Southeast Asia to close off nuclear option?

Southeast Asia to close off nuclear option?

Mazen Nagi examines Southeast Asia's moves towards the implementation of a nuclear weapons free zone.

The first step to a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) would be the declaration of a "Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone", one of the prime aspirations of ZOPFAN. Today, the political environment in the Asia Pacific is ripe for the implementation of a nuclear weapons free zone. Certainly we are witnessing an international consensus in opposition to nuclear weapons.

The focus on French and Chinese nuclear testing -- a few months after the renewal of the Non Proliferation Treaty -- has yielded almost unanimous global support against these actions. The tests come at a time when the United States has dropped its objections to ZOPFAN, U.S. and ex-Soviet arsenals are being drastically reduced, and there is a growing international consensus to "denuclearize" the globe.

Nuclear testing at this time has the effect of undermining the willingness of non-nuclear states to become, or remain, a party to the Non Proliferation Treaty. In the case of China, neighboring states see their vastly larger and more powerful neighbor plunging full speed ahead with the development of more sophisticated warheads and delivery systems. Although it is unlikely that China would use nuclear weapons against its neighbors, it is not a given thing. Chinese society and leadership are in growing disarray; nobody can say that the future will not see a 'Chinese Zhirinovsky' come to power when, in all likelihood, China will be an economic and military superpower. It is somewhat ironic that France is suffering far more diplomatic and economic fallout from its decision to renew testing than is China, despite Paris' far more transparent testing procedures and security policies.

China and France probably believe that testing is truly needed. France, however, is at the forefront of nuclear technology and does not need to conduct the tests, at least not for the reasons stated. Additionally, American and British nuclear experts have offered to provide France with the technology and data which would then make tests unnecessary. Nuclear weapons are, in theory, only useful for deterrence, but both countries seem to be focusing on offensive delivery systems.

The French say testing is necessary to ensure reliability of existing weapons and to improve their accuracy, undermining the proposition that these weapons are strictly for deterrence purposes; deterrence requires only minimal accuracy. This raises two questions. First, is France altering its nuclear strategy from that of deterrence to one of first strike capability? And if so, against whom is this new strategy directed?

Furthermore, China and France have accrued sad records in restraining proliferation. Could these new generations of weapons be transferred to other, currently non-nuclear, powers? In view of France's past dealings with Israel, how could anyone be sure? As for China, its delivery systems have been transferred to other, not so "responsible", countries such as Iran and North Korea, and have been transferred to Pakistan at a time when the Indian subcontinent needs no outside help in escalating its arms race. Possession of nuclear capabilities entails certain responsibilities which China must assume if it wishes to be recognized as a major power.

Both France and China seem to view the hype and hysteria that have surrounded their decisions as overblown. Available evidence does certainly suggest that the danger of such testing is extremely limited. However, the future effects on underground water tables, soil contamination and other such factors are unknown in the case of underground testing. For anyone to conclude, or guarantee that there would be no long-term effects from such testing would be quite irresponsible. The nuclear age is only 50 years old; radiation can last thousands of years.

Now that the U.S. has lifted its objections to the implementation of ZOPFAN (at the recent Foreign Ministers Meeting in Brunei), ASEAN should shift gears in its mode of action. Instead of trying to secure major power guarantees first, it should boldly declare itself as a nuclear-free zone and enforce it to the best of its ability. ASEAN should enlist the support of strongly anti-nuclear states such as Japan, Australia, Sweden and New Zealand to assist it on the diplomatic front. The current mood of the international community would likely render such a move by ASEAN an unparalleled success. In consequence, ASEAN would enhance its standing and reputation, and be catapulted to the level of a major world player.

Such action would further the cohesiveness of ASEAN and, if successful, provide a powerful boost to the confidence of this regional grouping in its ability to maneuver vis-a-vis the major powers.

Many "anti-nuclear" arguments made today concern environmental aspects and dangers, while the military aspects and implications seem to be lost in the debate. The goal here is not just to protect the environment but to rid Southeast Asia of the potential for a nuclear holocaust, and to free its peoples from the anxieties that their lives and nations might be destroyed for reasons over which they have no control. The implementation of a Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone would be a giant step towards a more distant goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons -- a worthy goal indeed.

Mazen Nagi is with the School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia.