By Anant Mishra
05 Feb , 2016
We define nuclear proliferation as the “spread of nuclear weapons, fissionable material, and weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information”. Right from the World War II, especially in 1950s and 60s, a large number of nuclear tests were conducted, and by the end of 1960s, we witnessed the rise of five major nuclear power nations: The United States, France, United Kingdom, China and Russia (Soviet Union at the time).
After September 11, gaining nuclear status was a priority by most of the nation’s especially with “rogue states” and terrorist groups…
Along with these developments, other nations continued to pursue the objective of becoming a nuclear capacity: India, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Israel and later North Korea. At this time the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was ratified (1970) and it was estimated that by 2000s, 10 to 20 nations will be in the possession of nuclear weapons. With further ratification of NPT and other international legal instruments, including the UN Security Council resolutions, today, there are nine nations who are capable of launching nuclear weapon.
Various researches predicted those nations which could acquire nuclear weapons, when would it happen, the number of weapons the power nations would have, along with implications of these weapons on world peace. After September 11, gaining nuclear status was a priority by most of the nation’s especially with “rogue states” and terrorist groups which created the urgency for international agency of monitoring and containing nuclear proliferation.
The last decade we saw two major discussions in nuclear context: India and Iran. India agreed to separate its civil and military nuclear weapon programmes and limit the latter programme in 2008 in exchange for entering into full civil nuclear cooperation with the United States. Iran, which was alleged to be in the process of developing a nuclear weapon, buckled under international pressure and UN-mandated sanctions in 2015 and entered into a ground breaking agreement with the permanent members of the Security Council, Germany and the European Union.
As of today, some member nations of the UN have not ratified NPT: India, Pakistan, North Korea and South Sudan. All these except South Sudan are in possession of nuclear weapons.
Against this background, governments and experts have tried to predict what the future of nuclear proliferation is. Although there appears to be universal agreement as to the need for containing the spread of nuclear technology save for civil purposes and research, a phenomenon of “rogue states” (North Korea being the prime example in recent years) threatens this goal. Key strategies to prevent proliferation of nuclear arms include limiting the number of operating uranium enrichment plants and controlling the export of nuclear technology and fissile material.
Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
The Treaty of Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (also known as NPT) was opened for signatures in 1968 and was forced two years later. This treaty recognizes five nations as a nuclear power: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China (which are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council). NPT is based on the basic understanding that nuclear nations “agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals”. More nations have ratified NPT than any other disarmament of arms acts.
NPT gave clear instructions to nuclear weapons state “not to transfer nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices” and “not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce” a non-nuclear weapon state to acquire nuclear weapons (Article I). Nuclear Weapons state promised not to “receive,” “manufacture” or “acquire” nuclear weapons nor “seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons” (Article II). Article VI speaks about the commitment in the area of nuclear disarmament, stating that: “each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament.” NPT advocates peaceful use of nuclear energy; Article IV allows the development of civilian nuclear energy for those nations interested in, as long as they can demonstrate the use of nuclear energy for “civilian” purposes.
On 2nd April 2015 Iran and the P5+1 nations reached on a provisional framework agreement. The agreement clearly stated that most of the sanctions imposed on Iran would be lifted if Iran agrees to limit its Nuclear Program for at least ten years.
As of today, some member nations of the UN have not ratified NPT: India, Pakistan, North Korea and South Sudan. All these except South Sudan are in possession of nuclear weapons. In 2008 India signed a deal with the US, agreeing to the fact that, this largest democracy will separate its civil and military nuclear facilities and will place all its civil nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) oversight. In exchange, the United States agreed towards a full civil nuclear cooperation. For few years, there was widespread discontent as who would be liable in case of a nuclear incident; this was further settled in early 2015 when an additional agreement between USA and India transferred the financial risk to insurers in the case of an accident.
The Nuclear Deal
Iran began developing its Nuclear technologies in the early 1970s, with US by its side. Iran signed the NPT in 1968 as a non-nuclear state and ratified it in 1970. After the revolution in 1979, Iran’s nuclear programme came to a halt due to Ayatollah Khomeini’s rejection of nuclear power. However, in the late 1980s, with the assistance from Pakistan, the nuclear programme restarted. In 2002, the existence of heavy water facility in Arak along with an enrichment facility in Natanz was opened for the public.
In November 20004, Iran became a signatory to the so-called Paris Agreement with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, where Iran pledged to temporarily suspend enrichment and conversion activities, and specifically “the manufacture and import of gas centrifuges and their components; the assembly, installation, testing or operation of gas centrifuges; work to undertake any plutonium separation, or to construct or operate any plutonium separation installation; and all tests or production at any uranium conversion installation”.
After Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became the President, the talks ended abruptly and Iran unilaterally broke the Paris Agreement by resuming enrichment at Natanz. Agitated by this sudden act, the IAEA referred Iran to the UN Security Council and threatened the nation against “legal” action. In July 2006, Iran reopened the Arak heavy water production plant.
