The Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime - Essay Example

The nuclear nonproliferation regime/ treaty Name Course Date Tutor The nuclear nonproliferation regime/ treaty Introduction At the time that the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons was opened for signature in 1968, many people feared that the number of nuclear weapon states would grow from 20 to 30 by the century and that would be a dangerous situation. In fact, it is the list of nonproliferation signatures, which has steadily grown over the years (ElBaradei, 2003). Considering there are 189 signed parties, the nonproliferation treaty is now the most widely ratified arms control agreement and is considered the cornerstone of the global nuclear nonproliferation regime. According to Frank Aiken, the Irish foreign minister, who made such a treaty at the United Nations, it is a practical and vital step away from conflict and towards a peaceful and cooperative world. Background Dwight Eisenhower did a speech titled, the ‘Atoms of peace’, in 1953 and it came after the failure of earlier efforts by the country at nonproliferation. At the end of the World War 2, America had the only nuclear weapons in world and Truman proposed to destroy the US nuclear arsenal if other countries agreed not to acquire and use them and would permit inspections (George 1992). Russia was quick to reject the method and decided to go ahead with the manufacture of atomic weapons. Discussions on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons arrived at a 1961 consensus resolution claiming states, which already had nuclear weapons should undertake so as to refrain from the relinquishing of control and others would refrain from the transmission of information for their manufacturer to the states which possess them. The United States provided an agreement considering the decision made by Soviet Union when there was disarmament conference in 1962. Responses by the soviet state were antagonistic to the west. This is considering there was a cold war that was at its peak at the time. They insisted that a treaty forbidding the arrangements of America and the allies be made concerning the deployment of United States soldiers in West Germany. This was about nuclear weapons under the control of Americans. In order to provide a compromise, the Americans gave up on the multilateral force, and the Soviet state gave up on refusing US nuclear weapons deployment from West Germany. This was a conditional release that the weapons remain in America control. There were negotiations for the acceptance for acceptance by the governments, which did not have nuclear weapons and the governments that served them. It was supposed to include a few inspections that were done by a representative of the IAEA and a pursuant to the NPT. There were countries, which objected of course including Pakistan and India. America had tried to restrain Israel from getting nuclear weapons in the 60s and so they were not obliged to join. The Chinese and the French were in the negotiations but they had already developed these nuclear weapons by the time negotiations were done. The statement allowed them to join up with the treaty. They also had the same rights and duties, the same as the other participants of the treaty. The nuclear weapons enabled countries at this point were Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. States had already joined the consensus and began signing by 1968. It was a statute by 1970. There were also negotiations by the IAEA on the potential parties because of the scope of inspections, which were done on the non-nuclear states. The statutes revealed that it would need checks every five years courtesy of the NPT conferences concerning implementation of what the treaty provided like the assistance of non-nuclear states. This was for peaceful uses and the reductions of nuclear weapons. It also involved disarmament procedures for nuclear states. Current situation The treaty has been lucky considering the agreements have variably increased from different quarters. However there have been set backs of course as one of the big hits came from the Iraq being able to hide nuclear weapons stock and providing hindrances to the its IAEA inspectors before the gulf war. These are some of the occurrences that have created an effort for the inspection of nuclear weapons in non-nuclear states or the countries, which are suspected of having weapons. The ones behind the protocol for 1997 model did not agree to the NPT and there was a requirement for the interested parties to accept the model. Additionally, during 2003, only 81 of the 187 states who had signed the nonproliferation treaty that had provided their final approval through parliamentary consensus. America, which is supposed to be at the forefront, did not adopt the legislation for the new safeguards agreement. As a result, the other non-nuclear weapon states shied away from the task and asked why they were taking nuclear nonproliferation obligations seriously even when America rejected one. These states are very sensitive to double standards. The CTBT prohibition on nuclear testing and proposed other methods new types of nuclear weapons for itself (Stanley Foundation Conference, 2003). The discovery of Iran’s failure to disclose experiments with plutonium and uranium enrichment has triggered concern over the past years. The use of environment monitoring and some other techniques at the undeclared sites, Iran permitted them to check has allowed inspectors to get to some suspicious items at the sites. There were tiny samples of un-enriched uranium, reported to the organization but Iran was not forthcoming on information concerning these finds. When it has was negotiations with the nuclear states including United Kingdom, Germany, and France, Iran signed additional protocols that allowed broader inspections to be put aside against the uranium enrichment plan. There are other situations, which have prompted concern including uranium enrichment of Iraq. These include Iran and North Korea, which have brought forth calls for the NPT not to permit efforts. There are apprehensions apparently that when a country gains access to nuclear weapons or energy, it is going to withdraw from the NPT. This is the same way North Korea, made stocks of weapons from usable uranium or plutonium. According to the nuclear supplier’s organizations, uranium enrichment and plutonium plants of non-nuclear states should be done under multilateral ownership in a way the other partners can check on the state and each other (Stanley Foundation Conference, 2003). However, there are some exceptions, which have happened. For example, some Eastern European countries, Japan and even Argentina have experimented with