Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

[polycarp]

http://www.economist.com/agenda/display ... 4&fsrc=nwl



DIPLOMATS from some 190 countries have gathered in New York this week for their month-long, five-yearly review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Under this pact, signed in 1968, the have-nots forswear nuclear weapons and the wherewithal to build them, in return for civilian nuclear help. And the five officially recognised nuclear powers—America, Russia, China, Britain and France—promise to dismantle their bombs eventually, as part of a general disarmament. But the latest review comes at a time of heightened tension, with American officials talking of the NPT’s “crisis of compliance”, while other countries accuse the nuclear powers of failing to fulfil their own obligations under the treaty.

Most experts agree that the biggest threat to the NPT is the proliferation of weapons-usable technologies to countries bent on breaking or bending its rules. Over the years, all countries bar India, Pakistan and Israel have signed up to the treaty, reassured that it would prevent neighbours from acquiring nuclear weapons. That is changing. North Korea claimed to have quit the treaty two years ago, but not before it had been caught secretly dabbling in both plutonium and uranium, from which bombs can be fashioned. Whatever the truth to its boast of a nuclear arsenal, the bomb-tinkering is thought to have started many years ago. America has sought to resolve the issue through six-way talks—involving China, Russia, South Korea and Japan as well as North Korea—but these broke down last year. Just before this week's review began, North Korea heightened tensions by calling George Bush a “hooligan” and, more seriously, test-firing a short-range missile into the Sea of Japan.

Fears over Iran’s nuclear ambitions have also grown in recent months. The country has been developing its uranium-enrichment and plutonium-reprocessing activities. This would give it the capacity to build a nuclear bomb, though it denies the intent, insisting that it wants to produce electricity, not weapons. But Iran deliberately lied to inspectors for two decades to cover up activities and experiments that make little sense except in pursuit of a bomb.

Britain, France and Germany have been trying to resolve the crisis through diplomacy, offering the Iranians various economic incentives to drop any thoughts of bomb-making. America recently threw its weight behind this effort, in a shift from its previous, more aggressive line. Iran had voluntarily suspended enrichment while the talks went on, but after failing to make any progress with the Europeans last week, Iran threatened on Saturday to resume its enrichment activity, earning a worried rebuke from Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Russia’s stance is more ambivalent. It hopes to bolster its role in the Middle East by strengthening its ties with Iran, hence its decision to help the Islamic republic build a nuclear-power reactor at Bushehr, and its agreement to supply low-enriched uranium fuel to the plant. However, on Thursday April 28th President Vladimir Putin hardened his line, saying Iran should “abandon all technology to create a full nuclear cycle” and not obstruct international inspectors.

The case of Libya is more heartening, up to a point. The north African country, led by Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, turned itself in last year in the hope of shedding its pariah status. Libya admitted to having secretly bought uranium-enriching machines from Abdul Qadeer Khan, father of Pakistan’s bomb but also founder of a worldwide network of nuclear smugglers. Mr Khan, it transpired, had tossed in the proven design for a warhead (originally supplied to Pakistan by China) to sweeten the Libya deal. This revelation led to fears that he may have done the same for Iran and others he had dealings with.



Targeting America

For all these transgressions and confessions, it is the recognised nuclear powers, not the would-be cheats, who are likely to come in for the most vocal criticism during the NPT review. The numbers of nuclear weapons in the stockpiles of the five powers are collectively at their lowest in decades and set to drop further. But their failure to disarm faster, many will insist, weakens the bargain that underpins the treaty. All five, especially America and Russia, still have too many nuclear weapons. These two countries have agreed to reduce their arsenals to 1,700-2,200 warheads each, with plenty more in reserve, by 2012. But of the realistic threats that either might face in the coming years (including from an expanding Chinese nuclear arsenal), none could not be deterred by far fewer weapons.

The strongest criticism may be reserved for America. George Bush offended many allies by refusing to support a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty (though he still observes a moratorium on testing, and thinks others should too). He scrapped the anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia (though few regret its passing). And most recently, his officials have cast doubt on the value of negotiating a global treaty to end the production of fissile material for bombs, arguing that it would be virtually impossible to verify reliably.

