Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 18. november
2012 / Timeline November 18, 2012
Version 3.5
17. November 2012, 19. November 2012
11/18/2012
Iran And The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
By John Scales Avery
In the 1960's, negotiations were started between countries that
possessed nuclear weapons, and others that did not possess them, to
establish a treaty that would prevent the spread of these highly
dangerous weapons, but which would at the same time encourage
cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The resulting
treaty has the formal title Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (abreviated as the NPT). The treaty also aimed at
achieving general and complete disarmament. It was opened for
signature in 1968, and it entered into force on the 11th of May,
1970.
190 parties have joined the NPT, and more countries have ratified
it than any other arms limitation agreement, an indication of the
Treaty's great importance. Four countries outside the NPT have
nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. North
Korea had originally joined the NPT, but it withdrew in 2003.
The NPT has three main parts or “pillars”, 1)
non-roliferation, 2) disarmament, and 3) the right to peaceful use
of nuclear technology. The central bargan of the Treaty is that
“the NPT non-nuclear weapon states agree never to acquire
nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear weapon states agree to share
the benefits of peaceful use of nuclear technology and to pursue
nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their
nuclear arsenals”.
Articles I and II of the NPT forbid states that have nuclear
weapons to help other nations to acquire them. These Articles were
violated, for example, by France, which helped Israel to acquire
nuclear weapons, and by China, which helped Pakistan to do the
same. They are also violated by the “nuclear sharing”
agreements, through which US tactical nuclear weapons will be
transferred to several countries in Europe in a crisis situation.
It is sometimes argued that in the event of a crisis, the NPT would
no longer be valid, but there is nothing in the NPT itself that
indicates that it would not hold in all situations.
The most blatantly violated provision of the NPT is Article VI. It
requires the member states 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
negotiations towards a “Treaty on general and complete
disarmament”. In other words, the states that possess nuclear
weapons agreed to get rid of them. However, during the 42 years
that have passed since the NPT went into force, the nuclear weapon
states have shown absolutely no sign of complying with Article VI.
There is a danger that the NPT will break down entirely because of
the majority of countries in the world are so dissatisfied with
this long-continued non-compliance.
Looking at the NPT with the benefit of hindsight, we can see the
third “pillar”, the “right to peaceful use of
nuclear technology” as a fatal flaw of the treaty. In
practice, it has meant encouragement of nuclear power generation,
with all the many dangers that go with it. The dangers of nuclear
power generation are exemplified by the Chernobyl disaster: On the
26th of April, 1986, during the small hours of the morning, the
staff of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in Ukraine turned off
several safety systems in order to perform a test. The result was a
core meltdown in Reactor 4, causing a chemical explosion that blew
off the reactor’s 1,000-ton steel and concrete lid. 190 tons
of highly radioactive uranium and graphite were hurled into the
atmosphere. The resulting radioactive fallout was 200 times greater
than that caused by the nuclear bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. The radioactive cloud spread over Belarus, Ukraine,
Russia, Finland, Sweden and Eastern Europe, exposing the
populations of these regions to levels of radiation 100 times the
normal background. Ultimately, the radioactive cloud reached as far
as Greenland and parts of Asia.
The exact number of casualties resulting from the Chernobyl
meltdown is a matter of controversy, but according to a United
Nations report, as many as 9 million people have been adversely
affected by the disaster. Since 1986, the rate of thyroid cancer in
affected areas has increased ten-fold. An area of 155,000 square
kilometers (almost half the size of Italy) in Belarus, Ukraine and
Russia is still severely contaminated. Even as far away as Wales,
hundreds of farms are still under restrictions because of sheep
eating radioactive grass.
Public opinion turned against nuclear power generation as a result
of the Chernobyl disaster. Had the disaster taken place in Western
Europe or North America, its effect on public opinion would have
been still greater. Nevertheless, because of the current energy
crisis, and because of the widespread (but false) belief that
nuclear power generation is an answer to global warming, a number
of people are arguing that nuclear energy should be given a second
chance. The counter-argument is that a large increase in the share
of nuclear power in the total spectrum of energy production would
have little effect on climate change but it would involve
unacceptable dangers, not only dangers of accidents and dangers
associated with radioactive waste disposal, but above all, dangers
of proliferation of nuclear weapons.
If many nations throughout the world decide to build
power-generating reactors, the number of countries possessing
nuclear weapons will increase dramatically because it is almost
impossible to distinguish between civilian and military nuclear
programs. By reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods, using ordinary
chemical means, a nation with a power reactor can obtain a
weapons-usable isotope of plutonium. Even when such reprocessing is
performed under international control, the uncertainty as to the
amount of plutonium obtained is large enough so that the operation
might superficially seem to conform to regulations while still
supplying enough plutonium to make many bombs.
The enrichment of uranium is also linked to reactor use. Many
reactors of modern design make use of low enriched uranium as a
fuel. Nations operating such a reactor may claim that they need a
program for uranium enrichment in order to produce fuel rods.
However, by operating their ultracentrifuge a little longer, they
can easily produce highly enriched (weapons-usable) uranium.
The difficulty of distinguishing between a civilian nuclear power
generation program and a military nuclear program is illustrated by
the case of Iran. In discussing Iran, it should be mentioned that
Iran is fully in compliance with the NPT. It is very strange to see
states that are long-time blatant violators of the NPT threaten
Iran because of a nuclear program that fully complies with the
Treaty.
I believe that civilian nuclear power generation is always a
mistake because of the many dangers that it entails, and because of
the problem of disposing of nuclear waste. However, a military
attack on Iran would be both criminal and insane. Why criminal?
Because such an attack would also violate the UN Charter and the
Nuremberg Principles. Why insane? Because it would initiate a
conflict that might escalate uncontrollably into World War III.
11/18/2012
Top
Send
kommentar, email
eller søg i Fredsakademiet.dk
|