Saving the Non-Proliferation Treaty:

The Role of Parliamentarians

 

By Hon. Douglas Roche , O.C.

Canada

 

Prepared for the international forum

Parliamentarians, Nuclear Non-Proliferation

and Nuclear Weapon Free Zones.

Wellington , New Zealand . December, 2004

 

Today there are 34,145 nuclear weapons in existence, 96 percent of them in the hands of the United States and Russia . The United Kingdom , France and China have nuclear stocks in the low hundreds, with lesser numbers held by Israel , India and Pakistan . North Korea claims the ability to make a nuclear bomb and Iran is suspected of trying to convert nuclear fuels to bomb-making ability.

 

The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that at least 40 countries have the capability to produce nuclear weapons , and criticizes the inadequacy of export control systems of nuclear materials which are unable to prevent the existence of an extensive illicit market for the supply of nuclear items. The disappearance, by theft or otherwise, of nuclear materials from Russia , is well established. The threat of nuclear terrorism is on the mind of every official I know.

 

Mohamed ElBaradei, Director-General of the IAEA, says the margin of security today is " thin and worrisome." Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts goes further: " If Al Qaeda can obtain or assemble a nuclear weapon, they will certainly use it - on New York or Washington , or any other major American city. The greatest danger we face in the days and weeks and months ahead is a nuclear 9/11, and we hope and pray that it is not already too late to prevent."

 

The international community has awakened to the dangers posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons either to more States or sub-State actors who could be terrorists. Thus, the U.N. Security Council earlier this year adopted Resolution 1540 requiring all States to take measures to prevent non-State actors from acquiring or developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and to prevent the spread of these weapons. The Proliferation Security Initiative of the United States seeks to interdict on the high seas the transfer of sensitive nuclear materials. And the G8 countries have allocated $20 billion over ten years to eliminate some stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Russia .

 

These steps are by no means sufficient to ward off looming catastrophes. The fact of the matter is that the proliferation of nuclear weapons cannot be stopped as long as the most powerful nations in the world maintain that nuclear weapons are essential for their own security. How can it be satisfactorily explained to would-be nuclear States that the five permanent members of the Security Council, the U.S. , Russia , the U.K. , France , and China , charged with maintaining security in the world, are the very same five declared nuclear powers who tell the rest of the world to abstain while they modernize their own nuclear arsenals? It is the continued possession of nuclear weapons by the powerful that undermines the rule of law and acts as an incentive to those who would also like to be powerful.

 

I would like to make it clear that, of course, North Korea and Iran and any other such state must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons, and that the inspection and verification processes of the IAEA must be stepped up with more funding and personnel. But attempting to stop proliferation as a sort of one-dimensional activity will never work unless meaningful disarmament steps are combined with it. That was exactly what the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was supposed to do when it came into existence in 1970. At that time, a bargain was made: the non-nuclear nations agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons in return for the nuclear weapons States agreeing to negotiate the elimination of all their nuclear weapons; and the developing nations would share in the transfer of nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes. That bargain has never been lived up to by the nuclear weapons States.

 

In 2000, at the last NPT Review Conference, hopes were raised when the 187 States Parties gave an " unequivocal undertaking " to nuclear disarmament through a program of 13 Practical Steps. Since then, the U.S. has taken an aggressive position repudiating some of the 13 Steps, researching the development of a new nuclear weapon, and claiming that the problem today lies not with the nuclear weapons States but the would-be proliferators. The leading non-nuclear weapons States claim the exact opposite: the proliferation of weapons cannot be stopped while the nuclear weapons States arrogate unto themselves the possession of nuclear weapons and refuse to enter into comprehensive negotiations toward elimination as directed by the International Court of Justice.

 

The whole international community, nuclear and non-nuclear alike, is concerned about proliferation, but the current attempt by the nuclear weapons States to gloss over the discriminatory aspects of the NPT, which are now becoming permanent, has caused the patience of the members of the Non-Aligned Movement to snap. They see a two-class world of nuclear haves and have-nots becoming a permanent feature of the global landscape. In such chaos, the NPT is eroding and the prospect of multiple nuclear weapons States, a fear that caused nations to produce the NPT in the first place, is looming once more.

 

A new coalition of States determined to save the NPT in 2005 must now be forged - and this is where parliamentarians have a special role to play.

 

In 1998, a new grouping of seven middle power States , Brazil , Egypt , Ireland , Mexico , New Zealand , South Africa and Sweden , called the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), came into existence. It was dedicated to the elimination of nuclear weapons through implementing the legal obligations of the NPT. Since then, NAC has become a formidable rallying point for what might be called the "moderate middle" of the nuclear weapons debate - between the recalcitrant nuclear weapons States on the one hand, and the Non-Aligned Movement calling for the immediate implementation of a Nuclear Weapons Convention on the other.

 

Introducing their moderate approach in an op-ed article in the International Herald Tribune September 21, 2004 , the seven foreign ministers of the New Agenda stated bluntly that " the primary tool for controlling nuclear weapons, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, risks falling apart, with further proliferation as a consequence." They hammered home the point: " If the nuclear weapons States continue to treat nuclear weapons as a security enhancer, there is a real danger that other States will start pondering they should do the same. Recent developments show that this has already happened."

 

My experience, having followed the NPT closely for 20 years and having attended all three preparatory meetings for the 2005 Review, tells me that the only way to stop the erosion of the NPT is for a new burst of energy to be shown by middle-power States - the New Agenda, non-nuclear NATO, the European Union and a few other like-minded States - to shore up and influence the centre position in the nuclear weapons debate.

 

A positive start to this was made this November when eight NATO States - Belgium , Canada , Germany , Lithuania , Luxembourg , The Netherlands, Norway and Turkey - supported a New Agenda Coalition resolution at the United Nations calling for more speed in implementing commitments to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The resolution gained extra strength when other allies of the US , notably Japan and South Korea , also supported the resolution. These States, along with the New Agenda countries now form an impressive and perhaps formidable center in the nuclear weapons debate and can play a determining role in the outcome of the 2005 NPT Review Conference.

 

The resolution identifies priorities for action: universal adherence to the NPT and the early entry-into-force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons and non-development of new types of nuclear weapons; negotiation of an effectively verifiable fissile material cut-off treaty; establishment of a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disarmament at the Conference on Disarmament; and compliance with principles of irreversibility and transparency and verification capability.

 

These steps are vital in order to provide some confidence that the NWS are heading towards nuclear disarmament and thus prevent other States from withdrawing from the treaty and developing their own nuclear weapons programmes.

 

The NWS are reluctant to take such steps and must be encouraged by their friends and allies. The situation the NPT finds itself in is so serious and the threat of nuclear terrorism so real that governments must take meaningful steps to achieve nuclear disarmament and prevent proliferation - two sides of the same coin.

 

Speaking up takes courage and leadership. Parliamentarians possess both these attributes. You also have access to the decision-making processes of your governments. I appeal to you to make your voices heard in your parliaments and committee meetings with questions, motions, resolutions and the other tools in your hands before the NPT Review Conference in 2005.

 

I know what parliamentarians can do when you mobilize your strength. Governments dare not listen to you when you speak clearly and forcefully. The new Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament www.pnnd is a network of more than 300 parliamentarians in 43 countries at your disposal with helpful information. Parliamentarians must press their governments to act now to achieve nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and greater international security. Such leadership must be taken to help save the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2005.