The international communities’ efforts to end the threat of nuclear proliferation through multilateral means began in the 1950s. The United States President has always been a key fixture in global efforts to end the threat of nuclear war.
By Shermineh Esmati
Analyst on Iran's Geopolitical and Security Affairs
Image Attribute: "Ivy Mike" atmospheric nuclear test - November 1952 The Official CTBTO
Source : Wikipedia
Source : Wikipedia
The international
communities’ efforts to end the threat of nuclear proliferation through
multilateral means began in the 1950s. The United States President has always
been a key fixture in global efforts to end the threat of nuclear war.[1] In
1953, then United States President Eisenhower spoke at the United Nations
General Assembly, discussing Atoms for Peace. His speech led to the creation of
the International Atomic Energy Association on July 29 1957, designed to share
nuclear information with other countries while maintaining peaceful relations.[2] In
1968 the Non-proliferation Treaty was formed to give the IAEA authority for
policing nuclear activities by its members. In the early nineties while
countries were signing to the NPT, the UNSC adopted Resolution 687 requiring
Iraq to eliminate its secret nuclear weapons program leading to strengthened
IAEA safeguards.[3]
Today the greatest challenges to the multilateral efforts against nuclear
warfare is with North Korea and a volatile Middle East.
More generally
when studying the chronology of events we observe the arrangement of meetings
or dates that might have led to historical shifts. In this case, international
engagements against nuclear warfare have chronologically shown little
historical shifts in multilateral peace building. Within scholarly arguments,
there is concern as to whether there has been significant development over
years of numerous multilateral events meant to encourage peaceful nuclear
proliferation. Over time there has been distinct events causing political
division in geographic regions entailing nonproliferation treaty members. As
well, legitimate criticism has been made regarding the structure of these
global organizations unable to hold countries accountable. Nevertheless, when
observing analysis on chronological changes in nuclear nonproliferation, since
the 1950s the problem remains the same structurally and political for
multilateral organizations.
1950 – 1970
Structure:
On March 21st
1963 in a press meeting, United States President John F. Kennedy warned of his
fear that the world was becoming increasingly weaponized for non-peaceful
purposes, “I see the possibility
in the 1970s of a President of the United States having to face a world in
which 20 or 25 nations may have nuclear weapons. I regard that as the greatest
possible danger and hazard.”[4]
The President’s
foreshadowing was supported by a memorandum the Department of Defense provided
to him in secret, explaining that the future costs of nuclear weapons programs
would diminish. Former President Kennedy, was correct to fear for his countries
future since cheaper costs in producing weapons would lead to a free for all with
unrestricted testing. Had members of the United Nations Security Council taken
more serious steps to legitimize the IAEA, the United States would not have as
much fear towards dictatorships bent on attaining regional power.
Political Division:
Mohamed ElBadari former
Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, wrote in the Economist
an important point to remind multilateral organizations that we have not
reached the goals of the mid 1960’s.[5] Appropriately, ElBadari
emphasized the need for stronger leadership which he worried might not arise.
He emphasized the real danger of nuclear attacks as seen in Japan that must not
be forgotten,
“The horrors of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki have begun to fade. I worry about nuclear weapons
falling into the hands of terrorists or ruthless dictators.”[6]
He rightfully
fears of the possibility of great harm with the existence of nuclear arms even
in the arsenal of democracies in the west. With better leadership by key
decision makers in the NPT, the disarmament of all countries can only result in
immunity from security anxieties. Leaders in the nuclear nonproliferation organizations
must develop policies that meet to protect populations that politicians in the
1960s did not seriously confront.
1970- 1990
Structure:
Concerning structure, National Security Professor Rizwana Abbasi in her article titled “Why the NPT Needs a Makeover” brought necessary attention to the lack of formal structure in the NPT when compared to the institutional stature of the IAEA.[9] Abbasi brought much needed attention to the weak structure in the nonproliferation treaty that has caused greater challenges for the international community to ensure members and non-members do not take on nuclear tests. Focusing on Pakistan, abiding to the NPT has been challenging considering their testy Indian relations. In 1974 Pakistan had proposed to establish nuclear weapons free zone in South Asia.[10] In 1978 Pakistan remarkably proposed to India a joint Indo-Pakistan declaration to renounce acquisition, manufacture of nuclear weapons and acceptance of IAEA safeguards. Professor Abbasi made a good point, recognizing that all these hopeful initiatives were rejected by India. Ultimately, leaving Pakistan in a security conundrum since the international community has done little to guarantee their safety despite honest efforts.
