why Israel was allowed to go nuclear. :tongue:
Oh crap! That should read now :frown:

yoMAMA
02-26-2005, 11:12 AM
The NPT is pretty much dead.

Faithless
02-26-2005, 07:03 PM
The NPT is pretty much dead.
Gee, I hope not. :frown:

At the moment, the world's nuclear club is eight strong. There are the original big five of the US, China, Russia, Britain and France and the three newcomers of India, Pakistan and Israel. That has now changed. If the pronouncements coming out of Pyongyang are to be believed, the reclusive and impoverished Stalinist state of North Korea has now become the club's newest member.

And Iran is close to joining the club, too, I guess.

Flirting with Armageddon: Welcome to a new arms race (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2005/02/24/2003224404)
The threat of a dirty bomb or `conventional' nuclear strike is now greater than during the Cold War

By Paul Harris and Jason Burke * THE OBSERVER , London * Thursday, Feb 24, 2005,Page 9

It was 1.22am on Monday, Feb. 14 on the frozen Alaskan island of Kodiak when the missile flared upwards into the night sky. As the rocket's flames disappeared into darkness, US military chiefs waited with bated breath to see if their multi-billion-dollar "Son of Star Wars" defense shield would work.

Thousands of kilometers away on the Pacific island of Kwajalein, another missile was primed to intercept the Alaskan launch, soaring to destroy its target in the upper atmosphere and thus "save America from nuclear devastation." It never made it. The test failed.

On Kwajalein metal supports holding the interceptor rocket failed to disengage. If it had been real the enemy nuke would have hit its target. The system has now failed in six out of nine tests. Many experts believe it simply does not work.

But this does not deter the Pentagon. It is in a frenzy to put a missile shield around America. The threat from nuclear attack is now once more at the center of strategic planning. The missile defense shield is not seen as a throwback but as a vital part of defense.

Nuclear weapons too remain in US plans, it is now looking at developing a whole new range of "bunker buster" nukes.

A new nuclear arms race is gripping the world. Many experts believe the likelihood of such an attack is greater now than it was during the Cold War. North Korea has already claimed it has nuclear weapons, Iran could be on the brink of building them. Both nations could trigger arms races among their neighbors. The international system set up to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons has sprung a series of leaks. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has warned of a "cascade" of states going nuclear.

But that might not even be the biggest threat. Behind the ambitions and fears of nations lurk terrorist networks bent on acquiring weapons. Few doubt the most extreme groups would love to use them. It is a bleak picture that makes the Cold War look almost safe.

"We are in an extremely dangerous time right now," said Natalie Goldring, a proliferation expert at the University of Maryland.

At the moment, the world's nuclear club is eight strong. There are the original big five of the US, China, Russia, Britain and France and the three newcomers of India, Pakistan and Israel. That has now changed. If the pronouncements coming out of Pyongyang are to be believed, the reclusive and impoverished Stalinist state of North Korea has now become the club's newest member.

Some disbelieve the official rhetoric. North Korea is desperate for foreign aid and wants face-to-face talks with the US. It is possible that this latest move is just a bluff.

"I would not take anything the North Koreans say at face value," said Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute.

But most experts accept such sentiments afford little comfort. Now the focus of dealing with North Korea has become working out what sort of nuclear devices North Korea might possess and how it could deliver them. Though it has no missiles that could reach America, South Korea lies just over the border. Tokyo is just a short flight over the Sea of Japan. It could easily use a plane to deliver a nuclear device, or a boat.

That could see the triggering of a regional nuclear arms race in Asia, a continent already scarred by the nuclear standoff between Indian and Pakistan. With North Korea boasting a nuclear arsenal, South Korea is under enormous pressure to follow suit as a deterrent.

Japan too could see nuclear weapons as its only insurance against assault. With its high-tech economy many people believe Japan could develop weapons in a matter of weeks or months, not years.

But if this happens then China, motivated by longstanding fears over its advanced neighbor, will likely move to increase its own nuclear weapons arsenal and develop more advanced delivery systems.

Suddenly, the nuclear club will start to look very crowded.

Certainly Iran appears to want to join despite intensive diplomacy from a trio of European nations. Many experts put that down to a failure of US policy. Iran's leaders have looked at the contrasting fates of Iraq, which was invaded for weapons it did not have, and North Korea, which has confessed to developing nuclear weapons and now appears immune to any military threat. With the Bush administration openly bent on "regime change" in Iran, the safest route for the country's reigning mullahs seems obvious.

"Iran has learned that lesson. They want to go the North Korea route, not the Iraq route," Goldring said.

That has led to a dangerous game of brinkmanship in a Middle East destined to become a theater of conflict where nuclear weapons are suddenly a real possibility.

