Opinion Whos afraid of the NPT?
The objection to its discriminatory nature is not just rhetoric
-
Share -
-
-
It had been clear from the outset that one of US President Barack Obamas priorities in his foreign policy would be the promotion of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons technology. The fear of nuclear terrorism pervaded even his eloquent espousal of the elimination of nuclear weapons in Prague this spring,and his solution was the strengthening of the 40-year-old Non-Proliferation Treaty. The flurry of activity during the current session of the United Nations General Assembly,his stern message to the international community (to quote a US commentator),the attendance by the US secretary of state at the conference of the Organisation of the CTBT Member States and the unanimous UN Security Council resolution on non-proliferation would appear to have fixed the international agenda on nuclear issues for the immediate future at least.
Non-proliferation has always been an American foreign policy objective: the restriction of nuclear weapons and related technology to as few countries as possible was seen to serve US security interests. Forty years ago,the Soviet Union was drawn into this approach at a broad level,even while bilaterally the nuclear arms race flourished. The NPT was the product of this approach,one that was bought by almost all countries,those with the industrial base to have nuclear ambitions and those without. It is significant that the infamous Article XIV on entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty identified only 44 countries with the potential of nuclear weapons,out of a UN membership of 192 countries and not all those 44 are in agreement with
the approach.
The much maligned Bush administration recognised the dangers of this formalistic approach,and while not ceding any ground on the issue of nuclear disarmament,it diluted its emphasis on formal treaties and proposed innovative structures such as the Container Security Initiative,the Proliferation Security Initiative,UN Security Council Resolution 1540 aimed at non-state actors,and,with Russia,the Global Initiative to counter Nuclear Terrorism. Like the current US administration,the fear was of nuclear terrorism; but,there was the recognition that the NPT would not and had not helped the US in facing the new challenges of the 21st century.
While continuing most of the Bush administrations initiatives,the Obama administration has chosen to go back to the comfort of the NPT there has been change,but it has been retrogressive. This return to control and compliance disarming the unarmed,as one of the more imaginative Pakistani ambassadors put it has been clothed with rhetoric regarding nuclear disarmament. The NPT does not refer to nuclear disarmament except cursorily in the preamble and,even more casually,in Article VI of the treaty.
The attempt,it is said,is to revive this pillar of the bargain Article VI of the NPT speaks of all parties undertaking good faith negotiations on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament,and a treaty on general and complete disarmament. The Security Council resolution adopted on September 24 merely reiterates Article VI of the NPT. The resolution is clearly aimed at control of countries other than the P-5. That it was adopted unanimously was possibly due to the so-called Obama effect.
India remains unimpressed. The resolution,clearly meant to shore up the faltering NPT in advance of the 2010 Review Conference in May,has been stoutly rejected. Was this an over-reaction? It was clear that the resolution was not aimed at India though the operative para 4 reiterates a perennial call for the three outliers to the NPT to join as non-nuclear weapon states. (It is interesting that it was found necessary for the US to officially state this,and to clarify that the resolution did not adversely affect the implementation of the Indo-US nuclear agreement.)
With no innovative ideas,the resolution focuses on countries not in compliance with their treaty obligations,presumably Iran and the DPRK (North Korea). India has reiterated its support for such a position,as it has reiterated support for non-proliferation. The objection lies not in the objectives but in the approach. The objection to the discriminatory nature of the NPT is not just rhetoric; it is a belief that this has and would continue to encourage breakouts. Also,the NPT permitted proliferation in Indias neighbourhood,and while China and Pakistan may not have been members of the NPT at the time,the rest of the non-proliferation community accepted the proliferation with a wink and a nod. Proliferation and its consequent dangers,India has stated,can only be tackled through universal and verifiable nuclear disarmament.
As far as India is concerned,there is a twist in the tale: while no one in India would favour India signing the NPT,it does not appear that there is a national consensus on the governments stand on nuclear disarmament. Witness the recent kerfuffle about Pokharan-II,leading American commentators to dub both India and Pakistan as insecure nuclear weapon states. There is thus a need to have a wide debate on the issue of eventual universal nuclear disarmament and whether it is in Indias security interests to have a nuclear weapon free world. Without such a consensus (not unanimity),our protestations for a world free of nuclear weapons will be as credible as the current US efforts to persuade the world that that is its eventual objective.
The writer,a former diplomat,was Indias ambassador
to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament
express@expressindia.com
-
Share
-
-
-
Share