enrichment, which would be against this. The Bush administration has also had a lot of controversy attached to it. This is because it endorsed the use of nuclear weapons and placed pressure on Iran and Iraq. It also made it clear that it wanted to use the weapons against Iran or any other Middle Eastern threat. This is even if the party was allied with a nuclear weapon state. America did not abide by the promise that it made, which was important in gaining support for non-nuclear weapons NPT states for renewal of the treaty. Legal and political frameworks for the nuclear nonproliferation treaty This is the main part of the NPT treaty provides a legally binding framework. Some of the principles of the legal framework are shown in the following text. “States have not purchased or came up with nuclear weapons technology by 1967 agreed they would not get them.” “States, which have tested nuclear weapons in 1967, shall agree to move forward to eventual disarmament.” “Non-nuclear weapon states should have access to nuclear technology (Council on Foreign Relations, 2013).” The legal framework suggests that the states, which do not have access to nuclear technology will be subject to safeguards. This ensures against the unwarranted conversion of technology to weapons making (Council on Foreign Relations, 2013). The framework also suggests that the International atomic energy agency should be the implementing body. Its job would be the maintenance and compliance according to requirements of the NPT treaty. The scope and mandate of the IAEA and NPT are wide, but there is a gap in the coverage. There are about 189 states, which are part of the treaty agreement; however, there are three nuclear states like Israel, Pakistan, and India, which became part of it. It is only North Korea, which withdrew in 2003. Considering that enforcement of the treaty were not part of the problem, there is the fact that almost half of the nuclear states are not included in the provisions in this context. The elements of the treaty have not yet come into effect because there has been opposition from some sectors. This includes the United States as part of a nuclear weapons bloc, which has similar interests. There has been some progress though and this is the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty of 1996. The nuclear test ban treaty had been signed by 183 countries though it cannot be successfully effected until a designated number of states, which have that have significant military nuclear capacity have ratified it. In this group, not all of the important ones like Israel, India, Pakistan, and the United States had complied with this. The United States was put on the spot for criticizing progress, Obama’s government signaled claimed they were going to consult with the on the matter as well as, the ratification of the CTBT (Council on Foreign Relations, 2013). The current review concerning the NPT as of 2010 had finished with a bit of success. This is because the outcome document could give a few signatories for the considerations of the treaty. It also came up with some specific modes of operation for both inspection and disarmament as it called for elimination of Nuclear weapons through building a nuclear weapons free zone. The requirement for some agreement came up with complications and these included needs for verification, which were eliminated. The future of the nonproliferation treaty The NPT review ended without anyone agreeing on the final document. Parties were asking if the entire concept of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty was in trouble. Thoughts concerning the next review conference do not seem very bright now. This is also because of the situation in Moscow and the tensions between them and Washington. The west is currently pressuring on the new arms control agreements. The trouble with this is that there are no multilateral agreements from the ongoing negotiations in sight. However, it seems that the nonproliferation treaty is quite strong because the majority of the NPT countries have the best wishes on nonproliferation. It is true that noncompliance on some issues is detrimental to the goal (Joseph, 1985. By evaluating the state of the treaty and see why the 2015 conferences failed to produce a final document, one has to see things from a different view. Things have been running the same way considering that ending the review for the treaty every few years has concluded without a final document for some time now. They have not come to an agreement in a number of conferences including the ones for 1980, 1990, 2005, and 2015, since the treaty came into full effect in 1970. One cannot use the conference that recently ended to judge the trends of the NPT treaty. There have been times where a standoff between the nuclear powers and the nonproliferation treaty managed to be intact (2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 2015). The negotiation conditions that are currently ongoing between Russia and the United States may not be in the best terms and this is not good for talks concerning bilateral disarmament. During the latest conference, there were times that the two criticized each other because of noncompliance on situations where each other had not held up international agreements. On a positive note, both the United States and Russia have gone on to carry out some arms control agreements. This includes the new strategic arms reduction treaty. At the present, Russia is not a fan of the proposal by the US to reduce stocks of nuclear weapons to a number of about 100 warheads for each country. According to the Russians, for there to be a reduction in the stocks, the United States has to stop hindering the expansion of ballistic missile defense sites. Russia is also against America’s unilateral treaty concerning the use of weapons in outer space. If the state of the deadlock changes by a given in either direction or a change in the government politics then it could actively and successively restart multilateral disarmament initiatives back to the table. References Joseph, S. Nye Jr. (1985).“NPT: The Logic of Inequality,” Foreign Policy, No. 59, pp. 123–131. 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. (2015). “Draft Final Document,” NPT/CONF.2015/R.3, p. 22. Council on Foreign Relations. (2013). The Global Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cfr.org/nonproliferation-arms-control-and-disarmament/global-nuclear-nonproliferation-regime/p18984 George Bunn, Arms Control by Committee: Managing Negotiations with the Russians (Stanford University Press, 1992), pp. 59-72 ElBaradei, M.(2003).“Towards a Safer World,” The Economist, pp. 47-48; Stanley Foundation Conference.(2003). “Global Disarmament Regimes: A Future or a Failure?”,p. 2 Read More