Southeast Asia to close off nuclear option?<\/p>\n
Mazen Nagi examines Southeast Asia's moves towards the
\nimplementation of a nuclear weapons free zone.<\/p>\n
The first step to a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality
\n(ZOPFAN) would be the declaration of a "Southeast Asia Nuclear
\nWeapons Free Zone", one of the prime aspirations of ZOPFAN.
\nToday, the political environment in the Asia Pacific is ripe for
\nthe implementation of a nuclear weapons free zone. Certainly we
\nare witnessing an international consensus in opposition to
\nnuclear weapons.<\/p>\n
The focus on French and Chinese nuclear testing -- a few
\nmonths after the renewal of the Non Proliferation Treaty -- has
\nyielded almost unanimous global support against these actions.
\nThe tests come at a time when the United States has dropped its
\nobjections to ZOPFAN, U.S. and ex-Soviet arsenals are being
\ndrastically reduced, and there is a growing international
\nconsensus to "denuclearize" the globe.<\/p>\n
Nuclear testing at this time has the effect of undermining the
\nwillingness of non-nuclear states to become, or remain, a party
\nto the Non Proliferation Treaty. In the case of China,
\nneighboring states see their vastly larger and more powerful
\nneighbor plunging full speed ahead with the development of more
\nsophisticated warheads and delivery systems. Although it is
\nunlikely that China would use nuclear weapons against its
\nneighbors, it is not a given thing. Chinese society and
\nleadership are in growing disarray; nobody can say that the
\nfuture will not see a 'Chinese Zhirinovsky' come to power when,
\nin all likelihood, China will be an economic and military
\nsuperpower. It is somewhat ironic that France is suffering far
\nmore diplomatic and economic fallout from its decision to renew
\ntesting than is China, despite Paris' far more transparent
\ntesting procedures and security policies.<\/p>\n
China and France probably believe that testing is truly
\nneeded. France, however, is at the forefront of nuclear
\ntechnology and does not need to conduct the tests, at least not
\nfor the reasons stated. Additionally, American and British
\nnuclear experts have offered to provide France with the
\ntechnology and data which would then make tests unnecessary.
\nNuclear weapons are, in theory, only useful for deterrence, but
\nboth countries seem to be focusing on offensive delivery systems.<\/p>\n
The French say testing is necessary to ensure reliability of
\nexisting weapons and to improve their accuracy, undermining the
\nproposition that these weapons are strictly for deterrence
\npurposes; deterrence requires only minimal accuracy. This raises
\ntwo questions. First, is France altering its nuclear strategy
\nfrom that of deterrence to one of first strike capability? And if
\nso, against whom is this new strategy directed?<\/p>\n
Furthermore, China and France have accrued sad records in
\nrestraining proliferation. Could these new generations of weapons
\nbe transferred to other, currently non-nuclear, powers? In view
\nof France's past dealings with Israel, how could anyone be sure?
\nAs for China, its delivery systems have been transferred to
\nother, not so "responsible", countries such as Iran and North
\nKorea, and have been transferred to Pakistan at a time when the
\nIndian subcontinent needs no outside help in escalating its arms
\nrace. Possession of nuclear capabilities entails certain
\nresponsibilities which China must assume if it wishes to be
\nrecognized as a major power.<\/p>\n
Both France and China seem to view the hype and hysteria that
\nhave surrounded their decisions as overblown. Available evidence
\ndoes certainly suggest that the danger of such testing is
\nextremely limited. However, the future effects on underground
\nwater tables, soil contamination and other such factors are
\nunknown in the case of underground testing. For anyone to
\nconclude, or guarantee that there would be no long-term effects
\nfrom such testing would be quite irresponsible. The nuclear age
\nis only 50 years old; radiation can last thousands of years.<\/p>\n
Now that the U.S. has lifted its objections to the
\nimplementation of ZOPFAN (at the recent Foreign Ministers Meeting
\nin Brunei), ASEAN should shift gears in its mode of action.
\nInstead of trying to secure major power guarantees first, it
\nshould boldly declare itself as a nuclear-free zone and enforce
\nit to the best of its ability. ASEAN should enlist the support of
\nstrongly anti-nuclear states such as Japan, Australia, Sweden and
\nNew Zealand to assist it on the diplomatic front. The current
\nmood of the international community would likely render such a
\nmove by ASEAN an unparalleled success. In consequence, ASEAN
\nwould enhance its standing and reputation, and be catapulted to
\nthe level of a major world player.<\/p>\n
Such action would further the cohesiveness of ASEAN and, if
\nsuccessful, provide a powerful boost to the confidence of this
\nregional grouping in its ability to maneuver vis-a-vis the major
\npowers.<\/p>\n
Many "anti-nuclear" arguments made today concern environmental
\naspects and dangers, while the military aspects and implications
\nseem to be lost in the debate. The goal here is not just to
\nprotect the environment but to rid Southeast Asia of the
\npotential for a nuclear holocaust, and to free its peoples from
\nthe anxieties that their lives and nations might be destroyed for
\nreasons over which they have no control. The implementation of
\na Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone would be a giant step
\ntowards a more distant goal of ridding the world of nuclear
\nweapons -- a worthy goal indeed.<\/p>\n
Mazen Nagi is with the School of Social Sciences, Universiti
\nSains Malaysia.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/southeast-asia-to-close-off-nuclear-option-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}