[Marxism] Is Non-proliferation treaty obstacle to ending nuclear weapons?

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Personally, I was always opposed to the Non-proliferation treaty.  I
knew that the only reason for the US government to puruse antinuclear
treaties or discussions of some kind was that the weapons had
proliferated to the Soviet Union. And if the Rosenbergs had anything to
do with that, which I do not believe, hooray for them! If there was a
kernel of truth in the frame-up, they are partly responsible for the
fact that there has been no use of nuclear weapons since the US attacks
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There will and can be no nuclear disarmament without unilateral actions
by the US. Antinuclear protests that give even half-hearted support to
US campaigns against North Korea, Iran, or Russia are deeply flawed, and
can even encourage the main nuclear bomb-makers and users.
Fred Feldman



Counterpunch
May 4, 2005

On the Brink
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat Poised to Fall Apart
By LIAQUAT ALI KHAN

Topeka, Kansas

Recognizing "the devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a
nuclear war, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT) was designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The NPT,
which is now 35 years old, has succeeded to the extent that nearly 190
states have subscribed to it. Despite its grandiose universality,
however, here are five reasons why the NPT is poised to fall apart in
the near future.

1. The NPT's nuclear club has been broken into. In 1970, the Treaty
divided the world into two camps: haves and have-nots. It acknowledged
that five states--US, UK, France, Russia & China--lawfully possessed
nuclear weapons. It hoped that the rest of the world would not acquire
them. That did not happen. In 1998, India and Pakistan detonated nuclear
weapons in face of the world. The US now publicly admits that Israel
possesses nuclear weapons. Probability dictates that North Korea has
them too. The dilemma is therefore insurmountable. If the club of five
is expanded to eight and perhaps more, proliferation would seem to have
been accommodated. If not, the club would be treated as a foolish
anomaly. Either way, the NPT is in legal disarray.

2. The NPT can be lawfully dumped. It allows a signatory state to
withdraw from the non-proliferation regime "if it decides that
extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have
jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. All that is required
is a three months advance notice. North Korea joined the NPT in 1985. In
January, 2003, however, it withdrew from the Treaty (effective
immediately). If North Korea detonates the bomb and joins the de facto
club, the NPT would be further weakened. And the dumping rule will be
reaffirmed in international law. As luck would have it, there will be
new withdrawals from the NPT, most likely in the Middle East where
states will not accept Israel's regional nuclear monopoly. Even one or
two more withdrawals will kill the Treaty.

3. The NPT's foundational promise is not kept. The five declared
nuclear-weapon states promised to cease the nuclear arms race and head
toward a complete nuclear disarmament under strict and effective
international control. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a godsend
that ceased the superpowers, nuclear arms race. But no good faith
effort, as the Treaty requires, is being made towards complete nuclear
disarmament. In fact, contrary to the letter and spirit of the NPT, the
Bush administration is actively considering to develop brand new nuclear
bunker-buster weapons. No treaty regime can succeed on such blatant
contempt for the world. When the shepherd on the white horse loses his
way, no sheep come home.

4. The NPT is a double-headed monster. It is simultaneously good and
evil. The Treaty allows the development of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes. In fact, the Treaty rests on a bargain. States relinquished
the right to have nuclear weapons because they were led to believe that
"peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made available to
them. Iran that signed the NPT claims that it has "the unalienable right
to develop peaceful nuclear energy. The United States claims that if
Iran is allowed to acquire nuclear technology, it would come closer to
developing nuclear weapons. Both claims are simultaneously accurate.
This double-headedness is precisely the inherent flaw of the NPT. Its
one head spews light, the other flames.

5. The NPT is a suicide pact. The US foreign policy has created a global
context in which it is far more protective for states to have nuclear
weapons than not to have them. The war on Iraq demonstrates that a state
without weapons of mass destruction is vulnerable to invasion and
occupation. It would be perfectly logical to conclude that Iraq was
attacked not because it had weapons of mass destruction but because it
had none. This pathological logic will be further confirmed if the
United States continues to pursue diplomacy with North Korea that
presumably have both nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. The
Iraq/North Korea binary reality resurrects old truths that might is
right, and be firm with the bullies And so, in a dangerous world,
adhering to the NPT will be considered foolish.

For these five reasons, the NPT seems no longer viable. If the analysis
above is dark and pessimistic, and something can indeed be done about
the weapons of mass destruction, beware, more wars and "the devastation
that would be visited upon all mankind might be on the way. A complete
nuclear disarmament is, of course, another possible solution.

Ali Khan is a professor of law at Washburn University School of Law in
Topeka, Kansas. His book, A Theory of International Terrorism, will be
published in 2005 by Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Send comments to
ali.khan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism