@@ Iran, International Law and Nuclear "Disarmament" @@

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
February 2006

Iran, International Law and Nuclear Disarmament

The only safe number of nuclear weapons is zero

By David Krieger

Iran has been accused of secretly pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Although
Iranian leaders claim to be enriching uranium only for peaceful nuclear energy
purposes, these claims have been treated with derision by the West. Despite the fact
that most experts believe that Iran is still years away from developing a nuclear
weapon, there are media reports suggesting that Israel and the U.S. are making plans
to attack Iran?s nuclear facilities, should Iran not give up its uranium enrichment
program. Given this possible military scenario, and the recent vote by the Board of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report Iran to the United Nations
Security Council, what is Iran likely to do?

India, Pakistan Israel: Good; Iran: Bad

First, Iran will continue to assert its right under "Article IV" the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy program. Article
IV refers to the ?inalienable right? of states to nuclear energy. The parties to the
treaty are promised assistance from more technologically advanced countries in
pursuing this right. While this may be considered an untenable stipulation in the
treaty, it is, nonetheless, the way the law stands. In accord with the treaty, in
exchange for pursuing this right, Iran must agree to inspections of its nuclear
facilities to assure that there has been no diversion of nuclear materials for making
weapons. http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

In fairness, if this aspect of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is to be altered, it must
be done for all states, not singling out Iran for special punitive treatment.
Currently, uranium enrichment plants are operating in China, France, Germany, India,
Japan, Netherlands, Pakistan, Russia, United Kingdom and United States. Of these,
Germany and Japan are non-nuclear weapons states that are parties to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, and thus have a similar relationship to the treaty as does
Iran.

Second, Iran will assert that under "Article VI" of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the
United States and the other nuclear weapons states have not fulfilled their
obligations for ?good faith? negotiations for nuclear disarmament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_steps

It will point to the 1996 International Court of Justice advisory opinion that
states: ?There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion
negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and
effective international control?. And it will point out the blatant refusal by the
nuclear weapons states to carry out their "Article VI" commitments, including the
plans by the United States to develop the Reliable Replacement Warhead, a new type of
nuclear warhead to extend the viability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Third, Iran will question the unequal treatment that it is receiving as compared to
another Middle Eastern country, Israel, which is thought to possess some 200 nuclear
weapons. Iran will note that there is not only a double standard between nuclear
?haves? and ?have-nots?, but also a double standard between Israel and other
countries in the Middle East. It will rightly point out that there have long been
calls for a Middle East Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone, including at the 1995
Non-Proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference, which have been largely
ignored by Israel and the Western countries.

"Article X" of the Non-Proliferation Treaty allows for a party to withdraw after
giving three months notice if it decides that ?the supreme interests of its country?
are being jeopardized by the treaty. With threats of an attack against Iran if it
does not cease its uranium enrichment, and the example of Israel developing a nuclear
arsenal outside the NPT, it would not be unreasonable for Iran?s leaders to conclude
that Iranian interests were better served by withdrawing from the treaty. Should they
reach this conclusion, they may also point to the precedent of the Bush
administration?s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002 on
grounds that US national interests were being jeopardized by that treaty.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the most widely adhered to treaty in the area
of arms control and disarmament. Only four countries are not parties to this treaty ?
India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea ? and all have developed nuclear arsenals.

To effectively preclude Iran from leaving the treaty and possibly developing a
nuclear arsenal, and avoid risking the significant dangers involved in preventive
military strikes, larger problems must be solved.

First, the Non-Proliferation Treaty regime must be made universal, applicable to
all states, bringing in the four states currently outside the treaty.

Second, the nuclear weapons states, both within the treaty and those currently
outside of it, must begin the good faith negotiations for nuclear disarmament
required by the treaty. These negotiations must be aimed at a Nuclear Weapons
Convention that provides for the phased and internationally verifiable elimination of
all nuclear weapons from all national arsenals.

Third, all enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of plutonium, fissile
materials that can be used to make nuclear weapons, must be brought under strict and
effective international control.

If this sounds utopian, it is surely no more so than believing that the current set
of double standards, those that allow some states to continue to possess nuclear
weapons while seeking to prevent others from having them, will be maintainable
indefinitely. It is also certainly no more utopian than believing that preventive
war, such as that waged illegally against Iraq, is a reasonable answer to every
suspicion of nuclear weapons proliferation.

The only safe number of nuclear weapons in the world is zero. The only way to reach
this number is for the nuclear weapons states to become serious about the
?unequivocal undertaking? to eliminate their nuclear arsenals that they made at the
2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Until they do so, the prospects are
high of countries like Iran following North Korea?s example of withdrawing from the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and pursuing nuclear weapons programs.


* David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
(http://www.wagingpeace.org). He is the author of many studies of peace in the
Nuclear Age, including Nuclear Weapons and the World Court.
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2006/02/00_krieger_iran-law-disarmament.htm


.

Quantcast