Who Needs Nuclear Arms?

“It is unacceptable that some tend to limit the access to peaceful nuclear technology to an exclusive club of technologically advanced states under the pretext of non-proliferation.” That was the key charge made by Iran’s spokesman at the ongoing United Nations Conference to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). It is a charge heard widely and increasingly among the 184 states that committed themselves to forego the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons when they signed the NPT.

Under the agreement, which entered into force in 1970, only five states are permitted to produce nuclear weapons because they “manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to 1 January 1967”: the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France. The five also agreed to pursue general and complete disarmament. As yet, however, they have made only one serious move toward the reduction of the nuclear threat to the world: the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1996.

The five states insisting on owning nuclear weapons for their security, among them the U.S., are now facing a steady stream of criticism for their failure to prod India, Pakistan, and Israel into ending their nuclear arms production and accede to the NPT, just like 181 of the 189 member states have done. North Korea is the only known NPT member state that withdrew from the Treaty and openly admitted building nuclear arms in violation of its Treaty obligation. Another violator, the Republic of South, dismantled its nuclear arms production in 1991, and signed the Treaty.

Under the NPT, the five nuclear arms producing states agreed not to help others obtain nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency was created to inspect the nuclear installations in non-nuclear weapons states, verify compliance with the NPT, and establish safeguards for the transfer of fissionable materials between countries.

The Bush administration in particular is encountering severe criticism for its failure to work for a nuclear-free Middle East. Why, so the critics ask, does the U.S. aid and abet Israel’s defiance of the NPT while insisting that Iran should not even develop uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes?

Iran’s foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, spoke for many midsize and smaller countries when he bitterly complained that the U.S. and Europe are “trying to keep an exclusive hold on technological advancement.” He insisted that Iran will pursue “all legal areas of nuclear technology, including enrichment, exclusively for peaceful purposes.”

A few months ago, U.S. intelligence experts testified in a Congressional hearing that it would take Iran another five to seven more years to produce a nuclear weapon. Yet, in his address to the Conference, Stephen Rademaker, a U.S. assistant secretary of state, did not even grant the Iranians their sovereign right to develop a non-military nuclear energy industry. He insisted that the U.S. demands no less than the “permanent cessation of Iran’s enrichment and reprocessing efforts, as well as the dismantlement of equipment facilities related to such activity.”

It is not all clear what the Bush administration is trying to achieve by denying Iran even the right to civilian atomic energy production. Consider that on the same day when Rademaker denied Iran the right to produce nuclear energy for civilian purposes, President Bush extolled nuclear energy for America as “one of the safest, cleanest sources of power in the world.”

In response to Rademaker’s rejection of Iran’s plea, delegates from other non-nuclear weapons states charged that the U.S. is making no effort whatsoever toward its own nuclear disarmament. Kharrazi put it bluntly: “The continued existence of thousands of nuclear warheads in the nuclear weapon states’ stockpile, which can destroy the entire globe many times over, are the major sources of threat to peace and security.”

Faced with the Bush administration’s uncompromising line toward Iran, Mohamed El Baradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency urged moderation. “I think in diplomacy if you offer more, you get more,” he told The New York Times. “Iran is no exception. If you offer trade, technology and security, you ought to be able to get good assurances on the nuclear issue.”

President Kennedy had it right: “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.”

Wolf D. Fuhrig	Home	05-08-05
Who Needs Nuclear Arms?
“It is unacceptable that some tend to limit the access to peaceful nuclear technology to an exclusive club of technologically advanced states under the pretext of non-proliferation.” That was the key charge made by Iran’s spokesman at the ongoing United Nations Conference to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). It is a charge heard widely and increasingly among the 184 states that committed themselves to forego the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons when they signed the NPT. Under the agreement, which entered into force in 1970, only five states are permitted to produce nuclear weapons because they “manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to 1 January 1967”: the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France. The five also agreed to pursue general and complete disarmament. As yet, however, they have made only one serious move toward the reduction of the nuclear threat to the world: the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty of 1996. The five states insisting on owning nuclear weapons for their security, among them the U.S., are now facing a steady stream of criticism for their failure to prod India, Pakistan, and Israel into ending their nuclear arms production and accede to the NPT, just like 181 of the 189 member states have done. North Korea is the only known NPT member state that withdrew from the Treaty and openly admitted building nuclear arms in violation of its Treaty obligation. Another violator, the Republic of South, dismantled its nuclear arms production in 1991, and signed the Treaty. Under the NPT, the five nuclear arms producing states agreed not to help others obtain nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency was created to inspect the nuclear installations in non-nuclear weapons states, verify compliance with the NPT, and establish safeguards for the transfer of fissionable materials between countries. The Bush administration in particular is encountering severe criticism for its failure to work for a nuclear-free Middle East. Why, so the critics ask, does the U.S. aid and abet Israel’s defiance of the NPT while insisting that Iran should not even develop uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes? Iran’s foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, spoke for many midsize and smaller countries when he bitterly complained that the U.S. and Europe are “trying to keep an exclusive hold on technological advancement.” He insisted that Iran will pursue “all legal areas of nuclear technology, including enrichment, exclusively for peaceful purposes.” A few months ago, U.S. intelligence experts testified in a Congressional hearing that it would take Iran another five to seven more years to produce a nuclear weapon. Yet, in his address to the Conference, Stephen Rademaker, a U.S. assistant secretary of state, did not even grant the Iranians their sovereign right to develop a non-military nuclear energy industry. He insisted that the U.S. demands no less than the “permanent cessation of Iran’s enrichment and reprocessing efforts, as well as the dismantlement of equipment facilities related to such activity.” It is not all clear what the Bush administration is trying to achieve by denying Iran even the right to civilian atomic energy production. Consider that on the same day when Rademaker denied Iran the right to produce nuclear energy for civilian purposes, President Bush extolled nuclear energy for America as “one of the safest, cleanest sources of power in the world.” In response to Rademaker’s rejection of Iran’s plea, delegates from other non-nuclear weapons states charged that the U.S. is making no effort whatsoever toward its own nuclear disarmament. Kharrazi put it bluntly: “The continued existence of thousands of nuclear warheads in the nuclear weapon states’ stockpile, which can destroy the entire globe many times over, are the major sources of threat to peace and security.” Faced with the Bush administration’s uncompromising line toward Iran, Mohamed El Baradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency urged moderation. “I think in diplomacy if you offer more, you get more,” he told The New York Times. “Iran is no exception. If you offer trade, technology and security, you ought to be able to get good assurances on the nuclear issue.” President Kennedy had it right: “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.”

Wolf D. Fuhrig

Home

05-08-05

Who Needs Nuclear Arms?