Friday, June 27, 2008

Disarmament, Withdrawal and NPT - necessary or obsolete?

Solana, Iran and Harmon

Seemingly the topic of the week is set. Javier Solana the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy spoke at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on Wednesday June 25th.

Some paragrahps from his speech that can be found here
"Disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are enormous challenges for the international community."

"But, if truth be told, the last ten years have been a "lost decade". When the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon spoke to you at the opening of the 2008 session, he made clear that he was deeply troubled by the lack of progress. I fully share his view. It is puzzling that during an entire decade and despite enormous efforts, there is still no agreement even on the question of how to address the issues and in which order. "


All this talks of dismarmanent and withdrawal in Europe is framed with by Iran's latest comments on their nuclear enrichment program. The Islamic Republic once again pressures the West to engage in discussion before its too late.

"Ali Larijani, the speaker of Iran's parliament and a former nuclear negotiator, said there was "only a little time left" for talks before Iran would make unspecified moves that the West would regret."

"Don't provoke Iran otherwise you will face a done deal that will block the path of your return to a compromise with Iran," Larijani told an open session of the parliament broadcast live on state radio Wednesday.

"We advise U.S. officials to be careful not to face another tragedy," Mohammed Hejazi, an official in the military's elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said Wednesday, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency. "If you want to move toward Iran, make sure you bring walking sticks and artificial legs because if you come, you will not have any legs to return on."

"The United States has to realize that they cannot resolve all their problems through aggression and force," Khatami said at a conference in Oslo promoting dialogue between the Islamic world and the West.


With that Khatami unfortunately is right on. The dire warnings need to be seen in the context of a Israeli military exercise, which were claimed by U.S. officials as message to Iran.

"Even if Iran's nuclear facilities are totally destroyed — a possibility that is precisely zero — it will easily be revived within a short period of time, but with the difference that it may prompt a fundamental reconsideration in intentions," the daily Kayhan said in an editorial. "


Especially the later comment is interesting as Iran always claimed that the Enrichment of uranium would only be for civilian intentions. This does certainly not mean that despite their claims weaponizing the nuclear program wasn't the overall hidden agenda of Iran's leadership. But ironically the the rethoric of a preemptive war against Iran if they do not stop weaponizing, has granted the Islamic Republic with a preliminary almost legal justification for doing just that. They can even do it publically.

More on this can be found here and here

Despite Solana's trust in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as the vehicle for disarmament there are voices that raise concern about the usefulness of the NPT . Congresswoman Harmon wrote on June 20th in the Wall Street Journal, arguing rightly so, that the NPT standards are obsolete in a world where North Korea and Iran can proliferate under the umbrella of the NPT.

Today's legal regime is no match for the wide dissemination of nuclear technology. Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) standards are obsolete, and the growth in the sheer number of nuclear facilities world-wide has made it difficult for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to achieve its mission.

Moreover, the NPT cuts most of the world out of the nuclear weapons club. It grandfathered in states that had nuclear weapons before 1967, and said that only they could keep them. Given the skyrocketing demand for alternatives to oil, we have to expect that more countries will want to develop nuclear energy. We need a system that allows states to pursue nuclear energy but prevents them from developing nuclear weapons under the radar.

A more promising approach might be to create an international consortium of fuel centers that provide enrichment and reprocessing of nuclear fuel, and end-to-end oversight of nuclear resources. Driven by market demand, private companies could operate facilities with IAEA oversight, and participating states would agree not to engage in independent enriching and reprocessing. Material would be purchased from the international market, thereby creating supply assurance for nations who fear being denied fuel.

This concept is a private-sector version of the International Nuclear Fuel Authority envisioned by Sens. Richard Lugar and Evan Bayh, and could borrow from the low-enriched uranium "emergency" stockpile concept proposed by the Nuclear Threat Initiative.


Harmon raises some interesting questions and even more so possible ways to deal with the problem.

At least some good news can be read in the last few days:
In the case of North Korea it seems that after years of verbal assaults and sanctions by the Bush Administration the last two years have proven fruitful, As yesterday North Korea made the symbolic act of destroying the cooling tower at Yongbyon, 60 miles north of Pyongyang. The facility has been used for enrichment of plutonium. Unfortunately the critics may be right, it came too late, since North Korea had enough time to produce enough weapons grade plutonium for nuclear warheads, and test a detonation and the missiles to deliver the warheads. Yet it does show a major achievement in diplomatic relations between the two countries, and maybe even a shift in U.S. foreign policy, one that the following president should embrace and enhance. (See post on Zakaria and Obama)
Nice blog on this topic also on: Duck of Minerva

No comments: