Erosion of the Non-Proliferation Regime

The POST, Sun, October,29, 2006.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Disappointed over their inability to prevent the North Korean test, many in the West are now looking at the erosion of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) and the NPR (Non-Proliferation Regime) with some skepticism and realism. However they are still far from being truly realistic in their outlook. They have not yet learnt to recognize and acknowledge their own efforts which had actually started the process of erosion.

NPR is a network of treaties, unilateral, bilateral and multilateral undertakings and inspection aimed at halting the spread of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction-nuclear, chemical and biological weapons). It is a mechanism to control and prevent the spread of WMD. Among the elements of control mechanism, NPT is viewed as perhaps the most important one. The NPT was signed in 1968 and came into force in 1970.

The NPT divides member’s countries into nuclear and non-nuclear-weapon states. Nuclear weapons states are defined by the treaty as countries which detonated a nuclear explosion prior to January 1, 1967. By this definition only five states qualified to be viewed as nuclear weapon states. These are the US (which detonated in 1945), the Soviet Union (1949), United Kingdom (1952), France (1960) and China (1964). With the exception of India, Israel, Pakistan and Cuba almost all countries signed the NPT. Originally the treaty was signed only for 25 years with a periodic review after every five years. In 1995 Review Conference the members agreed to extend the agreement indefinitely.

The NPT signatories are expected not to manufacture or receive nuclear explosives and to accept the IAEA safeguards on all nuclear activities- an arrangement known as full-scope safeguards. In the NPT review conference of 2000, the participants also agreed to a program of action which included series of practical steps to make the NPT more effective. Perhaps the most important measures included in the program of action were further unilateral reduction in nuclear arsenal, increased transparency of nuclear weapon states’ nuclear capabilities, further reduction in non-strategic nuclear weapon stockpiles, diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies, a moratorium on nuclear testing pending the entry into force of the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) etc.

Undoubtedly the NPT established a code of international behavior in the nuclear field. Despite the inbuilt asymmetry of rights and obligations for the nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapon states, by 2002 almost every state joined the NPT system except Cuba, India, Israel and Pakistan. In 1998 both India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests which, according to some writers, dealt an unwanted blow to the NPR. Another major blow to the NPR was administered by the US when its Senate rejected the CTBT in 1999. The latest blow to the NPR was struck by North Korean when it conducted its nuclear test recently.

President Bush in his state of union address in 2002 categorically stressed that he would not allow world’s most dangerous regimes to acquire nuclear weapons. It appears that reference was made to Iraq, Iran and North Korea. The Americans invaded Iraq on the pretext that Iraq was engaged in acquiring the WMD but found no evidence. He has also been pressurizing the Iranians to dissuade them from their pronounced drift towards uranium enrichment. And now North Korea has conducted a nuclear test to the intense dislike of the Americans who appeared to be currently engaged on imposing punitive measures against the North Koreans.

In each of the above mentioned cases what appears to be a common element revolves around American policy pursuits in particular and western approaches in general. Two aspects of these approaches are somewhat pronounced; the double standards and issuance of threats and punitive measures. A review of almost all cases which have weakened the NPR clearly reflects the double standards adopted by many western countries. In the case of Indian nuclear pursuits most western nation refrained from applying pressures which they readily applied to Iraq, Iran and now to North Korea. Perhaps the most ludicrous explanation advanced by a western country was that they were caught unaware. Were they really? The most plausible explanation is that they looked the other way intentionally. How a country that operates snoopy satellites 24hour was unable to detect the impending nuclear test by the Indians.

Similarly invasion of Iraq was not caused by the alleged presence of WMD on Iraqi soil but by other considerations which included the regime change, control over oil wells and strengthening of Israel by destroying the Iraqi military might etc. Iran is being subjected to systematic pressurization to abandon the course it has adopted. Despite Iran’s rational pleas, one does not hear of any construction move. Since Israel enjoys massive influence over the American policy formulation processes and it feels that a nuclear Iran would be a great threat to its security, it is expected that the US will continue with its current policy pursuit.

The second significant element of the western policy pursuits and more specifically that of the US is heavy reliance on punitive aspects. The threat to inflict punishment appears to have become an integral part of the western policy pursuits especially after the tragic events of 9/11. Invariably the sane elements within those entrusted with the task of strengthening the NPR stresses for diplomatic and politically approaches, one finds the hardliners often carry the day especially if the target state is the non-western country.

In 1960 President Kennedy predicted that within a decade there would be 25 nuclear weapon states. After more than five and half decade there are only nine. Admittedly there are many aspirants but the actual nuclear weapon states are US, UK, France, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea. The western nuclear Pundits, in their usual way, are painting a doomsday scenario and are now predicting that both South Korea and Japan could think of acquiring nuclear weapons. Similarly many of the western nuclear experts are stressing that if Iran acquire the bomb, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria and Egypt would follow the suit. Whether or not these countries are thinking on those lines, one thing is certain that the western Pundits are injecting such ideas to lend strength to their doomsday obsession.

Although the western Pundits are approaching the whole issue not just by waving punitive swords and demonstrating their discriminatory approaches, the real issue is not yet subjected to thorough investigation. The most important question is why do nations want nuclear weapons capability? Undoubtedly it is either for augmentation of power or survival. The NPR does not address the security question adequately. Apart from a reference to the obligations of all member states under the UN Charter to refrain in their international relations from threat or use of force, no special or specific obligations are part of the NPT to ensure the security of the non-nuclear weapon state. The question that is often asked in non-western world is what have the international community done with regard to the much desired resolution of the Kashmir dispute or Palestine question.   

Just as the detailed analysis clearly indicated that it was the sense of insecurity which forced Pakistan to opt for nuclear weapons, it is not difficult to assume that in both cases of North Korea and Iran the element of insecurity may have been pushing them on their chosen path. Would it not be rational to alleviate their fears and remove the increasing level of their sense of insecurity? Instead of issuing punitive threats, a much more productive approach entails diplomatic engagements. Invariably the issuance of punitive threat has resulted in hardening of stances of the target states which eventually lead to further deterioration of situation.  Perhaps the best way out of the present impasse is to activate six party talks with North Korea.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.