POLITICS: What to Do With the World’s Nuclear Arsenal

By Haider Rizvi Reprint | | Print |

Haider Rizvi

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 20 2006 (IPS) - While widely deplored by the world community, North Korea’s recent nuclear test has also prompted fresh calls for the major powers to get serious about dismantling their own weapons of mass destruction.

While widely deplored by the world community, North Korea’s recent nuclear test has also prompted fresh calls for the major powers to get serious about dismantling their own weapons of mass destruction.

Amid fears of a renewed arms race in response to Pyongyang’s nuclear adventure, diplomats and independent analysts say it is time for the nuclear-armed nations to fulfill their obligations toward disarmament.

“A lack of implementation by nuclear-weapon states of their commitment to work toward disarmament has undermined their moral authority,” Hans Blix, former U.N. chief weapons inspector, told diplomats at a meeting here on Monday.

Blix observed that a number of non-nuclear weapons states felt extremely “frustrated” and, in some cases, even “cheated” because no action has been taken toward disarmament by the nuclear powers.

The five declared nuclear-weapons states – the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China, which can reject any international decision by using their veto power as permanent members of the Security Council – continue to possess thousands of nuclear weapons.

In 2000, delegates at the NPT Review Conference called on the United States and other nuclear powers to eliminate their arsenals, and put forward a raft of practical disarmament measures. Governments pledged to do so, but never matched their words with deeds.

Those steps included entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and negotiations on an international and verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.

Last week, members of the U.N. General Assembly disarmament committee assailed the exclusive focus on North Korea and said Pyongyang’s test underscored the “urgent need” for nuclear powers to get behind the CTBT.

The delegates noted that, despite taking a tough stance on nonproliferation, Washington had failed to indicate its willingness to endorse the CTBT. The U.S. has imposed a unilateral moratorium on testing, but refuses to negotiate a fissile material cutoff..

Thus, some analysts as well as diplomats have come to regard Washington’s own nuclear behaviour as partly responsible for North Korea’s nuclear test.

“North Koreans are correct when they say they are facing nuclear threats,” John Burroughs, director of the New York-based Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy, told IPS.

In condemning North Korea’s test, U.S. President George W. Bush told Japan and North Korea that the U.S. “will meet the full range of our deterrent and security commitments”. Burroughs, a longtime observer of international negotiations on nuclear issues, criticised Pyongyang’s decision to test a nuclear device, but added that “nobody should be surprised” to learn that this was in reaction to the Bush’s 2001 nuclear review policy.

That policy justifies the use of nuclear weapons in what the Bush administration calls a “preventive war”. The U.S. had deployed nuclear weapons in South Korea for 43 years before it decided to withdraw them back in 1991, according to the Federation of American Scientists, a Washington-based independent nuclear watchdog.

Last week, a North Korean diplomat said at a meeting that the response to his country’s weapon test from the United States and other nuclear powers evinced a “gangster-like logic that only big countries could possess weapons and attack and threaten small countries with them”.

For their part, the Iranians have continued to defend their nuclear programme in strong terms – they also claim it is meant for peaceful purposes – by pointing to the fact the U.S. and other four members of the Security Council had failed to act on disarmament, which they see as an act of “hypocrisy and double standards”.

Blix seems to have understood the Korean and Iranian anger against the established members of the nuclear club.

“Had those commitments (on NPT) been kept,” he said, “negotiation with North Korea and Iran would have been less difficult.”

Concerned over the situation in the Korean Peninsula, the 118-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the largest bloc of developing nations in the General Assembly, said this week it would like to see a change in the behaviour of the Big Five on the Security Council.

In a statement, the organisation stressed that efforts towards nonproliferation must be “parallel to simultaneous efforts aiming at nuclear disarmament”.

It described the continued existence of nuclear weapons and their possible use as a “threat to humanity”, and said it was deeply concerned over the “slow pace” of progress towards nuclear disarmament.

Seeking immediate resumption of talks on disarmament, NAM delegates said it was time the nuclear-weapons states start taking concrete steps to ensure the “total elimination” of nuclear weapons.

To achieve that end, Blix suggested that the United States and Russia take the lead by reducing their strategic arsenals first.

“All nuclear-weapons states commit themselves to a policy of no first-use,” he said, urging Washington and Moscow to take their weapons off hair-trigger alert.