NPT-Review Conference 2010: Its Morality, Legality, and Reality
By Dr Shakil A. Rai
Los Angeles , CA
NPT review conference currently in progress at the UN in New York is a spectacle of the same old power play, and diplomacy, all cloaked in the pious jargon of world peace, international law, saving mankind from a possible nuclear holocaust, and eventually creating a world free of nuclear weapons for “a global public good of the highest order," as the UN Secretary General very wisely stated. Proclaimed wisdom and professed pious intentions alone cannot achieve meaningful result if implementation of the treaty remains partial, selective, even discriminatory, and manipulative, as has been the case in the last four decades.
What was perceived as the rogue behavior of India in conducting nuclear tests in 1998 won her greater respect and got her a better reward in the form of US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement. The deal meets all civilian nuclear energy needs of India by giving her ample supply of nuclear material and technology from the US, and at the same time spares her enough resources to pursue military nuclear ambitions unhindered. India, and not the US, decides which nuclear sites are military and hence closed to American intrusion, and which ones are civilian and can be left open to US inspection. India is free to add any number of new nuclear weapon programs, no questions asked. If this is the “punishment” for pursuing the rogue path of nuclear weapons, and refusing to sign NPT who on earth would want to eschew it? This one deal has done more harm to the lofty objectives of NPT than anything else in recent years.
The deal has made nuclear technology a marketable commodity like any other high-tech product. This allows big nuclear powers to use their know-how to buy influence, and make money in the nuclear bazaar, officially inaugurated by the US-India deal. It’s no accident that soon after this deal China signed an agreement with Pakistan to finance two civilian reactors at Chashma. The US is looking at this deal “very carefully”. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg tells us that discussions are underway but have not “reached a final conclusion.” It doesn’t take a genius to guess what that conclusion would be.
Pakistan , with some justification, now demands the same reward that Indian got for its once perceived “rogue” behavior. Since Pakistan’s stocks are lower than India’s in the political stock exchange of America, this deal is not likely to come by any time soon. The sheer fact that nuclear stockpile gives you the courage to demand a favor instead of fearing punishment says a lot about the efficacy of NPT and international conscience keepers and law enforcers.
Pakistan ’s successful quest for nuclear weapons tells the same story of on-again, off-again enforcement of international laws that mock the piety and wisdom of those who pretend to be losing sleep over nuclear proliferation. In 1979 Pakistan was under sanctions for pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program, and was also pilloried for having a military dictatorship that had executed an elected Prime Minister. Everything changed, virtually overnight, when the military forces of the Soviet Union moved into Afghanistan and the US saw a golden opportunity to bleed the Russian bear without putting a single US soldier’s life on the line. A military dictator became the “defender of the free world” as President Reagan put it in his welcome address for the erstwhile pariah - Gen Ziaul Haq. The military regime pursued its nuclear ambition at a feverish pitch while the US looked the other way. By 1984 Pakistan had achieved weapon grade enrichment of uranium. There are reasons to believe that the US had a pretty good idea of what their ally had been up to in the nuclear field.
Once the Soviet forces retreated from Afghanistan in 1988 the US turned its back on Pakistan and re-imposed sanctions on its ally for pursuing nuclear ambitions. Though it was known, by that time, that Pakistan’s nuclear program had reached an irreversible stage and the sanctions would do nothing to stop or reverse it.
In 1998 India conducts multiple nuclear tests and declares itself a nuclear weapon state. Pakistan conducts tit-for-tat nuclear tests and struts the stage of the nuclear haves claiming nuclear parity with India. Harsh economic and military sanctions are imposed and Pakistan is isolated diplomatically and brought to its knees economically. Just three years passed when the tragedy of 9/11 struck, and the US once again needed Pakistan and its military dictator, who had exiled an elected Prime Minister and practically abrogated the Constitution. Another military dictator becomes a trusted friend and nuclear Pakistan gets billions of dollars to fight the “war on terror”.
Let’s have another hypothetical scenario. If Saddam Husain actually had weapons of mass destruction and the capability to deploy them, would the “coalition of the willing” dared to launch its attack? Most probably the war mongers of the Bush Administration would have thought about the consequences more carefully if they knew they would face WMDs on the battlefield.
Iran and South Korea both are signatories of the NPT and both have pursued clandestine nuclear programs. In 1982 South Korean scientists performed experiments in plutonium extraction. Under US pressure Korea stopped its program and in return got American nuclear reactor and financial assistance for civilian nuclear program. In 2004 it was revealed that South Korea continued to pursue its nuclear program; this time it took the uranium enrichment route. In 2000, Korean scientists enriched uranium to near weapon grade (up to 77%). Both the uranium and the plutonium incidents were not reported to IAEA until 2004. Thereafter IAEA launched an investigation into South Korea’s nuclear activities. It was determined that ROK had failed to report to IAEA as required. This non-compliance was treated a non-issue, however. The matter was never taken up for any possible punitive actions. After all, South Koreans are our friends and they are facing a nuclear menace from North Korea. Now there are reports that South Korea is gearing up its resources to have a nuclear-powered submarine. This ruffles no feathers, no news in the media, no high sounding condemnations, no threats, and no punitive action.
Iran , is signatory of NPT and has indulged in activities that it should have reported to the IAEA. Iran has stretched the NPT provisions to the limit to assert its sovereign right to enrich uranium for ‘peaceful purposes’. Though there are strong parallels between Iran and ROK cases, yet no one seems to worry about Korea, while Iran is treated as evil incarnate, facing ever tougher economic sanctions, and threats of surgical airstrikes. This duplicity may not be visible to the American public but it’s very well known to those who think they are at the wrong end of the nuclear stick.
Then there is Israel’s huge nuclear arsenal, which, if you go by the media coverage in the West, and official response in these capitals it seems there are no WMD in Israel, and whatever there is, is of no concern to anyone. When Egypt tries to remind the NPT bigwigs about a long forgotten resolution that called for nuclear-free Middle East they are told you ‘are protesting too much’.
Power flows from the barrel of the gun is a maxim that’s true about political power. It may not be true about social, religious, and charismatic power, but the enforcement of political will within state boundaries or inter-state relations is greatly dependent upon the perception of the coercive power of the enforcer. Whether it is law enforcement within a given community or mastery of the trade routes on the high seas, ultimate sanction behind all this is not morality but monopoly of the means of coercion, and violence.
Introduction of nuclear weapons is the most lethal development in human history since the invention of gunpowder. As was the case with gunpowder, no one is going to give up its nuclear capability for “a global public good of the highest order." There will always be reason for states to maintain monopoly of the means of violence and coercion and to improve their lethality and effectiveness to assert their power against other players on the international scene. Nuclear arsenal being the most deadly and effective mean of self-assertion for states it will remain the most coveted weapon, no matter what is said on the podium.
In order to achieve any meaningful result, and to make some progress in reaching the goal of a nuclear-free world, the review conference should try to reduce the ever widening moral gap in the NPT structure, stop being selective in the implementation of the law, and do not manipulate for short-term gains.
