The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - Case Study Example

The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Name: Institutional affiliation: The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Introduction The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is also known as the Treaty on the non-proliferation of Nuclear weapons and abbreviated as NPT is a treaty of international nature whose sole objective and goal is to inhibit a wide spread of nuclear weapons and affiliated technology. It is aimed at promoting the diplomatic usage and cooperation in the use of nuclear weapons and energy (Bellany et al 1985). It also aims to achieve arms reduction and disarmament of nuclear weapons. The treaty was opened in the year 1968 and came into full force in 1970 but got an indefinite extension in 1995. Many countries have complied with the treaty due to its significant nature in promoting world peace. It is a treaty that aims to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and foster peaceful use of such technologies. Boon et al (2012), notes that the treaty has three elements that guide it which include; the aspect of non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful use of nuclear weapons and energy. These elements act as the pillars of the treaty and the bargain between the states that have nuclear energy and weapons. In the treaty, there is an agreement that countries that do not have nuclear weapons will not endeavor to acquire them, the ones that have nuclear weapons will pursue the disarmament route, and that every country will use its nuclear technology under safe conditions and with peaceful intent. In the treaty, nuclear states are defined as those states that have previously manufactured, produced, and experimented with nuclear weapons before the year 1967. The rest are considered to be non-nuclear states commonly referred to as non-nuclear weapons states. The five states that are considered nuclear states are the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and France. Joyner, (2011) reiterates in the treaty, the non-proliferation aspect dictates that the nuclear states are not supposed to transfer any nuclear weapons or technology to any other place or to aid, inspire, encourage or convince any non-nuclear state to acquire or manufacture nuclear weapons. The nonnuclear states should not accept the transfer of nuclear weapons or affiliated technology from the nuclear states. These states are to accept the terms of the International Atomic Energy Agency precautions and safeguards on nuclear technology in their regions and territories. Disarmament dictates that the nuclear states have to follow through negotiations in good faith on active measures pertaining to the termination of the nuclear arms contest and to the disarmament of nuclear weapons which should be conducted under stringent and effective control that adhere to international standards. The third provision of the treaty has to do with the peaceful use of nuclear weapons and technology. It does not affect the rights of the nuclear states to manufacture and develop nuclear energy for peaceful reasons as long as such actions are in conformation with the provisions and tenets of the treaty. All sates have the right to exchange information, equipment, and technological advancements for the peaceful use of nuclear technology and energy The NPT is usually seen to be rooted on what is called the central bargain which stipulates that non-nuclear states are not to acquire nuclear weapons; the nuclear states in exchange agree to share the benefits of the technology as long as it is for peaceful purposes. This they should do while pursuing avenues for disarmament which ultimately leads to the goal of total obliteration of the nuclear weapons in their possession. The NPT undergoes review after every five years in what is called Review conference of the parties to the NPT. In as much as the treaty was originally comprehended with a set duration of 25 years, the parties to the treaty agreed to extend it indefinitely without conditions in the meeting of 1995 in May. This Review conference took place in New York. The Crisis of NPT The NPT has undergone several challenges and it effectiveness and long-term adherence by the states is uncertain. The drive for the treaty was borne out of safety concerns for world peace due to the availability of nuclear weapons and advancement of nuclear technology in nuclear states. It was noted that having states with access to nuclear technology and weapons was an immense threat to world peace as situations could deteriorate fast should there be an atmosphere for conflict. The possibility of more states having access to such technology would be a threat to everyone globally, on accident fronts, unsafe handling, hazardous manufacture and production, miscalculation and even experiments. Should there be tension, there would be little constraint in experimenting with nuclear technology and as such, there would be nuclear conflict in the world. The first state to sign the treaty after the Irish Minister for external affairs opened it was Finland. Consent became universal after the end of the cold war. France and China followed suit in 1992 as the last of the five states recognized as nuclear states. In 1998 after Brazil consented, the only remaining non-nuclear states to accede was Cuba and it did so in 2002 (Dunn, 1991)..Numerous states who are signatories of the treaty