RI to lead reckoning of nuke pact

RI to lead reckoning of nuke pact

By Stephanie Mills

LONDON (JP): This month Indonesia will be playing a key role at the most important conference in the history of the nuclear age. Indonesia, leading the non-aligned group of states, will be pivotal in the decision over the future of the nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, which will be decided at the United Nations in New York between April 17-May 12.

With the Cold War over, nuclear weapons seem to be lower down the international agenda. But at this conference, nuclear disarmament will be debated as heatedly as at any time during the Cold War. This time, however, it will not be a battle between the two superpowers, but between the five nuclear weapons states (United States, Russia, France, United Kingdom and China) and the vast majority of non-nuclear countries.

On the one side, Indonesia will be leading the charge that the nuclear weapons states have not lived up to their Treaty obligation -- the elimination of nuclear weapons. They will argue that the Treaty requires more incentives for nuclear disarmament, and make the case that limited extension or extensions of the Treaty, linked to a timetable for disarmament are necessary if progress towards elimination of nuclear weapons is to be made.

On the other side, the nuclear weapons states are calling for indefinite extension of the Treaty. However, this could permanently legitimize their possession of nuclear weapons, and certainly send a message that "business as usual" -- the accumulation of new nuclear weapons, the global deployment of vast nuclear arsenals ready to destroy the world many times over -- was acceptable to the international community.

This year will mark the 50th anniversary of the nuclear age, heralded by the nuclear bomb which destroyed the city of Hiroshima. It has been 25 years since countries agreed to try to end the nuclear threat by negotiating the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But far from halting the growth of nuclear arsenals or stopping the spread of nuclear weapons since it was signed in 1970, the number of nuclear weapons has dramatically increased. Moreover, the list of countries capable of producing nuclear weapons, or said to be acquiring a rudimentary nuclear capability has grown.

The future of the Treaty and the reasons why it has failed will be at the heart of the debate in New York. Many non-nuclear nations argue that the responsibility rests primarily with the nuclear weapons states -- the U.S., Russia, France, China and Britain. The Treaty commitment they made to eliminate nuclear weapons has been largely ignored. Not only has the number of nuclear weapons expanded greatly since the Treaty was signed, but new weapons continue to be designed, developed and deployed. In spite of the end of the Cold War, the nuclear weapons states have so far failed to agree to a nuclear test ban, have not committed to any further reductions in nuclear stockpiles, and will not agree to a legally binding pledge not to target non-nuclear nations with nuclear weapons.

Moreover, the five nuclear weapons states' continued insistence that nuclear weapons are essential to their security has led other countries to believe that acquiring or the threat of acquiring nuclear weapons is a strong political lever. In the case of North Korea that level seems to have worked. With nuclear weapons states arguing that nuclear weapons are neither legitimate nor effective national security guarantees for others while holding onto their own, this situation seems doomed to continue.

In regions of tension this dynamic is particularly dangerous. Israel's clandestine nuclear arsenal for example, can clearly be seen as an impetus to Iran's reported interest in building a basic nuclear capability. While U.S. and Israeli intelligence claims may be overblown and self-serving and Iran denies any interest in a nuclear weapons program, the situation highlights the way in which all nuclear "deterrents" are potential provocations and justify the case for acquisition by others.

The Treaty's second major flaw has been its promotion of the "peaceful atom". Any nuclear power provides countries with the technology and materials needed to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. Nuclear inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency fail to guarantee that nuclear material from civil nuclear programs is not diverted to weapons programs. In fact, the agency gave a clean bill of health to Iraq shortly before its nuclear weapons intentions were exposed during the Gulf War.

The Treaty undermines its overall objective by legitimizing, for example, the commercial production of plutonium. Currently, the nuclear industry is enjoying a plutonium boom with some 550 tons of commercial plutonium to be produced largely by France, the UK, Japan, Germany and Russia compared with an estimated 257 tons of military plutonium by the year 2010.

Plutonium has a half-time of 24,000 years. To believe that there is no risk of any of the commercial stockpile being diverted into a nuclear weapons program during that time is naive. Yet the industry continues to play nuclear roulette, moving shipments of plutonium and highly radioactive waste around the world thereby creating an unprecedented environmental and proliferation threat.

A decision on the future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty offers an historic opportunity to revolutionize our thinking on nuclear issues. It is time to return to the original logic of the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- that the only true non-proliferation regime is a world free of nuclear weapons -- and to begin the difficult but essential journey towards a nuclear-free future. Indonesia's commitment to a nuclear free weapons free zone in the region, its long promotion of a comprehensive test ban treaty and its leadership of the Non-Aligned Movement in this critical year means it can, and must, play a significant role in helping create that vision of a future without the nuclear threat.

Stephanie Mills is the coordinator of Greenpeace International's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Project.