A month-long UN conference on Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) opened on Monday for the treaty's 190 signatories to undertake quinquennial review of progress on nuclear threat reduction. The focus this time, for a change, is on the US' and Russian stockpiles rather than smaller countries' involvement in proliferation. In his message to the conference, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon reminded the participants that a nuclear-free world is the "historic imperative of our time" regretting that over the past five years the disarmament process seems to have stalled.
The reference is to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) the two countries with the world's largest nuclear stockpiles, US and Russia, signed in April 2010. That and the earlier nuclear arms limitations treaties between the two countries have been aimed at 'reduction' and 'limitation' of nuclear arms, rather than complying with their respective commitments as parties to the NPT, under which the five original nuclear powers undertook to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date, and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament."
According to a recent, ie, March 2015, START declaration, Russia is in possession of 1,582 strategic warheads and about 2000 tactical nuclear warheads while the US has 1,597 strategic weapons and 500 tactical warheads. If non-deployed weapons are to be included the US is in possession of a total of about 4,800 weapons and Russia a lot more. Less than a decade ago, the number of nuclear weapons world-wide was believed to be around 30,000. There have been no concerted efforts to make verifiable reductions in them. Yet the START numbers show a substantial decrease. That is because weapons have a habit of going obsolete, aging pretty fast. Even without reduction/limitation agreements both countries needed to dismantle old and outdated weapons. Reduction in numbers does not mean reduction in risk these weapons pose to other nations. They still have the potential to cause widespread death and destruction. Also, the process of modernisation has been going on with aging weapons being replaced with a new generation of small, smart weapons like bunker busters and earth penetrators.
As regards the spread of nuclear weapons, Western countries adhere to a barefaced discriminatory policy. Israel's nuclear capability is not even mentioned while Iran has been subjected to all kinds of pressures for following suit. And Iraq was invaded and occupied on the pretext that it possessed weapons of mass destruction. Even though India is not a party to the NTP the US has made a civilian nuclear deal with it, getting it a special waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. As a result, India is the only country which is not a NPT signatory and yet is allowed to do nuclear trade with other nations. Pakistan, on the other hand, had to face economic sanctions as punishment for pursuing the same path as India vis-a-vis nuclear programme. This unfair policy has not stopped, will not stop, any serious aspirant from pursuing nuclear option.
It is worthwhile to note that in almost all cases countries achieved nuclear capability, or are known to harbour such ambitions, it is in response to a real or perceived threat from an adversary. Russia's predecessor state, the erstwhile Soviet Union, acquired its nukes four years after the US did, and stayed in a race with it in both nuclear and conventional weapons fields. Iran wants its programme to counter Israel's nuclear threat. Saudi Arabia and certain other countries are fearful of Iran rather than Israel and are interested in nukes to offset its power. Pakistan's nuclear doctrine is based on a minimum deterrence strategy to counter India's nuclear threat as well as disparity in the field of conventional forces. In short, Russia will stay in nuclear arms race with the US; Iran will not give up its ambitions despite the current difficulties as long as Israel maintains its nuclear arsenal; Pakistan will not stop pursuing nuclear weapons unless India stops; and India will not stop unless and until the Big Five are willing, as per NPT commitments, to make good faith efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
That looked an impossible goal until not too ago, not anymore. There are signs of nuclear weapons losing appeal where it matters most. Notably, in a speech he made at the EU-US summit in Prague exactly six year ago, US President Barack Obama sprang a pleasant surprise as he spoke of his desire to see a world without nuclear weapons. "This goal will not be reached quickly," he warned, "perhaps not in my lifetime... but now we too must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change." The change is possible not because of a sudden awakening of a civilised impulse, there are solid reasons demanding change. First and foremost is the constant danger of proliferation, and nuclear material falling into wrong hands. The world's nuclear watchdog, IAEA, has reported a number of cases of nuclear material either having been lost due to negligence or stolen. Secondly, whereas nuclear weapons helped to maintain a balance of terror during the Cold War years, they are of no use in the types of wars the US fought and lost during the last about fourteen years in Afghanistan and Iraq. The country is now working on secret and new technologies based weapons for battlefield dominance. This is a good time for the ongoing NPT review conference to focus on a treaty on general and complete disarmament.
[email protected]
Comments
Comments are closed.