72. Essay Writing Format, structure and Examples. ‘NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION’

NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION

INTRODUCTION: The treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is the most widely adhered to arms control agreement to date. It was the outcome of a decade of diplomatic effort. The Irish proposal (1958), the Cuban missile crisis, the negotiations of a Partial Test Ban Treaty, the Chinese Nuclear Test, the US decision to abandon the creation of a multilateral nuclear force in Europe led to a Soviet-American negotiation of NPT. It was concluded in 1968 with a view to preventing the addition of new nuclear powers to the five then in existence (the USA, former USSR, France, Britain and China). It was affected on 3rd March 1970.

DEVELOPMENT OF THOUGHT: The end of the Cold War has highlighted serious contradictions in the nuclear field. The disintegration of the Soviet Union has led to a large number of the former republics holding stockpiles of nuclear arms. The proliferation of well funded and sophisticated terrorist groups worldwide has also lent an urgency to the question of the nuclear stockpile. But the NPT is seen as unfair and unequal by countries such as India. It is against this background that the future of the NPT has to be debated when it comes up for review in 1995.

CONCLUSION: It is for the enlightened leaders of the international community to decide how to tackle the nuclear menace effectively and evolve an arrangement that would be equitable and free of discrimination on any ground of race, colour, economic or military status and political complexion. 

 The year 1993 virtually started with the signing of START-I1 agreement between the USA and Russia which will reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals from nearly 24,000 warheads by nearly two-thirds. Coming as it does, on the heels of other arms reduction agreements, this is likely to be increasingly cited in support of nuclear nonproliferation which has been moving up on international security agenda as the Cold War wound down. unprecedented proliferation has taken place consequent to the disintegration of the Soviet Union and continuing socio-economic crises in successor republics. Pakistan, during the same period, moved its clandestine nuclear weapons programme towards a more explicit status, virtually becoming the sixth declared Nuclear Weapon State. Iraq’s clandestine nuclear weapons programme. Heavily hit during the Gulf War, came to light through sheer accident. More than anything else, it highlighted the weaknesses of the existing non-proliferation regime and the acute difficulties of de-nuclearisation of a clandestine programme.

It is against this background that the future of NPT, as it approaches 1995, needs to be seen. A conference is to be held, as per treaty provisions, in 1995 to decide on one of the three options for extension of the NPT—-indefinitely, for a fixed period, or periods. The mandate for this conference is clear: it is to decide the terms of extension.

 It is also necessary to note that the primary motivation for the NPT which came into force in March 1970 (and departure from the concept of NPT proposed by India and endorsed by the UN General Assembly in 1965) was to ensure that Germany and Japan, the. World War 11 defeated states, who by now had acquired the capacity to go nuclear, should be prevented from doing so. Germany and Japan had their reservations and ratified the NPT only in 1975 and 1976 respectively. And hence the great emphasis on stopping the horizontal spread to states beyond the five nuclear weapon states of the period.

The end of the Cold War has highlighted serious contradictions in the nuclear field. First, the altered political and economic relationship between the US (and West Europe) and former USSR has undermined the very rationale of nuclear weapons. The logic of nuclear weapons has kept peace in Europe is no longer valid. In fact, 50,000 warheads, created for this purpose have not prevented the armed conflicts going on in former Yugoslavia and trans-Caucasian region. And yet the USA and Russia, even after START-11, is fully implemented by 2003, would possess 6,500 strategic (and unspecified non-strategic) warheads. There can be cold comfort in the knowledge that the world that could be destroyed only twenty-times as compared to the capacity to destroy it sixty times over at the peak of the Cold War!

