http://cndpindia.org/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.71
<http://cndpindia.org/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.71> http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article17088 <http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article17088> *Proliferation of Nuclear Hypocrisy * *P K Sundaram* Iran is the latest entrant with its clamour for “Energy for All, Weapons for None” crusade. India has mastered the art over decades, shifting from ‘atoms for peace’ to ‘weapons of peace’ and eventually winning some extra-regime warm embrace for its ‘responsible’ nuclear behaviour. The hard truth is – the present nuclear world order, spearheaded by the US, renders this doublespeak attractive and lets disarmament be reduced to hypocrisy. Iran is holding a summit on nuclear disarmament on April 17-18, shortly after the Nuclear Security being organised in Washington and weeks before the NPT Review Conference. The participants from 55 countries are supposed to ask for global nuclear disarmament, protest the inequalities in the NPT regime, castigate the NWS for their unfulfilled disarmament promises and threatening nuclear doctrines, and uphold Iran’s and others’ inalienable right to civil nuclear programme.1 The delegations will visit the historic city of Esfahan, also home to Iran’s uranium conversion facility.2 Iran has become a test-case for the entire NPT-based nonproliferation regime, as it is seen to be out-manoeuvering the entire regime itself. Iran is widely believed to be using its right to peaceful nuclear programme under article IV of the NPT for acquiring advanced nuclear technology that have military dimensions. The country’s nuclear intent is corroborated by several developments over the last decade. Iran’s nuclear programme is advancing in a direction that technically brings it closer to weaponisation potential.3 Iran’s peddling of frequent and rabid anti-Israel slogans and popular glorification of Shia bomb in the region, its links with the illicit proliferation bazaar including the notorious retailer A Q Khan are among major reasons behind the concern. Domestically, Ahmedinejad regime vociferously invokes nuclear jingoism, with the military angle often not-so-veiled. It has gained so much fervour that even the regime’s political opponents have to indulge in competitive nuclear pride.4 In fact, the popular support for nuclear capabilities has strengthened the regime which is otherwise one of the most corrupt, despotic and orthodox governments, perpetuating theocracy and its brutal practices like stoning, silencing dissenting voices and forcing common people to extreme poverty and misery. In this backdrop, Iran’s joining the disarmament bandwagon looks hypocritical but not so surprising. It has found merit in ‘exposing’ the double standard of major powers on nuclear issues. That helps Iran both ways – legitimizing its own nuclear ambitions and garnering support among non-aligned and third-world groupings and countries like India and China. And it has at least one example to follow. India has been among the first countries to call for nuclear disarmament. Yet it remained out of the NPT regime, it conducted nuclear tests in 1998 defying world opinion, hasn’t signed the CTBT so far and could still occupy place in the global nuclear regime through extraordinary clearance in the NSG and IAEA, engineered almost single-handedly by the Bush administration. India made creative use of all that it had – its potential as a geo-political ally against China, its opening up of attractive civil nuclear market, its support for the American war on terror, and the rapport built up with the US market interests over the last two decades or so on the strength of its huge middle-class consumer base. The debate on whether this dichotomy in India’s policy was intentional or not still remains inconclusive, but that India kept its nuclear weapons option open while advocating for comprehensive, time-bound and universal nuclear disarmament is a fact. India also championed the cause of non-alignment and third-world solidarity and unceremoniously dumped them once it developed capabilities and eventually bargained for a position in the dominant regime. Even now, over issues such as climate change, India continues to avoid any real obligations citing its developing status. It could manage best of both the worlds to a very significant extent. Copenhagen is just an instructive illustration. And not so surprisingly, India has decided to participate in the conference on nuclear disarmament in Tehran despite the step likely to raise eyebrows in the US.5 In fact, the recognition of India in the nuclear order through the Indo-US nuclear deal and the ensuing multiple nuclear agreements have given it a better diplomatic elbow-space which it is finding more useful in the context of diminishing unilateralism in US under Obama. *Turning hypocrisy into currency of power* But then, one has to trace the original source of the hypocrisy – the first nuclear weapons state that also is the first and the only actual user of these inhuman weapons so far, the United States. The US has presided over and perpetuated an order of hypocrisy, and, as a consequence, even the most undemocratic states like Iran are able to champion dissidence against American hegemony mustering substantial support among their population and also elicit resonance in the larger developing world because of a simple and continuing truth – the existing nuclear regime is actually hypocritical. Here one must underline that the self-contradiction in the NPT regime is present not only in the form of the differential treatment offered to nuclear haves and have-nots. But also, another deep irony is the espousal of ‘peaceful’ nuclear technology over the globe by a regime that ostensibly seeks to curb proliferation, leading to a nuclear-free world. Despite being an established proliferation route for newer states, the NPT regime continues to promote civil nuclear programmes as the defining element of the basic bargain of the Treaty. This ‘cornerstone’ of the regime is held so sacrosanct that even cases like Iran (inside the Treaty) and India (outside the regime but nonetheless has used foreign nuclear technology and material for eventual weaponisation) do not prompt plugging of the ‘peaceful’ nuclear loophole in the nuclear regime itself. The reasons for this dichotomy are mainly two. First, to be able to stand and ask for some genuinely and urgently needed changes in the NPT system, the NWS, especially the US and Russia have to show some real and substantial progress on disarming themselves as promised under article VI of the Treaty. The recent new push towards nuclear disarmament – provided by the Wall Street Journal articles by the four veterans, Obama’s Prague