The Non-Proliferation Treaty Limit the Spread of Nuclear Weapons - Essay Example

Background information The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was engineered by the need to ensure safety of atomic and nuclear energy after the Japan incident and increasing acquisition of nuclear energy in the world. The United States pioneered the evolution of the Agency through the then president Dwight D Eisenhower. The IAEA led to the formation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was ratified in 1969 and came into effect in 1970 and became international law with eleven Articles. The states which concluded the treaty are referred to as “Parties to the Treaty” (Joyner 2011, p.11). At the beginning, there were only five nuclear weapon states (NWS) namely China, United Kingdom, France, United States and USSR. Since them other states have developed nuclear weapons including Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea which has developed explosive potential. These countries are the only states not party to the Treaty. 190 governments have become party to the treaty since its enactment as international law, there are essentially 189 states since North Korea ratified and later withdrew. These states have been meeting every five years to discuss the way forward on the treaty on what is called a Review Conference (RevCon) and before that there is Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) which allows tabling of papers, drafts, statements and working papers among others to be used in the RevCon (Joyner 2011, p.12). The NPT treaty was designed mainly for the purpose of limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. In Article I and II of the treaty, it provides that nuclear-weapon states (NSW) should not assist states with no nuclear weapons (NNWS) to acquire them. In turn, these countries with no nuclear capability should not try to acquire such weapons. The treaty is normally considered to have three main pillars namely: non-proliferation, disarmament and the privileges to peaceful exploitation of the nuclear technologies (Joyner 2011, p.10). Non-proliferation is aimed at curbing the spread of nuclear materials to other nations with no nuclear capability; the disarmament process is the step by step reduction and final destruction of nuclear warheads in all the states with nuclear capability while the peaceful exploitation of nuclear technologies is the positive use of nuclear energy. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty analysis There are five key actors which are also nuclear weapon states (NWS): United Kingdom, Russia, China, France and United States. These countries are also permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. On the contrary, four other states have openly declared their nuclear statuses without joining the treaty are: Pakistan, North Korea, India and Israel. Israel has created its own policy regarding the usage of its nuclear weapons, a policy known as the opacity policy. Non-Governmental Organizations, NGO are becoming increasingly important and visible players in the Preview Conference and have since contributed materials which have been used in these conferences (Cini 2013, p.3). One main challenge facing the NPT is the fact that its key members, United Kingdom, Russia, China, France and United States which played a significant role in its creation are yet to fully face out its nuclear warheads. According to Cini (2013, p.3) there are more than 25,000 nuclear warheads in the arsenals of these five NWS as compare to 38,000 nuclear weapons that were already there in 1968 when the negotiations on the treaty was concluded. This is a significant failure on the part of the key members to the treaty to honor the treaty. The other challenge that the NPT has to deal with is the non-compliance from ratified countries such as Syria, North Korea and Iran. The threats from North Korea have particularly raised concern for the past couple of years with North Korea ignoring international calls to test its nuclear warheads. Syria and Iran have openly contravened their obligations by continuing to pursue their nuclear weapons interest amidst international calls to halt such programs. Recently the IAEA found Syria to be non-compliant with the NPT obligations by fostering its ambitions of building a nuclear reactor. This is the same case with Iran which has forced the IAEA and UN Security Council to sanction the country and thus emphasizing the importance of full compliance to the treaty. In 2001, China assisted Pakistan to acquire nuclear materials in order for Pakistan to develop nuclear capability (Sokolski 2010, p.17). This move from China was contrary to the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which it is one of the main signatory. Many critics have indicated the lack of willingness among the member state to contribute towards the achievement of the NPT’s goals. This reluctance among the key member states could be blamed for the slow progress in the achievement of NPT goals and specifically the disarmament goal. The recent 2005 Review Conference is a clear evidence of this reluctance and hence indicating that despite the 2010 success, the goals set could be over-realistic and impractical but this remains to be seen as the world edges closer to the 2015 Review Conference (Cini 2013, p.3). The current status of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Under IAEA the NPT has continued to be improved, with the leadership of the UN Security Council and major interest states like the U.S. they have worked towards achieving universal adherence to the IAEA and additional protocols as a result of the lessons learnt from incompliant states such as Syria, Iran and North Korea. The IAEA is also working on discouraging members from abusing the NPT withdrawal clause as recently witnessed by North Korea’s withdrawal (Cini 2013, p.3). The most important things in progress in the IAEA and the need to honor the provisions of the NPT, a notable progress have been witnessed in the nuclear-weapon free zones (NWFZ) and the ASEAN have entered a mutual agreement to revise the protocols to Southeast Asia NWFZ (SEANWFZ) Treaty that has been important in resolving impeding issues. The U.S. has also been on the forefront on consultation with the Central Asia NWFZ (CANWFZ) member to reach a mutual understanding in order to allow the member countries to reach an agreement (Gottemoeller 2013). Another imperative concern that threatens to impede the provisions of the NPT is the easy access to nuclear materials. These materials can be easily exploited by extremist terrorist in achieving their derailed ambitions. The five main actors in the NPT should also commit more in action towards complete disarmament as agreed five decades ago. This is an important consideration because other countries especially the developing countries view the treaty as an act to protect the “nuclear haves” and the “have not” from acquiring this useful energy and protection source. This is generated by the evident reluctance of the key players in the nuclear landscape to completely comply with the NPT regulations that they played an important role in its development (Sokolski 2010, p.17). The NPT and the UN Security Council have achieved a considerable milestone since the ratification of the treaty fifty decades ago. Nonetheless, there are challenges regarding facing these nations as they have been wanting in terms of effectiveness of achieving the goals outlined in the NPT. This is mainly pioneered by the member countries fear of losing their nuclear warheads and their enemies acquire especially with the growing sophistication of terrorist groups and their financial and arsenal capabilities. Most major member states are yet to demolish their nuclear weapons five decades later. This is a clear sign that nearly all members have contravened the treaty and especially the key custodians of the treaty (Joyner 2011, p.10). Many states are supporting the development of international law especially new protocols that will tighten acquisition of nuclear materials (Cini 2013, p.3). Future prospect regarding the laws and treaties working towards the realization of the nuclear disarmament remains uncertain but positive as the key nations including the United States embrace the step by step measure of nuclear weapon reduction. Recommendations on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty It is important for the key actors in the NPT to ensure that the goals of the treaty are finally realized. They can ensure that this is possible by encouraging non-members to comply with the treaty’s provisions and also use trade and aid sanctions to states which are not cooperative. The rationale for this is because such states become safe heavens for terrorist groups to bolster and potentially acquire nuclear materials which will aid them in creating nuclear reactors and finally becoming fully fledged nuclear states or groups. In order to gain substantial progress in the quest of fulfilling the NPT goals, more cooperation and compromise from the key members states is required, as per the 2005 Review Conference, the failure to agree on a final document was mainly because of their reluctance to compromise on their positions (Cini 2013, p.3). In 2010, the parties agreed to a 64- point action plan in order to move forward but still the fulfillment of this action precisely the disarmament requirements is lacking. Also, as the U.S. have pioneered the enforcement of  Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) is one of the most important step towards bolstering non-proliferation among the member states and mitigating nuclear ambitions among the non-members. It is clear that the responsibility of Nuclear Free Zones (NFZ) should be pioneered by the key players in the nuclear landscape, a factor that will encourage other less nuclear armed countries to participate in the process fully. It is now high time for the key members to act more by actions instead of words and to completely adhere to the ambitious 2010 Review Conference inspired by the United States under the leadership of President Obama (Sokolski 2010, p.17). The first recommendations suggested for the member states is to honor their own goals first before calling on resistive and non-compliant member states and other non-members with nuclear capabilities. The recent activities from China its cooperation with non-compliant members to an extent of providing nuclear materials should be condemned if any realistic goal is to be achieved in the near future. Internal disagreement sends a clear message to other states especially non-compliant and non-members that there are hidden agendas among the leading states. With consideration that nuclear capabilities is not only a threat to other states but also a sense of security, it is extremely difficult for non-members to ratify the treaty but will rather opt to be armed in order to avert potential invasion as recently witnessed in the Iraq and Afghanistan U.S. led invasion. It is also recommended for the member states to adapt to the 2010 RevCon 64-point action of final disarmament in order to clearly show willingness of a nuclear free world (Sokolski 2010, p.17). References Cini, J 2013, Can the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty be considered a successful instrument of nuclear arms control? GRIN Verlag, New York. Pp. 3-8. Gottemoeller, R 2013, Forging ahead: Challenges and opportunities for NPT. Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), Tel Aviv. Accessed from http://m.state.gov/md204031.htm Joyner, D 2011, Interpreting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Oxford University Press, Michigan. Pp. 10-27. Sokolski, HD 2010, Reviewing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Strategic Studies Institute, New York. Pp.17-29. Read More