The Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference:
Breakthrough or Bust in '05?
Letter published by the Financial Times
Back to the main page on the 2005
NPT Review Conference.
From Mr Nigel Chamberlain.
Sir, Your editorial on the Non-Proliferation Treaty ("It ain't
broke, but needs fixing", May 2) was prescient and timely at the
start of four weeks of discussions on its future in New York.
The protracted negotiations with Iran over the extent and intent
of its nuclear programme has certainly had a detrimental effect
in the run-up to the Review Conference, as has the thorny issue
of how to respond to the withdrawal of North Korea from the treaty.
These two particular examples have concentrated minds about how
to provide controlled access to nuclear fuel cycles while ensuring
that technology, material and expertise are not diverted to nuclear
weapons programmes.
The historic example of the five "declared" nuclear weapon states
in misusing their nuclear power programmes as cover for nuclear
weapon programmes is instructive, as are the more recent examples
provided by Israel, India and Pakistan - all of which stand defiantly
outside the provisions of the NPT and thus are not subject to International
Atomic Energy Authority safeguards and inspection. Yet none of the
three appears to attract anywhere near the level of opprobrium levelled
at Iran and North Korea.
Iran has become the new test case for the NPT, as you state, but
the objective of the treaty is the elimination of all holdings of
nuclear weapons - everywhere. Iran does not possess nuclear weapons
and professes, repeatedly, no desire to acquire them. On the other
hand, the five "declared" nuclear weapon states are supposed to
be in the business of removing the discriminatory nature of the
treaty by joining the overwhelming majority and becoming non-nuclear
weapons states themselves, sooner rather than later. Restatement
of that agreed objective and reductions in warhead stockpiles do
not amount to fulfilment of the grand bargain.
As South Africa, one of those nations that held and then renounced
nuclear weapons, said in its opening statement to the Review Conference
this week: "Those who rely on nuclear weapons to demonstrate and
exercise power should recognise that such dependence on weapons
of mass destruction only serves to increase insecurity rather than
promote security, peace and development. Our belief is that nuclear
weapons are illegitimate, irrespective in whose hands these weapons
are."
Nigel Chamberlain, Nuclear Analyst, British American Security Information
Council, London N1 6HT
|