speech and his personal commitment for CTBT and US-Russia nuclear reductions – have been widely seen as welcome developments, and rightly so. However, scholars and concerned disarmament activists have also expressed their apprehensions that this new call to disarmament, although positive normatively, is in substance little more than re-packaging of arms control and stricter nonproliferation measures. These are necessary but not sufficient steps and by themselves do not lead to disarmament.6 The second reason behind perpetuating this self-contradiction in the NPT system is the huge commercial interests involved in civil nuclear trade. Be it climate change or nuclear Armageddon, the present world system will not forgo any commercial gains even if it has to risk the entire humanity. The truth is that our experiences with nuclear energy have posed several serious questions before all its tall claims: The proliferation risks inseparably associated with nuclear technology, civil or military, can never be minimised to zero. The ever increasing risk of sabotage or control over nuclear facilities by terrorists has made this task even more daunting, especially because the malicious elements won’t need full control or too much of nuclear material to fashion a dirty bomb. The nuclear energy hasn’t proven itself economically attractive or even really competitive when we look into its unseen costs. Nor it is a truly ‘green’ option; from mining to fuel fabrication to construction of reactors, it has fairly large carbon footprints. Also, it is nothing but a modernist credo of technological determinism that is keeping our eyes away from the yet unresolved problem of nuclear waste7 and also the fact that highly centralised power production, by its very definition, promotes a ‘development’ pattern which is hugely eco-destructive. Moreover, it is potentially catastrophic as demonstrated by the Chernobyl disaster. The overlooking of this self-contradiction in the system has only helped in swelling the number of potential proliferators. And now that the mentors of the system have come to accept this dichotomy, they accept it in an utterly pervert way. Their response is to selectively punish the bad nukes and reward the good nukes. It is a recipe for utter disaster. When it comes to nuclear, no country’s weapons can be responsible. *Case-by-case approach will just not work* Weakened by the continuing denial of the original nuclear weapon states to disarm themselves as promised under Article VI of the NPT, and having the paradoxical duty of keeping proliferation under check while at the same time spreading nuclear technology; the NPT based nonproliferation regime requires substantial overhaul in its 40th year. It is necessary for the world to bring the task of disarming the existing weapon-states back on the agenda while ensuring nonproliferation through stricter verifications. This would also imply discouraging nuclear energy as an option, the experience of the last half century has already proved its un-sustainability and economic non-viability, besides being an established proliferation route for new states. However, getting consensus for this bold move would entail some substantial movement on disarmament on the part of US. This would also mean closing shop for the nuclear retailers in the energy sector. To avoid this, the US has chosen some dangerous quick fixes – to increase its military preponderance through missile defence and to devise extra-regime punitive actions or unilateral pre-emption towards hostile countries with advanced "civilian" nuclear capabilities like Iran. Practically, the sanctions on Iran have only served to embolden the misplaced resolve of Ahmadinejad’s supporters. On the other hand, the nuclear power route to weaponisation in India’s case and its eventual mainstreaming is seen to have made this option attractive for others, including Iran. *De-value the weapons, de-mystify the technology * The route to disarmament is still long-drawn but the experiences of last century did teach us some important lessons: nuclear weapons do not provide us any security and nuclear technology is not a sustainable option for our energy needs. Still, there is a mystique attached to both and the latter paves way for weaponisation. We urgently need to take the shine out of these foolish and dangerous myths that animate us. And, this is doable. The organisations and activists involved in nuclear disarmament movement have been arguing in favour of promoting renewable energy to break this deadlock. An international body, International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), was founded in 2009 with support of 149 countries “to promote renewable energy sources to take the place of fossil fuels without resorting to nuclear power”. 8 Moreover, as also the support for IRENA among the developing nations suggests, not all the NNWS will refuse to recognize the problems with essentially proliferation-prone nature of nuclear technology. The huge financial, infrastructural and security requisites already prevent a large number of NNWS from having nuclear ambitions despite legally being entitled to it. The major alibi justifying resistance to any new game-changing addition to the NPT among the developing countries is the continuing refusal of the NWS to disarm themselves. If we wish to restore faith in the nuclear regime and effectively link it to disarmament, what is required is its comprehensive re-working - real, universal and time-bound progress on disarmament, strengthening of the regime’s nonproliferation thrust and broad-based mechanisms to prevent nuclear terrorism, and discouraging of nuclear technology in its “peaceful” avatar. 1. *“Iran issues challenge to the world's nuclear powers”,<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/apr/01/iran-nuclear-conference> * 2. *“Book Now: Nuclear Disarmament Conference in Tehran” http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/book-now-nuclear-disarmament-conference-in-tehran/ * 3. *“Questions Surround Iran’s Nuclear Program”,<http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Iran-IAEA-Issues> * 4. *“Mousavi and Iran’s Nuclear Politics”,<http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/11/04/mousavi-and-irans-nuclear-politics/> * 5. *“India Off to Iran N-Meet”,<http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=04_04_2010_001_012&mode=1> * 6. *“Dare We Call It Nuclear Disarmament”,<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/macha-levinson/dare-we-call-it-nuclear-d_b_518460.html> * 7. *“Nuclear Energy - No Solution to Climate Change” A Greenpeace background paper.<http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/no.nukes/nenstcc.html> * 8. *“A Global Push for Renewable Energy”* -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
