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.