Political
Division:
As well, Professor
ElBaradei emphasized the poor relations among members of the NPT, where the five
countries permitted nukes, had an indifference to the organizations serious
obligation to world peace. He argued that the in the 1970s the treaty was less
than optimal since it abided to the old saying “The early bird gets the nuke.”[7] The
Professor made a legitimate point since the option of choosing the loophole
permitted India, Pakistan and Israel to own nuclear weapons. A new approach
must be made since non-member states find little reason to join the
organization. Political division is made evident when nuclearized countries
push states not to pursue nuclear proliferation. Elbaradei argued the danger of
division is also evident in the fact that member states operate very close to
weapons capacity.[8] By
assuming that non-member states did not have the knowledge of nuclear weapons
building, it was a dangerous elitist assumption. In order to overcome political
division security concerns of all parties should be heard and weighed.
1990- Present
Structure:
Professor Rizwana Abbasi has also exposed the weakness in the NPT during the 1990s. Where a missile race between Pakistan and India forced the Muslim nation to take on nuclear weapons, changing its militaries once cautious and restrained policy.[12] Abbasi states that the current technique in the nonproliferation treaty has kept Pakistan on guard and within reason,
“Pakistan considers its nukes as a national security life line and strategic asset.”[13]
Though Pakistan has defensive intentions against India's conventional warfare capabilities, thus threats from India makes its adherence to codes of conduct a difficulty, as seen in the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, CSI, IAEA and Illicit Trafficking Database.
Her analyzes was correct to emphasize the need to bridge the gaps and structural flaws in the NPT. With the diminishing quantity of oil reserved for future generations, our growing populations are in urgent need of a well-structured NPT system that provides real benefits to signatories. By confronting the challenges facing nuclear nonproliferation, the multilateral organizations must keep in mind the imminent threat greenhouse gases has brought to an ever growing world population.
Nevertheless the nature of multilateral cooperation has altered very little over time, legitimizing concerns voiced by scholars on the threat of nuclear weapons. Generally, the problems facing structure and political division within nuclear nonproliferation multilateral organizations, have not changed since a solution always depends on the will of key decisions makers. With more effort to remind leaders of the devastating impact nuclear warfare has caused, there is hope multilateral organizations will unify towards achieving world peace.
Political
Division:
As argued by
George Bunn Director of the Arms Control Association, in his article “The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty:
History and Current Problems,” he argued that the United States created
political division by not cooperating with the rules required by all NPT member
states. In 1995 the United States won the agreement of the non-nuclear weapon
states to extend the NPT indefinitely by promising to negotiate a test ban
treaty.[11] He
brought much needed attention to this abuse of power since under the Bush
administration, treaties and regimes were downgraded in importance to upgrade
unilateral efforts including the use of force against Iraq. Bunn’s analysis
laid out the Bush administrations abuse of influence in the NPT, by creating
new types of nuclear weapons that required testing, a military exercise that other
countries were not allowed. As a result, the double standard created by the
Bush administration, has threatened the unity and motivation for member states
to work together.
About The Author:
Shermineh Esmati (C-7295-2016) is an independent analyst on Iran's
Geopolitical and Security Affairs. Shermineh obtained her Bachelor’s
Degree (Honors) in Political Science and History Minor (2012) from University
of Toronto and pursuing her Master’s Degree in International Relations and
National Security Studies (2017) from Harvard University. She can be reached at
her twitter handle @Shermineh2
Cite This Article:
Esmati, S.S "OPINION
| Multilateral Nuclear Nonproliferation Efforts" IndraStra Global 002,
no. 03 (2016): 0062. http://www.indrastra.com/2016/02/OPINION-Multilateral-Nuclear-Nonproliferation-Efforts-002-03-2016-0062.html
| ISSN 2381-3652,
| ISSN 2381-3652,
Works Cited
Author Unknown, “Timeline of the NPT.” Arms Control. https://www.armscontrol.org/system/files/NPT_Timeline.pdf
Abbasi, Rizwana. “Why the NPT Needs a Makeover.” Dawn.
June 14 2015. http://www.dawn.com/news/1187551
Bunn George, “The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty: History
and Current Problems.” Arms Control Association.
December 1 2003.https://www.armscontrol.org/system/files/NPT_Timeline.pdf
Elbadarei,
Mohamed. “Towards a Safer World.” The
Economist. October 16 2003. Vienna http://www.economist.com/node/2137602
Endnotes:
[1]
Author Unknown, “Timeline of the NPT.”
Arms Control. https://www.armscontrol.org/system/files/NPT_Timeline.pdf
[2]
Bunn George, “The Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty: History and Current Problems.” Arms Control
Association. December 1 2003.https://www.armscontrol.org/system/files/NPT_Timeline.pdf
[3]
Ibid.pp 5
[4]Ibid.
pp2
[5]
Elbadarei, Mohamed. “Towards a Safer
World.” The Economist. October 16 2003. Vienna http://www.economist.com/node/2137602
[6]
Ibid.
[7]
Ibid.
[8]
Ibid.
[9]
Abbasi, Rizwana. “Why the NPT Needs a
Makeover.” Dawn. June 14 2015. http://www.dawn.com/news/1187551
[10]
Ibid.
[11]
Bunn, Arms Control Association.
[12]
Abbasi, NPT Makeover.
[13]
Ibid.
