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.