Israel already has the bomb. Iran, surrounded by American allies and soldiers, wants it too. Some experts think it is too late to stop Iran from going nuclear, no matter how many official denials Tehran puts out about its intentions. Others believe there is still hope.

"We need to make a concerted effort and engage with the process,' said Peter Pella, a former proliferation expert at the US State Department.

The Bush administration is taking an opposite tack. In an international version of "good cop, bad cop" European nations are holding discussions with Iran about its nuclear program, while the US makes hostile noises. Few experts failed to notice US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent remarks that attacking Iran was "...not on the agenda at this point." That has some US hawks on the Iranian situation delighted.

"We need a stick to use," Leventhal said. "The Europeans will have heard the `not on the agenda' part, but the Iranians will have head the `at this point' part."

Whatever the approach, few believe that the Iranian nuclear issue is anything but a potentially catastrophic powder keg. If Iran pushes ahead, then Israel could launch strikes against possible nuclear facilities, just as it did in Iraq in the 1980s. Such a move could easily ignite a major war across the region. The crisis is brewing to a boil and no real solution is yet in sight.

But there is another threat too. The nuclear threat of the 21st century also comes from terrorist groups, not just rogue states. It is no longer governments who are the most likely to spread nukes or the technology needed to make them. And it is no longer states who are most likely to use them either.

Militants such as Osama bin Laden have said that they would be prepared to use nuclear weapons. Al-Qaeda are known to have acquired plans for the manufacture of nuclear arms. Intelligence services know meetings occurred between representatives of al-Qaeda and nuclear scientists before Sept. 11. Islamic militants have since negotiated to buy what they thought was weapons-grade uranium from criminals.

"The intent is there," one Western intelligence source said. "The question is whether any militant organization -- particularly one that is being chased by the most powerful nation in the world -- could build the facilities to create and weaponize a nuclear armament, even some kind of `suitcase bomb' style device. The answer is `probably no.'"

Instead, most experts agree, the main threat comes from a basic radiological device -- or dirty bomb. This would be a conventional bomb laced with radioactive material -- perhaps only an element from a hospital x-ray machine.

According to a report to be published next week by the British American Security Information Council, the radiological impact of a dirty bomb is uncertain. In 1987 the Iraqi army tested a large radiological bomb for possible use in the Iran-Iraq war, but abandoned the plan because the radiation levels produced were not considered high enough. But dirty bombs do have two advantages for terrorists. First, they could cause widespread panic and chaos.

Second, the cost of the cleanup, and the implications of having large parts of a city center rendered unusable, would be massive.

There are also fears that North Korea or Iran may give nuclear technology to militants, or rogue scientists selling secrets or nuclear materials. A recent example is that of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, who reportedly made himself a fortune of more than US$400 million in a 15-year career of selling nuclear secrets to North Korea, Libya and, quite possibly, Iran.

Working through scores of off-shore accounts and cut-out companies, Khan's network stretched from South Africa to Morocco to Singapore. Turkish and Malaysian workshops made parts for centrifuges, Italian factories made furnaces, a German supplier provided vacuum pumps. Though the CIA have claimed they had penetrated the network, it is still thought Khan was able to visit North Korea more than a dozen times to swap Pakistani centrifuge technology for local missile know-how, pass uranium-enrichment technology to Iran and to give Libya blueprints for a bomb.

There are dangers everywhere. Many fear General Pervaiz Musharraf's pro-Western government in Pakistan, which already has the bomb, could be replaced by a harder line Islamic regime. And there are problems with former Soviet stocks. Russia alone has hundreds of metric tonnes of weapons grade materials such as enriched uranium.

The prospect of a nuclear attack by terrorists on a Western city is more possible now than at any time.

"If a nuclear weapon went off in a city somewhere, it would not surprise me at all," Leventhal said.

It is not all doom and gloom. Libya has come in from the diplomatic cold, giving up its nuclear ambitions. And there is now little possibility of a nuclear-armed Iraq threatening the Middle East.

But in general the situation looks bleak. It has been more than 30 years since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was created. It was designed to discourage nations from developing nuclear weapons in return for access to nuclear power and an obligation on behalf of the big powers to work towards nuclear disarmament.

The treaty will be reviewed this May in New York at a time when it seems no one is abiding by its provisions. It is highly likely that the issue of Iran will dominate the meeting. Indeed one senior Western European diplomat said the conference atmosphere was likely to be `poisoned' by the acrimonious debate over policy towards Tehran.

"It is a treaty concerned not only with stopping the further spread of nukes but also about their complete elimination," said Dr Stephen Pullinger, of Saferworld, an independent foreign-affairs think tank. "Instead, it is clear that none of the five declared nuclear states are thinking about abandoning their nukes for the foreseeable future," he said.

As Iran and North Korea stand in the dock in May it may well be worth remembering the Non-Proliferation Pact was meant to work both ways.