have given up weapons, programs and technologies affiliated to nuclear weapons such as South Africa, which undertook a program but destroyed their nuclear plant and technology after accession in 1991. It would be proper to think that with the end of the cold war era and the recent fights against terrorism, member states would fight to uphold the treaty and reaffirm it but recent events at review meetings have shown that the treaty is in jeopardy. Despite the fact that almost all nations in the world adhere to the NPT, there are states whose possession of nuclear weapons do not conform to the treaty. North Korea has effectively eluded the controls of the treaty and arisen as a nuclear capable nation. The state has successfully developed weapons of nuclear nature and after the state’s clash with Bush’s administration in the year 2002; they announced that they are no longer bound by the confines of the treaty and its provisions. One of the most pertinent aspects of the treaty has to do with disarmament and in this area; the treaty seems to be failing. Progress has been made in various capacities but disarmament seems to be long overdue. The treaty has succeeded to a degree in the sense that in 1970, the combined warheads in nuclear weapons of both US and Soviet Union was 38,000. This figure rose to over 62,000 in the fifteen years after that. Today, the combined warheads have seen a reduction that translates to 26,000 (Epstein, 1976). This reduction is a testament that the treaty is indeed working but with the current state of affairs, this reduction is uncertain. This is due to the view on both countries that their nuclear weapons may be practical tools for military action and mission. The treaty has ensured major setbacks over the course of the years. One of the most central aspect involve India and Pakistan when they tested their nuclear prowess in 1998. North Korea’s rebellion also dealt the treaty a blow as it was a break of the rules that govern the treaty. Iran has been seen to violate the terms of the treaty by having a nuclear program they did not disclose. Even though Iran is defensive in saying that their program adheres to the rules of the treaty in giving them mandate to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, it might be a matter of time before they join North Korea and rebel. Nuclear states are seen not to have taken the issue of disarmament seriously. Yes, there have been efforts at reduction but complete disarmament has not been realized. With the advents of new programs by nuclear states; such as the new nuclear technology by the United States, it might soon be a war of superiority among nuclear states. According to Ruzicka & Wheeler, (2010), the NPT has failed to reign in rebels and show member states that there are consequences to violating the terms of the treaty. The mere fact that North Korea could withdraw from the constraints of the treaty with impunity could give other nuclear capable states ideas of rebelling. Once this has happened , it would be difficult to reign in rogue nuclear testing programs and weapons. This is one major aspect that the treaty should address and come with measures that will ensure such incidences are nipped in the bud. A treaty is an agreement and what binds states together is the mutual understanding and will to adhere to its tenets. Should some states be seen as rebels without consequences, little can be done if others follow suit. This is because they will cite lack of action on the first withdrawal of a member. North Korea is the first ever state to withdraw from the treaty. One of the ways in which NPT can be strengthened is in reaffirming the withdrawal process according to Article X, which gives provisions for withdrawal under the circumstances that there is grave threat to the nation at hand. The treaty must be very clear on the process and stress that the withdrawal process has consequences. This is because any member state that withdraws from the treaty is sending a silent message to all the others that it has declared itself as a nuclear power. A situation like this would result in nuclear states withdrawing from the treaty and a war of superiority will be imminent as no state wants to feel weak and exposed in the event of anything (Kessler, 1995). In the event that consequences of withdrawal are clearly spelt out, such as the use of military action to force compliance, the disarmament faction of the treaty would be easier to implement. Legal Frameworks (IAEA) IAEA Safeguards play a significant role in contributing to peace and safety in an international capacity. It has the primary role of making sure that states are holding up to their end of the deal when it comes to treaties such as NPT. Suleman, (2008) says that the body’s primary mandate is to prevent further spread of nuclear weapons and technology. They are tasked with early discovery and detection of nuclear activities in any state consequently ensuring that all states are operating within the confines of the treaty. It plays an independent part in verification and hence assures international community that the nuclear technology present is being used for peaceful reasons. They can be termed as the international inspectors of nuclear technology and programs. They have the task of applying safeguards and implementing them. The body is also a major contributor to the control of nuclear arms and disarmament programs within legal confines. The IAEA is multilayered and