Nuclear Agendas - Arms Control

By Bob Rigg

When the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference – the world’s largest and most important five-yearly gathering devoted to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation – began in New York, on Monday 3 May, it attracted only marginal media attention. The previous NPT review conference, held in 2005, had fallen apart, unable even to agree on an agenda. If the present conference fails to identify concrete solutions to pressing problems, the treaty will enter into terminal decline, and nuclear weapons will proliferate.

Nuclear Agendas - Arms Control

By Bob Rigg

The NPT was opened for signature on 1 July 1968, with the US, the Soviet Union, and the UK defining themselves as nuclear weapons states. France and China joined the treaty about 25 years later. These five permanent members of the UN Security Council exploded nuclear devices before 1 January 1967, fulfilling the treaty’s definition of a nuclear weapons state. Nuclear weapons coupled with the power to nuke UN Security Council resolutions vest disproportionate power in these states. 

It has gone largely unnoticed until recently that Israel has been a de facto nuclear weapons state since that time, thanks to the covert support of the governments of France, the UK, and the US, which do not appreciate being reminded of their shared responsibility for this major proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world’s most volatile region.  Israel has been a fly in the nuclear ointment from the very outset.

Nuclear Agendas - Arms Control

Full text of white paper on non-proliferation policy and measures 2003

December 3, 2003. The Information Office of the State Council Wednesday issued a white paper on China's non-proliferation policy and measures. The following is the full text of the 24-page white paper with the title "China's Non-Proliferation Policy and Measures."

Foreword

To prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their means of delivery is conducive to the preservation of international and regional peace and security, and compatible with the common interests of the international community. This has become a consensus of the international community. Through protracted and unremitting efforts, the international community has established a relatively complete international non-proliferation regime, which has played a positive role in preventing and slowing down the proliferation of WMD and their means of delivery, and in safeguarding peace and security both regional and global.

Economic globalization and the rapid advancement of science and technology have provided the international community good opportunities for cooperation and development, and also many new challenges. At present, traditional and non-traditional security factors are inter-woven, with the latter being steadily on the rise. Countries are linked more closely to each other in security matters, and their interdependence is continually deepening. It is an inevitable demand of the times to strengthen international cooperation and seek common security for all countries. The non-proliferation efforts of all countries and the development of the international non-proliferation mechanism are mutually complementary and inseparably linked with each other. Given the new international security situation, it is particularly important and urgent to step up international cooperation in the field of non-proliferation, and develop and improve the international non-proliferation mechanism.

Nuclear Agendas - Arms Control

Executive Summary

In his April 2009 speech in Prague, President Obama highlighted 21st century nuclear dangers, declaring that to overcome these grave and growing threats, the United States will “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” He recognized that such an ambitious goal could not be reached quickly –perhaps, he said, not in his lifetime.

But the President expressed his determination to take concrete steps toward that goal, including by reducing the number of nuclear weapons and their role in U.S. national security strategy. At the same time, he pledged that as long as nuclear weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal, both to deter potential adversaries and to assure U.S. allies and other security partners that they can count on America’s security commitments.

Nuclear Agendas - Arms Control

The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START as it has been known all these years has been through three iterations - START-I, II, and III. Only START-I ever actually got going, entering into force around the time that the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1990. START-II was repudiated by Russia as soon as the US repudiated the ABM treaty, and START-III evaporated at the same time. 

The START - series of treaties, unlike their successor, SORT (Otherwise known as the Moscow Treaty, negotiated by George Bush and Putin), had large, complex, and comprehensive verification frameworks. Unlike the SORT treaty, which was a mere 2-3 pages depending on print size, the START series had annexes and protocols that brought them to hundreds of pages. 

Nuclear Agendas - Arms Control

User Rating: / 3
PoorBest 

In April 2009, President Obama went to Prague and told the world that the United States seeks “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”  A year later, his administration is moving forward toward this goal.  The Obama administration rolled out its Nuclear Posture Review on April 6, 2010.  On April 8, 2010, the president will be back in Prague to sign a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with the Russians. 

In both tone and substance the new Nuclear Posture Review is far more positive and hopeful than that of the Bush administration.   The Obama nuclear posture puts its primary focus on preventing nuclear proliferation and terrorism.  “The threat of global nuclear war has become remote,” it says, “but the risk of nuclear attack has increased.”  It views nuclear terrorism as “today’s most immediate and extreme danger.”

Nuclear Agendas - Arms Control

User Rating: / 1
PoorBest 

Observations and Commentary of an Observer from a Neutral Country Not Party To the Treaty

By Brigadier Vijai K Nair, rtd.The representative from the Forum for Strategic & Security Studies – New Delhi

NPT ROUND UP - ONE

The NPT Review & Extension Conference opened at the United Nations in New York at 3.00 p.m. on April 17, 1995, sanctioned by virtue of a provisional and conditional acceptance of the Rules of Procedure, which had not been finalised at the time of the start, that these would be agreed to not later than 10.00 am April 26, 1995.

In inter-sessional meetings, the State Parties had been able to iron out most of their differences on the Rules of Procedure less Rule 28(3) which governs the modus operandi of the extension decision. Of the main areas of disagreement vis-a-vis Rule 28, the inter-sessional meetings were able to arrive at a compromise on: the question of elimination of proposals with least votes after each ballot; date of submission of proposals; and, the date by which voting should commence. The remaining issue now is whether the ballot should be secret or an open vote. Proposals will have to be submitted by 6.00 p.m. May 8, voting will commence May 10 if no consensus is reached and, the proposal having got least votes after each ballot will be eliminated automatically.

Nuclear Agendas - Arms Control

President Obama's call for a nuclear-weapons-free world in Prague last April unleashed a great outpouring of support from international allies and grassroots activists demanding a process to actually eliminate nuclear weapons. One recent and unexpected initiative has come from America's NATO allies. Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Norway have called on NATO to review its nuclear policy and remove all U.S. nuclear weapons currently on European soil under NATO's  "nuclear sharing" policy. Despite U.S. insistence on strict adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear weapons states, several hundred U.S. nuclear bombs are housed in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey.

Nuclear Agendas - Arms Control

The Stake In The Heart Of The Non-Proliferation Regime 

It is important to understand why successive generations of US policy-makers of varying political persuasions have ascribed such great importance to Iran. If the Middle East region produced mainly dates, pomegranates, goat’s milk and myrrh, it would not today be overrun with foreign armies and bristling with dense concentrations of the world’s most advanced weaponry, including nuclear weapons. 

In 1953 the CIA surprised itself by overthrowing an elected Iranian government that had dared to question the divine right of a multinational oil company to export huge profits, almost none of which benefited Iran’s struggling economy. The Shah installed by the US proceeded to squander most of his country’s oil wealth on massive purchases of cutting edge US armaments and military technology. This strategic alliance permitted the US to wield considerable influence, not just over Iran and the Middle East, but also over Iran’s massive reserves of oil and gas. When the Shah was overthrown in 1979, this influence went west with him. The most powerful player in the Middle East was suddenly hostile to US hegemony in the region, with Israel as the only US ally.