[Peace-discuss] Nuclear risk grows

[patton paul]

 Nuclear War Risk Grows as States Race to Acquire Bomb
by Peter Popham


A conference on nuclear non-proliferation began in Geneva yesterday, in
the shadow of North Korea's departure from the global treaty and with the
bleakest prospects for progress in the pact's 33-year history.


More and more states are likely to buy the argument that the only way to
be secure in a unipolar world is to go down the nuclear road  "to pre-empt
pre-emption"

John Wolf, US Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Non-proliferation told
a news conference on the first day of the meeting that Iran has "an
alarming, clandestine program." to get hold of nuclear technology. "Iran
is going down the same path of denial and deception that handicapped
international inspections in North Korea and Iraq," he said.

But disarmament experts said that American lack of commitment to
non-proliferation was as damaging as the behavior of the proliferators.

Representatives of 187 countries are attending the Preparatory Committee
(PrepCom) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This is the
second of three sessions that will be held before the Review Conference in
2005.

North Korea became the first state ever to defect from the process
Israel, India and Pakistan, all known nuclear states, have never been
members  when it announced its departure in January. More defections are
feared.

This was the Treaty that was supposed to lead to a non-nuclear world, but
experts say the risks of proliferation are worse now than for 50 years. In
the past two years the multilateral effort to contain and reduce the
nuclear risk has unraveled. At the last NPT review conference in 2000 all
member states signed a 13-point program. that included an undertaking by
the five declared nuclear-weapon states to nuclear disarmament.

"That agreement is now gathering dust on some filing cabinet somewhere,"
said Dan Plesch, senior researcher at the Royal United Services Institute.
"For the first time since the 1950s there isn't a global framework ... to
get rid of nuclear weapons."

Pyongyang's off-the-record announcement last week that it already had the
bomb was a further blow. "Everyone is at a loss as to how to move forward
on North Korea," said Kathryn Crandall of the British American Security
Information Council, a research organization. It is expected that the
meeting will try to agree on a statement  but given the low morale it is
more likely to be an invitation to return to the fold than a blast of
brimstone.

At least as damaging as North Korea's departure have been successive moves
by Washington to distance itself from nuclear disarmament.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, the US President, George Bush, signed
National Security Presidential Directive 17, which said: "The United
States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond
with overwhelming force  including potentially nuclear weapons  to the use
of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States ..."


Disarmament experts said that American lack of commitment to
non-proliferation was as damaging as the behavior of the proliferators.

This assertion, analysts say, undermined an important prop of the NPT
process: the so-called "negative security assurances", initially made in
1978 and strengthened by the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution
984 in 1995, not to use nuclear weapons against the non-nuclear weapon
states.

The assurances were considered vital in discouraging states from
developing their own nuclear weapons. Now people wonder if they are worth
the paper it they are written on.

The popularizing of the term Weapons of Mass Destruction has blurred the
formerly stark distinction between nuclear and other weapons, and has
paved the way for this change, claims Ms Crandall. She said: "Such
terminology reduces the understanding of the unparalleled destructive
capacity of nuclear weapons compared to the less destructive effects of
chemical and biological weapons."

More and more states are likely to buy the argument that the only way to
be secure in a unipolar world is to go down the nuclear road  "to pre-empt
pre-emption", one analyst said. "People look at the different ways that
the 'Axis of Evil' states  Iraq and North Korea  have been treated and
they draw their own conclusions."

"What other countries are going to sit around after dinner saying, if
Pakistan's got the bomb why haven't we?" said Mr Plesch. On the list of
those likely to be holding such conversations, he said, are Egypt,
Indonesia, Turkey and perhaps pre-eminently Japan, North Korea's uneasy
neighbor.

No long-term ill consequences threaten those that go down such a route.
After India, then Pakistan, tested nuclear weapons in 1998, sanctions were
clamped and both countries widely condemned. But all that changed after 11
September 2001, when the US needed Pakistan's co-operation.

Last week, America's outgoing Ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill, spoke
of India as "a rising great power of the 21st century" and of how the US
and India "have made enormous strides" in the past two years towards
"forging concentrated strategic collaboration". "Two years ago, there were
economic sanctions ... against India related to its 1998 nuclear tests,"
Blackwill said. "Today, those sanctions are long gone." India
congratulates itself that its stock in the world is higher now than before
it got the bomb.

"It's a double hit," said Mr Plesch. "A failure to disarm the world at the
end of the Cold War. And now proliferating countries and the United States
all deciding that they are not interested in this or other treaties any
more ... the whole future of the treaty is up for grabs."

ATOMIC NATIONS

ISRAEL

Believed to have between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads, but has never
acknowledged them. Refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
and does not allow United Nations weapons inspectors into the country. Has
around 90 Jericho 1 surface-to-surface medium-range (311 miles) missiles,
and Jericho 2 long-range (1,000 miles) missiles, and 100 aircraft that
could deliver nuclear devices.

IRAN

Development of nuclear power facilities at Busheher using Russian
expertise has stoked US fears that Iran is developing nuclear weapons,
despite an agreement that spent fuel rods will be disposed of in Russia.
Recent tests of a new generation of Shihab 3 medium-range rockets has
added to US concerns, and a Shihab 4 rocket capable of reaching Western
Europe is believed to be near to testing.

INDIA

In 1974, India exploded what the government described as a "peaceful
nuclear device", and has expanded its capability ever since, bringing
nuclear-capable Agni (Fire) II surface-to-surface long-range (1,242 miles)
missiles into service last year. Also has short-range Agni I missiles, and
40 or more aircraft capable of delivering nuclear devices. Has not signed
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

PAKISTAN

When hundreds of thousands of Indian and Pakistani troops amassed on
either side of the line of control in Kashmir last May, Pakistan
test-fired Ghauri, Ghaznazi (Hatf 3) and the Abdali (Hatf 2) missiles to
show it was ready and capable of using short and medium-range nuclear
warheads. It also has 40 or so aircraft capable of delivering nuclear
devices. Has not signed the non-proliferation treaty.

NORTH KOREA

Signed the non-proliferation treaty in 1985 and pulled out in January this
year. This followed a US-led decision to halt oil shipments over
Pyongyang's admission it was restarting its nuclear program. Believed to
have one or two nuclear weapons, and testing of the long-range Pekodosan 1
(formerly the Taepodong 1) missile continues. Has two or more aircraft
capable of delivering nuclear weapons.