has a number of features and components that include the Statute, the activities of states pertaining to NPT, safeguard documents, instruments that deal with safeguard such as procedures, conventions and agreements. It also has the decisions of the board of governors of IAEA. The statute is authorizes IAEA to apply safeguards that ensure nuclear technology, programs, equipment and information is made available to them. This ensures that no nuclear weapon, program, or technology is used to further and enhance military action in any state. The NPT allows IAEA to apply safeguards to all non-nuclear states. Pursuant to the its statutory mandate, the body arranges legal contracts with states for submission of safeguards. In accordance with Szasz, (1996), the contracts can be categorized in three ways; complete safeguard contracts with nonnuclear states that are party to the treaty, voluntary agreements with nuclear states, and special agreements with non-nuclear states. Current State of Affairs in Relation To NPT The 2015 Review Conference of NPT was held April. It commenced on the 27th and ended on May 22nd in New York. The Ambassador of Algeria, Taous Feroukhi presided over the conference. As mentioned earlier in the report, the treaty undergoes review every five years. Member states scrutinized the treaty’s implementation requirements since 2010 and after much discussion; they did not reach a conclusive agreement. This was the ninth conference of the treaty and it was considered a failure due to the lack of agreement on pertinent issues such as final declaration of the final draft. The conference was a failure due to debate that proposed the ban of atomic weapons in the Middle East. The US declined the idea of having a nuclear free world citing the possibility of a manipulation by some countries in setting a deadline. It termed the conditions as unrealistic. Some blamed Egypt of jeopardizing the conference. The conference’s decisions are made by consensus any disagreement result in lack of a decision. Israel did not consent to the banning of weapons of mass destruction in the review conference of 2010 effected in 2012. The ensuing conference did not take place, which angered Egypt and other Middle Eastern nations. Israel is not a member state of NPT and it gave conditions that it would join the treaty after it has achieved peace with Iran and other Arab states. The conference of 2015 was not successful and the major issue is that of the Middle East (Kapur, 1979). Conclusion The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into full force in 1970 seeks to control the spread of nuclear weapons in the world. The member states are categorized as nuclear states and non-nuclear states. North Korea is the only country that has withdrawn from the confines of the treaty. The treaty is a binding agreement that is adhered to by most nations of the world. Nuclear states agree to using nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and non-nuclear states are not to acquire any nuclear weapons. This treaty is enforced by the IAEA safeguards, which is a body that regulates and applies safeguards to the members’ states to ensure they operate under legal confines pertaining to the agreement. The treaty has faced numerous challenges in recent times and the most recent is the failure to reach consensus in banning of weapons of mass destruction in the 2015 review conference. It is important to note that for the treaty to be successfully withheld, the three tenets it stands on; proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful use of nuclear technology have to be implements fully. This is yet to be realized but strides have been made in the right direction. Evidence of this is in the reduction of warheads held by the United States and the Soviet Union. Threat is still in the air as possession of nuclear weapons could trigger a supremacy war. It is likely that the withdrawal of North Korea might send the wrong message to other countries that might feel the need to withdraw from the confines of the treaty. The treaty should be reviewed to come up with measures that curb withdrawal in order to discourage the advent of any supremacy wars. References Bellany, I., Blacker, C. & Gallacher, J. (1985). The nuclear non-proliferation treaty. London New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis. Boon, K., Huq, A. & Lovelace, D. (2012). Nuclear non-proliferation treaty. New York, N.Y: Oxford University Press. Joyner, D. (2011). Interpreting the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. Kessler, J. (1995). Verifying nonproliferation treaties : obligation, process, and sovereignty. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press For sale by the U.S. G.P.O. Supt. of Docs. Epstein, W. (1976). Last change: nuclear proliferation and arms control. Ruzicka, J., & Wheeler, N. J. (2010). The puzzle of trusting relationships in the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. International Affairs, 86(1), 69-85. Dunn, L. A. (1991). Containing nuclear proliferation. Kapur, A. (1979). International nuclear proliferation: multilateral diplomacy and regional aspects. Szasz, P. C. (1996). IAEA Safeguards for NPT. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 5(3), 239-245. Suleman, A. M. (2008). Bargaining in the Shadow of Violence: The NPT, IAEA, and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Negotiations. Berkley Journal of International Law (BJIL), 26(1). Read More