 Proponents of the Comprehensive Test Ban (CTB) in the US have recently wakened up to the fact that it can be used as a step against non-proliferation. In the current scenario, a CTB will not make a great difference. The logic behind the CTB was that by prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons it would halt an arms race between the US and the Soviet Union. With the collapse of the USSR, the context of the CTB has become outdated. But the concern over proliferation continues and is understandable in the post-Cold War era. The newly independent states of the former Soviet Union provide a good example of the danger of proliferation. Ukraine, as of this moment, possesses the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal. A rough estimate puts the number of its weapons at 176 strategic. missiles, 30 bombers and over 16,000 warheads—enough to eliminate life on this planet several times over it is significant that Ukraine has not committed itself to the complete destruction of its nuclear weapons.

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Central Asian states of Kazakhstan. Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan managed to retain their nuclear weapons. Kazakhstan, with the largest arsenal, has shown a willingness to sign the NPT and destroy all nuclear weapons by 2000. Members of the CIS undertook to respect the obligations of the former Soviet Union and follow a multilateral policy towards disarmament at an agreement signed at Minsk in December 1991. This was followed by the four members of the nuclear club of Central Asia signing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) on May 22, 1992, as a preliminary to the ratification of the START signed between the Soviet Union and the US in July 1991. What remains to be seen is whether their action matches their commitments.

The proliferation of well-funded and sophisticated terrorist groups worldwide has lent a certain urgency to the question of the future of nuclear. stockpile in Central Asia. The West has expressed serious concern about these weapons falling into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists. But not all terrorists are Islamic, and if a free market situation arises, the seller would usually go to the highest bidder irrespective of religious affiliations.

The second tier nuclear weapon states(China, France and the UK) are showing Ito signs of even beginning to reduce their arsenals. All of them are modernizing their nuclear arsenals. China already possesses close to 1600 nuclear warheads.

The issue, however, remains essentially the same that is, the danger of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands—be it Leftist or Right-Wing Islamic or non-Islamic.

While India fully believes in the importance of non-proliferation, it hesitates to sign the NPT as the latter does not appear to be an effective guarantee against proliferation. A case in study is North Korea. This country while signing the NPT in 1985 managed to stall inspection of any of its sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) till last year as its sites are supposedly engaged in the purely civilian nuclear power industry.

Its intentions were made clearer by its withdrawal earlier this year from the NPT. According to reports, North Korea possesses enough material to make at least one bomb. Recently a new missile, the Nodong I, with a 1000 kilometre range was successfully test fired. US intelligence reports have already indicated North Korea as a major supplier of missiles to developing countries. June 1993 saw North Korea revise its belligerent posture by ‘suspending’ its withdrawal from the pact. Yet the deal does not provide the guarantee the Clinton Government desires–that North Korea will open 311 its nuclear facilities to international scrutiny. In fact, weapons specialists argue that this retreat is most likely to be temporary and that the agreement leaves North Korea free to continue its weapons development programme while feigning adherence to IAEA regulations.

The NPT is unfair and unequal because, besides the established nuclear powers, it would leave North Korea and others on the nuclear threshold in possession of nuclear weapons.

 Apart from the question of principle involved in India’s refusal to sign an unequal treaty like the NPT which it has adhered to since 1967, this country can hardly forego the nuclear option given its security compulsions. The threat which Pakistan and China pose to India should not be taken lightly. With the former, there have already been three wars. Pakistan is now actively waging a low-intensity war against this country. Reports also confirm that Pakistan is developing the 600-kilometre range Hatf-3 missile based on the Chinese M-9 missile technology which can target Delhi. With China, India has a history of border conflicts. US intelligence reports have confirmed that China has been passing M-11 missile technology to Pakistan. In May 1992, the Chinese exploded a megaton device following it with another test in September 1993.

 India cannot also be singled out for opposing the NPT. China, Brazil, Argentina, Pakistan, South Africa and Israel have all opposed the NPT. It is only in recent years that China, France and South Africa have signed the Treaty. There is no firm evidence yet of a nuclear-free world and of durable peace. It is for the enlightened leaders of the international community to decide how to tackle the nuclear menace effectively and evolve an arrangement that would be equitable and free of discrimination on any ground—race, colour, economic or military status and political complexion.

Download the above Essay in PDF (Printable)

Need our help or have some question