Date: 02/06/2014
E-Mail- dinakar_peri@yahoo.co.in
The debate on non-proliferation and global disarmament pops up periodically in global circles whenever there is a nuclear related incident in any part of the globe. Though the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been largely successful in maintaining a semblance and balance on the nuclear front, it is essentially a treaty of the cold war and is not reflective of the changing times. In addition to that some of the measures are very vague which limit its ability in dealing with certain aspects of checking proliferation. It was essentially put in place to preserve the exclusive domain of the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and prevent the Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) from getting access to them. In that way it is discriminatory. One of the biggest drawbacks in the current form of the NPT is the lack of clarity on verification and a clear framework for disarmament as a long term objective. Though article III of the treaty prohibits the transfer of nuclear weapon related or dual use materials from NWS to NNWS it is very vaguely defined leaving enough room for self-interpretation and justification. Another chink in the armor of the NPT is there is no mention of non-state actors which is a more recent but significant threat. Let’s briefly look into these three broad aspects and the improvements that need to be incorporated in the NPT with respect to them.
Disarmament: The single biggest drawback of the NPT which has resulted in it being termed discriminatory by many is the distinction between the haves and have not’s with no clear time frame for universal disarmament. This creates dichotomy in terms of the stipulations for different groups and a feeling of insecurity for the have not’s which at a later stage might prompt some NNWS to take the nuclear route. Inequality only aggravates proliferation in the long run. There are enough instances of this happening in the past. For instance, the NNWS in Europe are provided nuclear security under the NATO Umbrella while the gulf countries havesecurity guarantees from the US and it’s rumored that the US would extend itsnuclear umbrella if the need arises. This creates a huge imbalance in regional issues and can prompt countries to take steps to counter them. We have countries like India, Israel and Pakistan which possess nuclear weapons but are outside the NPT as they feel it is biased and discriminatory. Then there is the DPRK which has walked out of the treaty and tested nuclear weapons while the world just watched helplessly. Iran poses a different challenge from these. It is a signatory of the NPT and claims its nuclear program is peaceful in nature but its activities are not transparent. So as long as there are nuclear weapons there will be proliferation, though it may be contained to a reasonable extent. The only sensible answer is total disarmament. That is a near impossible task given the current global geopolitical situation and there should be a global discussion on a long term time bound road map for eventual renunciation of nuclear weapons by all. Any such effort should start with the NWS taking the lead in cutting down their nuclear stockpiles and till that is achieved there is a need to further strengthen the nonproliferation regime given the loopholes that have surfaced. This brings to the fore the issue of verifications.
Verifications: Within the limited budget, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has so far done and is doing a commendable job in monitoring nuclear facilities across the globe. There is a delicate balance between perceived intrusion into sovereign domain and a robust verification mechanism and there is need to improve and further strengthen the current verification regime. There is also need for countries outside the NPT to be brought into the fold to accomplish that. Further complicating this is the growing threat from non-state actors which is only increasing by the day. In fact, the threat from non-state actors is likely to go up substantially in future and outgrow the threat from nation states. Heavens forbid if non state actors lay their hands on nukes or even fissile material, it is a catastrophe as they do not belong to any one nation or not bound by rationality. They will surely use the fissile material to assemble a dirty bomb and cause enough political damage in addition to loss of lives. This requires a new paradigm in the way the monitoring of fissile material production and movement is undertaken. This calls for a truly global effort as it’s a threat for any sovereign nation. Modifications to this effect need to me incorporated in the NPT clearly defining the threat and the measures to address them.
Reprocessing: Though the NPT gives the right to nations to set up all the stages of nuclear fuel cycle, reprocessing is a sensitive area which takes nations closer to the threshold of building nuclear weapons. This is a contentious area and even though the nuclear facilities are under the IAEA safeguards, there is still enough scope for diversion as is the case with Iran which is expa nding its enrichment facilities by setting up more centrifuges. Thus a plausible way out to diffuse the standoff and also avoid potential future conflicts is the establishment of a fuel bank or a global reprocessing facility where reprocessing can be done under IAEA supervision. This will also give poorer nations that do not have the financial and technical resources access to nuclear energy which is considered relatively cheaper and cleaner than fossil fuels. Though a consensus is difficult to arrive on a global facility, it is probably the ‘easier to deal with’ propositions in the whole nuclear issue and with some prodding an agreement is indeed possible. Making the required modifications and incorporating it in the NPT is necessary to institutionalize this mechanism and give it a legal framework as well to make it a truly global effort.
The world needs global disarmament but that’s being overly optimistic to the point of being utopian. The more plausible option is to revise NPT at the earliest and abolish the disparities. Even this is difficult but not impossible. As the saying goes, “aim at the sky fall on the tree; aim at the tree fall on the ground”, let’s aim for the sky and in the larger global interest let’s hope concerted action is taken sooner than later.
No comments:
Post a Comment