More importantly, throughout Mr Bush’s presidency his administration has tinkered with America’s own nuclear arsenal, showing a determination to explore new ideas for fancier weapons, and new ways to use them. In his first term, Mr Bush set aside a budget for studying (though not yet developing or building) new sorts of weapons, including a “robust nuclear earth penetrator”, intended to vaporise deeply buried targets such as stocks of chemical and biological weapons.

However, these ideas drew a hostile response from Congress, where many were concerned that exploring more usable nuclear weapons would encourage other countries to follow suit—and maybe even to use them. Mr Bush, they worried, risked undermining his main goal since the terror attacks of September 11th 2001: to keep the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of dodgy regimes and terrorist groups.

Congress’s doubts have forced a rethink of how America maintains its nuclear edge. The country’s weapons experts have been told instead to explore a “reliable replacement warhead”. That is, to switch from inventing fancy new bombs to making those already in the stockpile less sensitive to ageing (the average age of America’s nuclear warheads is now 20 years) and easier to certify as safe and reliable—all without the need for testing. By doing this, America could save on weapons maintenance and also cut back sharply the number of weapons it keeps on hand in case something goes wrong with those it has deployed.

America will spend the next month trying to keep the focus of discussions on the dissembling by countries like Iran and North Korea, rather than on its own nuclear-arms policies. Among the measures that are likely to be proposed to strengthen the NPT are: making mandatory the toughened safeguards drawn up in the 1990s by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear guardian (though more than 30 members, including Saudi Arabia, have no safeguards agreement at all with the agency); and making it harder for countries to cheat and run, by extending the notice for withdrawal from the NPT and demanding that equipment obtained under civilian pretences be dismantled. But there are no easy fixes for proliferation problems when governments will cheat, when the basic technologies to be controlled are more than 60 years old and when lax export rules allow the likes of Mr Khan to peddle nuclear bits and pieces across the globe.

[john8pies]

Very interesting information, polycarp. And never mind the rogue states - let`s be careful not to upset China either, if their treatment of the Tiannamen Square democracy protestors is anything to judge by!

[Philadelphia Eagle]

Unfortunately the European nations who are relying upon diplomacy to try to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions are having the wool pulled over their eyes (again).

It is considered here that the efforts of Britain, France and Germany will eventually come to nothing. None of those countries seem to have learned that appeasment doesnt pay and none of them have the political will nor strength to really stand up to bullies.

It is disappointing that they have not learned the lessons of history.

So, as usual, it will left to the United States to sort out the problem.

With Iraq and Afghanistan we have enough on our plate already and our resources are being stretched ever more thinly and now the rouge state of North Korea is posing a problem.

Secretary Rice left North Korea in no doubt in a speech last night that the United States "was in a position to stop their plans if necessary"

The U.N., is useless in a situation like this (or indeed in most others) and until they put their house in order and root out those responsible for the rampant corruption within the organisation they cannot expect to be taken seriously.

[spot]

Philadelphia Eagle wrote: It is considered here that the efforts of Britain, France and Germany will eventually come to nothing. None of those countries seem to have learned that appeasment doesnt pay and none of them have the political will nor strength to really stand up to bullies.Oh, PE, this is priceless... who, exactly, are the Iranians supposed to have bullied? They're the most cultured people on the planet.

The only Administration being appeased these days, with buckets of blood, is a lot closer to home. But perhaps that's not prominent on your news channels - too many citizens echo "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it's gonna happen? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" school of head-in-the-sand ignorance. I do hope you recognise the quote.

[Philadelphia Eagle]

Spot - what I have said is a repeat of generally held views here except that the language I used is considerably toned down from that which you would hear and see nightly on our TV screens.

If I had repeated verbatim what the general opinion is you would be really upset!

I have visited Iran on several occasions and have Iranian friends. Have you?

My friends there wholeheartedly support the fact that nothing meaningful will get resolved vis-a-vis their unaffordable neuclear ambitions unless and until the United States becomes involved.

In their words - "the mullahs don't take the Europeans seriously"

[spot]

Philadelphia Eagle wrote: Spot - what I have said is a repeat of generally held views here except that the language I used is considerably toned down from that which you would hear and see nightly on our TV screens.


