- The Bush administration has approached
nuclear nonproliferation with Iran and India by two very different measures.
Iran, a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has been threatened with
sanctions, if not actual violence, for its pursuit of uranium enrichment,
although there is no clear evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons
program. India, on the other hand, has now been offered U.S. nuclear technology,
although India is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is known
to have tested nuclear weapons and is thought to possess a nuclear weapons
arsenal of 60 to 100 weapons.
-
- The Non-Proliferation Treaty, which entered
into force in 1970, is at the heart of worldwide nuclear nonproliferation
efforts. The United States was one of the original signers of the treaty
and was one of the major supporters of its indefinite extension in 1995.
The principal goal of the treaty is to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation
by assuring that nuclear weapons and the materials and technology to make
them are not transferred by the nuclear weapons states to other states.
-
- The five nuclear weapons states that
are parties to the treaty (the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom,
France and China) all made this pledge. They also pledged "good faith"
negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. The 183 nonnuclear weapons
states that are parties to the treaty pledged not to develop or otherwise
acquire nuclear weapons and the materials and technology to make them.
-
- A problem arises with the treaty because
it also promotes peaceful nuclear technology -- which is inherently dual-purpose,
capable of being used for peaceful or warlike purposes -- as an "inalienable
right" for all nations. Iran claims to be exercising this right, arguing
that it is pursuing uranium enrichment for nuclear power generation and
not for weapons purposes. The Bush administration disputes this claim and
insists Iran must stop enriching uranium altogether, a policy inconsistent
with its proposed deal with India, a country that has already developed
nuclear weapons.
-
- India never became a party to the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, and conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, which it claimed
was for peaceful purposes. India did not test again until 1998, when it
conducted a series of nuclear tests and announced to the world that it
had become a nuclear weapons state. Pakistan followed India with nuclear
tests of its own. While India and Pakistan were not restricted by the Non-Proliferation
Treaty because they had never joined the treaty, they were initially sanctioned
by the United States and other states for going nuclear. But now this has
changed. Mr. Bush wants to provide nuclear technology to India in exchange
for India's allowing international safeguards by 2014 at 14 of its 22 existing
civilian nuclear power reactors. This makes little sense, as it would leave
eight of India's civilian reactors without safeguards, including those
in its fast breeder program that would generate nuclear materials that
could be used in weapons programs.
-
- The Bush administration seeks to reward
India for noncooperation with the treaty and for developing a nuclear weapons
arsenal, while Iran is threatened with punishment for being part of the
treaty and seeking to exercise its rights under the treaty. The implications
of the hypocritical U.S. approach to proliferation are to leave countries
questioning whether their participation in the Non-Proliferation Treaty
is worthwhile. This approach is likely to lead to a major breakdown of
the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the international regime that supports
it.
-
- To prevent such a breakdown, a number
of important steps should be taken, which will require U.S. leadership.
First, there should be a worldwide moratorium on uranium enrichment and
plutonium reprocessing, subject to international inspections and verification.
This means a moratorium by all countries, including the United States and
other nuclear weapons states.
-
- Second, all current stocks of weapons-usable
uranium and plutonium in all countries should be placed under strict international
controls.
-
- Third, there should be no "nuclear
deal" with India until India agrees to give up its nuclear weapons
program and dismantle its nuclear arsenal. Congress should turn Bush down
flat on this poorly conceived and opportunistic deal.
-
- Fourth, the United States should give
up its plans to develop new nuclear weapons such as the Reliable Replacement
Warhead program, which signal to the rest of the world that the United
States intends to keep its nuclear arsenal indefinitely.
-
- Fifth, the Non-Proliferation Treaty should
be replaced by two new treaties: a Treaty to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons,
which sets forth a workable plan for the phased elimination of all nuclear
weapons under strict international controls, and an International Sustainable
Energy Agency that develops and promotes sustainable energy sources (solar,
wind, tidal and geothermal) that can replace both fossil fuels and nuclear
energy.
-
- The alternative to this ambitious agenda,
or one similar to it, is a world in nuclear chaos, in which extremist terrorist
organizations may be the greatest beneficiaries. This is the direction
in which current U.S. nuclear policy, with its flagrant disregard for international
law, is leading us. The double standards in U.S. dealings with Iran and
India are the latest evidence of the extent to which this policy is misguided.
-
- David Krieger is president of the Nuclear
Age Peace Foundation http://www.wagingpeace.org , and a leader in the global
movement to abolish nuclear weapons.
|
