So the nuclear-armed states of the world are supposedly claiming that the Non-Proliferation Treaty is at risk and have the gall to cite Iran as the cause.
This is laughably hypocritical in light of two things: first, the openly announced US/UK/French endorsement of the first-use of nuclear weapons against even non-nuclear armed states, and second, their absolute refusal to abide by their NPT obligation to disarm.
Background: the NPT
The Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is a bargain between the five recognized Nuclear Weapon States (China, US, UK, France, Britain, Russia) and Non-Nuclear Weapon States (everyone else who signed the treaty). Israel, Pakistan and India are non-signatories.
The bargain consists of:
1- the Non-Nuclear Weapons states agree to suspend their right to build nuclear weapons, and to allow IAEA inspections to ensure that they are not using civilian nuclear technology for non-peaceful uses.
2- the Nuclear Weapons States in return promise to share civilian nuclear technology and recognize the absolute, inalienable right of Non-Nuclear Weapons States to have nuclear technology, to work toward the disarmament of their own nuclear arms, and to not share nuclear technology with non-NPT signatories like Israel and India.
The First Use Issue
Note that these article comes at the eve of an NPT review conference, in which the nuclear-armed states are going to try (as usual) to strengthen their advantage by imposing further restrictions on the nuclear rights of non-nuclear weapon states.
This is part of a long, long pattern: originally, the NPT was given a 25-year lifespan. In 1995, under extreme US pressure, the signatories agreed to extend the NPT indefinitely, even though the nuclear-armed states had blatantly failed to live up to their end of the nuclear bargain. Still, the meeting was unable to adopt a final resolution because there was deep disagreement between the nuclear-armed states versus the non-nuclear armed states:
The disagreements cut across North-South lines. Notably, criticism of the nuclear-weapon States on issues of disarmament brought together members of the NAM [Non-Aligned Movement] and some members of the Western European and Other States Group.
Iran tried to include language favoring the creation of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the mideast, but that met with the typical resistance by the backers of Israel. Also, with regard to the nuclear fuel cycle, although some countries tried to impose limits on others,
the Conference confirmed "that each country's choices and decisionsin [this] field .. should be respected without jeopardizing its policies or international cooperation agreements and arrangements ... and its fuel-cycle policies".
But despite that language, the US is still trying to impose limits on other the nuclear fuel cycle development in other countries, as well as imposing arbitrary limits on their NPT duty to share civilian nuclear technology -- thus in effect attempting to monopolize nuclear technology for themselves.
More importantly, note also that to get that indefinite extension in 1995, the Clinton administration re-stated a promise to not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear armed states except in self defense (the Negative Security Assurance)
This promise not to use or threaten the use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear armed country is enshrined in UN Security Council Resolution 984 which states:
[I]n case of aggression with nuclear weapons or the threat of such aggression against a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, any State may bring the matter immediately to the attention of the Security Council to enable the Council to take urgent action...
But no sooner had the ink dried on the indefinite extension than the US blatantly violated its promise:
Since then, the backtracking by the NWS [Nuclear-Weapon States] on their existing unilateral nuclear security assurances, as well as the pledges made in 1995 and in 2000, have become a considerable concern. These concerns were triggered by statements made by senior U.S. and U.K. officials, the 2001 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), and the release of the U.S. National Defense Strategy, which included the possible use of nuclear weapons against NNWS [Non-Nuclear Weapon States] —in some cases preemptively. . . despite the solemn pledges and agreements reached in 1995 and 2000, the United States has clearly decided to walk away from the concept of NSAs [Negative Security Assurances] that have for more than 30 years been central to the deal embodied in the NPT. Less than two months after the release of the NPR, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security State John Bolton made it clear that the United States no longer felt bound by any NSAs...
Despite promising to disarm, the US is building new, more user-friendly nuclear weapons (that are specifically meant to be used offensively, and NOT as a deterrent of last resort) Though the US has made some reduction in its nuclear arsenal size, these are only unilateral and reversible reductions that still leave thousands of nuclear weapons untouched. And despite the promise not to use nuclear weapons, the Bush administration states that "no options are ruled out."
So, contrary to the negative security assurance, not only has Bush explicitly threatened to nuke Iran, and not only has Senator Clinton parrotted the same threat, but the the first-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear armed states is part of the official military doctrine of the United States, whether in response to the threat of chemical or biological weapons, or simply "in the event of surprising military developments".
The UK has adopted an even less restrictive position on the first-use of nuclear weapons, according to which nuclear weapons could be used to "deliver messages" or punish countries ...
"aimed at a non-critical, possibly [!] uninhabited area, with the message that if the country concerned pursued its present course of action, nuclear weapons will be aimed at a high-priority target. Finally, there is the punitive role, where a country has committed an act, despite specific warning that to do so would incur a nuclear strike."
France has recently stated that it too would use nuclear weapons on a first-strike basis under equally vaguely defined conditions.
Second Issue: Disarmament
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligates the Nuclear-Armed States to work towards disarmament. This has simply not happened, and in fact both the US and UK have simply thumbed their noses at their NPT obligations. Britain has stated that it will be keeping its nuclear arsenal no matter what, and worse yet, the United States is not only envisioning the first use of nuclear weapons but is also developing a generation of smaller "tactical" nuclear weapons which are intended to be more "useable" in combat.
This, despite the fact that the 2000 NPT review conference adopted a document specifically requiring the Nuclear Weapons States to engage in "13 Steps" to achieve disarmement.
But again, no sooner had the ink dried on this agreement than the US blatantly violated it by endorsing a new nuclear doctrine. The US now claims that the 13 Steps were merely irrelevant suggestions:
During the last NPT review cycle, much controversy arose over the present day import of certain positions related to nuclear disarmament, i.e. the “Thirteen practical steps”, which were articulated in the Final Document of the NPT Review Conference held in 2000. The security environment has changed substantially since 2000, and we cannot assume that all suggestions made then necessarily remain relevant today.”
Conclusion
So, here we have a situation that Iran is doing exactly what it is legally allowed to do under the NPT, as are many other nations who have obtained or are working on the nuclear fuel cycle. On the other hand, the nuclear-armed states have blatanly refused to abide by their own end of the NPT bargain to disarm their nuclear weapons and have instead resorted to blatant threats of nuclear attack -- and yet the nuclear-armed states have the gall to claim that countries like Iran are undermining the NPT.
Yeah, sure.