I wouldn't dispute that for a moment, PE. You haven't addressed my question, though - who, exactly, are the Iranians supposed to have bullied? Bullies have to be bigger than their victims, that's what defines a bully. In the blue corner, at 31 years of age and 225 pounds, we have Joe Frazier, and in the red corner, at 69 years and 108 pounds, the bullying Mrs Ada Moggs who will get what's coming to her. Go check a dictionary.

As for visiting, my daughter came back from a two-month visit to Iran, last Christmas. She'd read about the place beforehand, and she made friends that will last a lifetime. I hope they survive their dose of Freedom that you've got planned.

Of course, if the Iranians could manage to build actual nuclear bombs, instead of the non-existent ones that Iraq possessed two years ago, maybe the rest of the planet could sleep safer. I expect nukes are a wonderful deterrent against peace-loving non-imperialist altruistic spreaders of democracy.

[Philadelphia Eagle]

Spot - as far as your daughter's visit to Iran is concerned I do sincerely hope that she had a great time among wonderful people,

The Persian civilisation is one of the world's oldest.

Some years ago I had the privledge of meeting the (now deceased) Shah in Teheran. He was trying very hard to modernize Iran until Khomini appeared and the whole process came to a grinding halt.

As far as the non-existant WMD's in Iraq are concerned -well it just goes to show how wrong the United Nations were and then compounded their error by convincing both your Prime Minister and my President that they were around somewhere!

[spot]

You haven't addressed my question, though - who, exactly, are the Iranians supposed to have bullied? If you want to enlarge the question, who is currently doing the bullying in that part of the world, if it isn't actually the Iranians?

[spot]

Philadelphia Eagle wrote: Some years ago I had the privledge of meeting the (now deceased) Shah in Teheran. He was trying very hard to modernize Iran until Khomini appeared and the whole process came to a grinding halt.The Shah in Teheran was trying very hard to modernize Iran? This is the same use of "modernizing" that the Chinese used of the Tienanmen Square massacre, I imagine - the sort of modernizing that involves theft on a grand scale and retrenchments of interests. This is the same Shah who was refused residency throughout the civilized world - even in the USA - because of his wretched human rights record. This is the same Shah whose murderous abuses culminated in:

"... Jaleh Square in eastern Tehran where many bigaari families lived. When some 5000 residents, many of them high school students, staged a sit down demonstration in the middle of the square, army commanders cordoned off the area and shot indiscriminately into the crowd. In the words of one European correspondent, the scene resembled a vast firing squad with troops shooting ceaselessly into a large stationary crowd."

This is the same Shah who, "announcing he was going abroad for a short holiday, left the country on January 16, 1979. As his aircraft took off, celebrations broke out across the country."

We've seen bullies in the Middle East throughout the last century. It's amazing how many of them were sponsored by the USA.

[Philadelphia Eagle]

I thought it was obvious - it certainly is to us here that the 'bullies' are the mullahs who form the present undemocratic government in Iran and who impose a strict Islamic fundamentalist system on the population.

Like most dictatorships it will fall at some stage - hopefully and probably as a result of internal discontent but if we need to nudge it in the right direction we will.

[spot]

If you talked less propaganda and more truth, we'd get a lot further. Take a quick look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/mid ... 627344.stm and try to explain where "dictatorships" comes into this. That is democracy in action, and it's Iranian. That isn't, for example, voting booths with no audit trail, which just announce the result with no means of confirming or questioning the outcome. You know as well as I do that if the US electoral system existed in any other country on earth, you'd be rightly condemning it as fraudulent and undemocratic, and with good reason.

[spot]

Philadelphia Eagle wrote: As far as the non-existant WMD's in Iraq are concerned -well it just goes to show how wrong the United Nations were and then compounded their error by convincing both your Prime Minister and my President that they were around somewhere!It's possible that you're attempting humor here. It might amuse if it hadn't killed tens of thousands of people. Do you not remember your excruciatingly embarrassed General, with his Powerpoint presentation, talking to a stoney-faced UN about the "proof" of WMD, and failing to get his mandate for war from them? It wasn't the UN who pushed anyone into conflict and neither was it their inspecting team, and you know it. Your war was decided on long before Colin Powell stood up like a snake-oil salesman and tried to sell his shoddy goods.