Nuclear  double standard

Nuclear double standard

Like Iran, Israel, India and Pakistan also have dismal records of little or no cooperation with international inspectors

By John Grula 10/14/2009

Like it? Tweet it! SHARE IT!

America’s perennial need for bogeymen (remember North Viet Nam? Manuel Noriega? Saddam Hussein?) is now focused on Iran. A recent example was the Sept. 25 announcement by President Obama that Iran is building a nuclear facility near the holy city of Qom. This revelation was orchestrated by a few Western leaders for maximum propaganda value. However, this Iranian project is not nearly as menacing or beyond the pale as Obama and company would have us believe.

First, let us remember that Iran has actually signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and therefore is subject to its terms, such as submitting to inspections of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In compliance with its treaty obligations, Iran allowed IAEA inspectors to visit its nuclear reactor near the city of Arak in August and it also agreed to changes that will ease monitoring of its uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz. In addition, Iran has already agreed to allow the IAEA to examine the recently disclosed site at Qom, of which it had informed the IAEA four days before Obama’s announcement.

All of this is in stark contrast to the three nations which have never signed the NPT — Israel, India and Pakistan — which also have dismal records of little or no cooperation with IAEA inspections. Operating in secrecy over decades, Israel, India and Pakistan have now amassed nuclear arsenals estimated to range in size from 60 to 120 in the cases of India and Pakistan to about 200 in the case of Israel.

So when Obama declares, as he did Sept. 25, that “Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow,” he is conveniently ignoring the fact that Israel, India and Pakistan have been operating outside the rules for a long time. When it comes to nuclear weapons, somehow these countries have always been exempt from the rules that “all nations must follow.” Iran obviously chafes under this gross and hypocritical double standard; hence it is understandable that it has not always been inclined to bend to the West’s will.

Second, let’s also be clear that the NPT expressly permits all signatory nations to develop nuclear energy. According to Article IV of the treaty, “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” This is what Iran says it is doing. All 16 US intelligence agencies effectively agreed with Iran when they reached a consensus in December 2007 that the Iranians had halted their nuclear weapons program in 2003. The West’s obsession with and questionable interpretation of Iran’s nuclear power aspirations — while other nations such as India and China aggressively pursue theirs — again represents an unjust and untenable double standard.

Thirdly, while Obama is to be congratulated for his recent success in obtaining a UN Security Council resolution that supports the goal of eventually eliminating all nuclear weapons, until this actually happens, the US, Russia, China, Britain and France are all in violation of the NPT. This treaty, which entered into force in 1970, obligates these nations and other signatories with nuclear arsenals to “pursue negotiations in good faith on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” At this point we are nearly 40 years late in fulfilling our NPT obligations.

Our failure to achieve general and complete nuclear disarmament is another example of the double standards which impede the goals of the NPT and the quest for a world free of nuclear weapons. India has long maintained, with some justification, that it cannot abide a discriminatory system which has never resolved the harsh dilemma most recently expressed by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev: “…if it is acceptable for five or 10 countries to have nuclear weapons as their ‘ultimate security guarantee,’ why should it not be the case for 20 or 30 others?”

As long as the US and other nuclear powers hypocritically uphold a double standard in which we claim nuclear weapons are essential for our national security, but other nations such as Iran are not allowed to make this claim, we are probably in a losing struggle for the cause of disarmament. Instead of obsessing about the speck of dust in another’s eye, let us take the beam from our own eye so that we may more clearly see the way towards a future free from the threat of nuclear weapons.


 John Grula, Ph.D., is affiliated with the Southern California Federation of Scientists.  For the last 25 years he has been active in a number of LA-area nuclear arms control organizations.

DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT

Like it? Tweet it!

Other Stories by John Grula

Related Articles

Comments

India will be placing 11 of its nuclear installations under IAEA inspection within the next 2-3 years, under the Indo-US nuclear agreement. Contrast this with the five nuclear powers under the NPT who have placed a total of THREE nuclear installations under IAEA inspections.

Thus, India, despite being outside the NPT is doing a lot better than USA, Russia, UK, France and China put together!

Furthermore, why should India cooperate with the weapons inspectors when Indian never signed the NPT?

Before it went nuclear, India had in fact offered to sign the NPT but only if the existing nuclear powers agreed on a time bound framework for nuclear disarmament. They didn't agree of course.

India is a free country sitting in a very bad neighborhood (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tibet, Myanmar, as well as war torn Sri Lanka) and needs to take care of its own legitimate defense needs.

So what gives just 5 nations the right to possess massive arsenals, but not other nations?

posted by BBSROrissa on 10/15/09 @ 12:20 p.m.

I would like to respond to the comment posted yesterday by BBSROrissa.
While it may seem cooperative of India to be placing 11 of its nuclear installations under IAEA inspection within the next 2-3 years (by the way, why the long delay? The Indo-US nuclear agreement is now a year old!), these 11 installations are civilian reactors for energy generation. Meanwhile, India has 8 military reactors that will remain off-limits to IAEA inspections. Therefore, India will be able to continue its nuclear weapons program in secrecy without any international monitoring.
While it is a sorry and inexcusable record that the 5 original nuclear powers which have signed the NPT have placed only 3 nuclear installations under IAEA inspections, this is still 3 more than India at this point. So, it is incorrect to say India is doing a lot better than the USA, Russia, UK, France and China put together.
Because India has not signed the NPT then yes, strictly speaking, it is not required to cooperated with IAEA inspections. I can only say that in not signing the NPT, India, Israel, and Pakistan should be considered rogue pariah states with respect to this issue compared to the more than 170 nations which HAVE signed this treaty.
There are many nations that can claim they are "sitting in a very bad neighborhood," so this cannot be a valid excuse to have nuclear weapons or else nuclear proliferation will become even worse than it is now. Because of the destructive power of nuclear weapons and the fact that they can be delivered within 30-60 minutes essentially anywhere in the world by intercontinental ballistic missiles, the entire planet has become "a very bad neighborhood." The only way to improve this "worldwide bad neighborhood" is to abolish all nuclear weapons. So I agree that all nations, including the 5 that make up the original "nuclear club," need to do just that. If you will read my article carefully, you will see this is precisely what I call for. And I also say the US, Russia, UK, France and China are in violation of the NPT as long as they fail to eliminate all of their nuclear weapons. And it is precisely my point that no nation should have some kind of inherent right to nuclear weapons while denying that right to other nations. There is no such right and this is what I mean by the "double standards" that currently exist.

John Grula

posted by jgrula on 10/16/09 @ 06:52 p.m.
Post A Comment

Requires free registration.

(Forgotten your password?")