By Jim Wurst
Global Security Newswire

GENEVA — The role of nuclear weapons in international relations — both in their numbers and in the strategies in which they are employed — was the focus of much of the debate during the first two days of the annual meeting of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (see GSN, April 28).

Many of the nuclear weapons states on Monday and Tuesday claimed progress in nuclear disarmament, citing the reduction in the total number of these weapons, while non-nuclear states argued that strategies, including the willingness to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively, show that the nuclear powers do not intend to rid themselves of these weapons.

Ambassador John Wolf of the United States said Monday that while “the path for nuclear proliferation is spiraling upward, ... disarmament continues. … We are leading that process and will continue to do so.”  He said that under the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty, also known as the Moscow Treaty, the United States “will cut the number of strategic weapons … by two-thirds to 1,700 to 2,200 by 2012.”

“Nuclear arms reduction[s] are a priority,” said Alexander Mostovets, deputy director in the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department of Security and Disarmament Affairs.  “By its practical actions our country confirms its commitment to strict fulfillment of its obligations in the sphere of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation.”  He called the Moscow Treaty part of the NPT commitment to disarmament.

New Zealand’s minister of disarmament, Marian Hobbs, said Monday that the Moscow Treaty is “a positive step,” but that the reductions called for “are not a substitute for irreversible cuts” in nuclear weapons.  The treaty calls for removing nuclear warheads from strategic delivery vehicles, but not for destroying the warheads.  She added, “Evolving security policies [that] continue to be based on the possession of nuclear weapons ... can only further destabilize the global security environment and the NPT regime.”

Jayantha Dhanapala, the U.N. undersecretary general for disarmament, called the Moscow Treaty “a welcomed development indeed, even considering that the treaty did not require the physical destruction of a single warhead.”  Speaking at a separate event yesterday, however, he said there is “virtually no transparency in these reductions, and certainly no independent verification.”

“Neither the endless pursuit of unilateral defensive measures nor the perpetual drive for military superiority can produce a world free of nuclear weapons; such steps are more likely to produce a world full of nuclear weapons,” Dhanapala said.  “The more horrible flaws in such strategies are critically examined, the more attractive nuclear disarmament becomes as a practical and effective alternative,” he said.

France and the United Kingdom said they were reducing their nuclear arsenals to the minimum.

French Ambassador Hubert de la Fortelle said the stockpiles of the five nuclear powers have been “drastically reduced since the end of the Cold War  — and I wish to emphasize the fact that France has borne its full share of that effort — and while the prospect of global reduction remains assured for the years to come, we are obliged to note that the commitment to nonproliferation is not being scrupulously observed by some states.”

“The U.K. has already reduced its nuclear weapons to a single system at the minimum level necessary for the U.K.’s national security,” said British Ambassador David Broucher.  “When we are satisfied that sufficient progress has been made that would allow us to include British nuclear weapons in multilateral negotiations without endangering our security interests, we will do so,” he added.

Chinese Ambassador Hu Xiaodi criticized the other nuclear powers, especially “countries possessing the largest nuclear arsenals,” for not committing to reductions “in an irreversible, effectively verifiable and legally binding manner” and for maintaining security policies “based on the first use of nuclear weapons.”

Iran Mentioned as Proliferation Threat

Like the United States on Monday, the United Kingdom and France yesterday focused on Iran as a proliferation threat, but in language less harsh than was used by the United States.  De la Fortelle of France said Iran’s nuclear program, “due to its scale, its diversity and its technical sophistication, is a source of concern as to its actual purpose. … It is the responsibility of Tehran to commit itself resolutely and unambiguously to a policy of openness and transparency,” he said.  Broucher of the United Kingdom said, “We welcome Iran’s recent cooperation with the [International Atomic Energy Agency], but also express our concern regarding the recent disclosures made about the scope and scale of its nuclear program.”

In response, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Khoshroo said his government “has been in constant cooperation with the IAEA and has fully complied with its obligations under its safeguards agreements. … We are providing substantiated information in great detail and with complete transparency to address the questions in order to reassure those states, who have raised them in good faith, of our full compliance.”

Syria and other Arab countries countered saying Israel, with a nuclear program outside the NPT, is the real proliferation threat in the region.

The divisions among the five permanent members of the Security Council over Iraq continued into the NPT meeting.  While the United States barely mentioned Iraq’s nuclear weapons potential — one of the original justifications for invading the country — France and Russia repeated their objections against the U.S. invasion. 

De la Fortelle said the resumed inspections “confirmed that the Iraqi [nuclear] program had not been restarted. … It will be the responsibility of the inspectors to recommence their work and to submit their conclusions as soon as they are able.”

Mostovets of Russia said his government was “convinced that the process of the post-war settlement in the Middle East and Iraq in particular should be brought back into [the] international legal framework based on already available mechanisms accountable to the U.N. Security Council.”

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP

Back to top