Iran is only allowed to enrich uranium up to 3.67%, only at the facility in Natanzfor at least 15 years. During this period, Iran further agreed not to build any new uranium enriching or heavy water facilities.
The world witnessed another series of bilateral talks between Iran and the United States, which took place in March 2013. In November 2013 the P5+1 countries (permanent members of the Security Council and Germany) and Iran agreed for a joint plan of action, which comprised of short freeze of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for a decrease in economic sanctions. The parties pledge to continue talk and carve this agreement into a longer agreement. IAEA intensified its inspections in Iran, and concluded with the fact that Iran was adhering to the terms of interim agreement, including stopping enrichment of uranium to 20%, reducing the stockpile of 20% uranium and halting work at Arak heavy water reactor.
On 2nd April 2015 Iran and the P5+1 nations reached on a provisional framework agreement. The agreement clearly stated that most of the sanctions imposed on Iran would be lifted if Iran agrees to limit its Nuclear Program for at least ten years.
The final signatory between the parties took place on 14 July 2015 in Vienna between Iran, the P5+1, and the European Union. The main provisions of the deal were as follows:
Iran agreed to cut the stockpile of low enriched uranium by 98% and eliminate the stockpile of medium enriched uranium
Iran further agreed to limit the number of centrifuges by 2/3 over a period of 15 years
Iran also agreed on not to enrich uranium at its Fordow facility for at least 15 years
Iran is only allowed to enrich uranium up to 3.67%, only at the facility in Natanzfor at least 15 years
During this period, Iran further agreed not to build any new uranium enriching or heavy water facilities
During the time of the deal, Iran was capable of acquiring a nuclear weapon within 2-3 months, now this period will extend to a year, for at least 10 years
Experts doubt whether unequal distribution of nuclear weapons (majority of which is concentrated in P5 countries) along with highly volatile nations (e.g. North Korea) will move towards the path of nuclear disarmament.
The IAEA will have regular access to Iran’s nuclear facilities; inspectors will have further access to its supply chain which supports the nuclear program
The Arak reactor will be rebuilt, based on the design that P5+1 nations have agreed, in an effort to promote nuclear energy for civilian purposes
Iran will not build any new heavy water reactors for at least 15 years
U.S. and E.U. nuclear related sanctions will be lifted after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps; the same applies to UN Security Council resolutions
The deal received unanimous positive reactions from the world, also from the Arab states and the Persian Gulf (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Qatar) followed by nations from the Muslim world. Pakistan welcomed the agreement, saying that “reciprocal confidence-building measures … augur well for peace and security in our region”.
The Future Ahead
A variety of reactions have been received from the global nations, on the context of nuclear weapons. Experts doubt whether unequal distribution of nuclear weapons (majority of which is concentrated in P5 countries) along with highly volatile nations (e.g. North Korea) will move towards the path of nuclear disarmament. However, there are some who believes, the path to nuclear disarmament is far from reach instead a nuclear threat is eminent, while some say that nuclear power helps balance the power globally. In the past wide reaching peace accords have been signed involving directly and indirectly nuclear power nations, however the true effects of disarmament are still beyond our reach.
Nations such as North Korea and Pakistan may prove highly volatile especially with large surplus of nuclear weapons and establish friendship solely on the basis of these stockpiles, particularly the United States, the threat is far from over.
Global Zero, a think tank that deliberately discuss the effects of nuclear weapons states that: “Nuclear weapons cannot be used [to] tackle threats posed by rogue states, failed states, proliferation, regional conflicts, terrorism, cyber warfare”. On the contrary, the World Security Council blames the extinction of mankind solely on nuclear weapons: “Nuclear weapons are a crime against future generations because they have the power to obliterate life on earth as we know it and cause unimaginable damage spanning many generations to come”.
Not long ago, a report published by the Brookings Institution highlights the short sighted geopolitical calculations. It states that “if threshold states perceive the United States either as antagonistic power or as an unreliable ally, they are more likely to pursue independent nuclear weapons programs”. Nations such as North Korea and Pakistan may prove highly volatile especially with large surplus of nuclear weapons and establish friendship solely on the basis of these stockpiles, particularly the United States, the threat is far from over. Another thing to worry about is the role of suspected terrorists and militant’s ability to acquire nuclear weapons, especially from the host, with Brooking’s analysis, nuclear threat such as this, is eminent. This refers all the more strongly to countries like Pakistan, which face the challenge of protecting their nuclear arsenal from terrorist activity in the region.
© Copyright 2016 Indian Defence Review
Gwadar is poor. When a house was recently burgled in the fishing settlement on Pakistan’s desert coast, the only items stolen were cans of fresh water – a staple that has soared in value since reservoirs dried up. It lies in Balochistan, a province in the grip of a long-running separatist insurgency and Pakistan’s most neglected. 
