 |
|
NPT
Perceptions of Key Contentious Issues for the NPT
Ever since its
inception, the NPT has been criticized for being discriminatory,
unbalanced and ineffective. Some critics contend that the treaty
discriminates against NNWS, since it favors NWS by placing more emphasis
on compliance by the NNWS. Additionally, some argue that the unbalanced
obligations of the NNWS place them at a permanent military disadvantage
and make them more vulnerable to nuclear aggression or intimidation.
Furthermore, some critics claim that the NNWS are economically and
industrially disadvantaged in developing nuclear energy for peaceful
uses, since the treaty does not require the NWS to accept IAEA
safeguards. They also argue that the nuclear nonproliferation pledges
and safeguards are ineffectual, citing the cases of Iraq in the past,
and North Korea and Iran currently (as discussed in the Current
Challenges section.) Other critics note the noncompliance with
disarmament objectives by NWS. In addition, since international security
situation surrounding nonproliferation issues has significantly changed
since it entered into force 35 years ago, many critics contend that the
NPT is unable to deal with new threats especially, the possible
acquisition and use of nuclear weapons by terrorists.
While the treaty is
based on a set of “bargains” between the NWS and NNWS, the treaty does
have an inherently discriminatory nature. This has led discrepancies between NWS and NNWS in their interpretation of the
treaty’s key provisions. NWS and NNWS naturally place different
priorities on treaty provisions. For instance, NWS, such as the United
States, place a much higher priority on the nonproliferation obligations
of the treaty, while most NNWS, especially, the NAM states argue that
they are in full compliance with these obligations, but that the NWS are
ignoring their disarmament compliance under Article VI. This deep
divergence of views about treaty obligations directly contributed to the
failure by the states parties to reach agreement on a final outcome
document of the 2005 NPT Review Conference.
Another controversial aspect of the treaty that has been at the center
of the NPT debate is the difference of opinion on the peaceful uses of
nuclear energy. NWS insisted on more stringent measures to verify NNWS’
compliance with the IAEA safeguards system. As for the argument about
strengthening safeguards, NWS, and most of states parties of the Western
Group support the idea of making Additional Protocol safeguards standard.
Although the treaty
establishes norms and verification mechanisms that are helping to
control noncompliance by some states parties and NPT’s achievements are
indisputable, loopholes of the treaty and emphasis on selective
provisions have exacerbated international security and the treaty’s
credibility itself. Due to the inefficacy of the treaty, more
initiatives outside of the NPT framework--including unilateral, bilateral
and coalition of the willing--have become more prominent.
This chapter
provides an overview of contrasting views among key states parties on
the most controversial issues surrounding the recent NPT debates, such as
compliance, rights to peaceful uses of nuclear energy, IAEA Safeguards,
and disarmament.
|
|