Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- When You're Cutting Social Security, 'Wealthy' Begins at $25K
- With Little More Than a Note, Obama Deploys US Troops To Niger
- Stripped of 'Country of Origin' Label, US Agrees to Sell Tear Gas to Egypt
- Who Can Own Life? Farmer vs. Monsanto Before US High Court
- 5 Reasons Why the Keystone XL Pipeline is Bad for the Economy
- Who Can Own Life? Farmer vs. Monsanto Before US High Court
- Scale Implosion: After Ruining America, the Era of Giant Chain Stores Is Over
- Decolonize the Consumerist Wasteland: Re-imagining a World Beyond Capitalism and Communism
- 5 Reasons Why the Keystone XL Pipeline is Bad for the Economy
- Lose Your Lawn
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Grand Bargain of the NPT and the Rules of the Nuclear Game Today
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed in 1968 and came into force in 1970.
In May 2010, both diplomats and nongovernmental leaders are gathering at
the UN in New York for the 40 Year NPT Review
Conference -- as mandated by the treaty itself -- to assess how the
various parties are complying with the various obligations they
undertook four long decades ago. Here is the opening section of Chapter 7
of the brand new book from Rutgers University Press by Tad
Daley, Apocalypse Never: Forging
the Path to a Nuclear Weapon-Free World, www.apocalypsenever.org,
called "The Grand Bargain of the NPT and the
Rules of the Nuclear Game Today."
* * *
The year 2008 was filled with
anniversary commemorations and remembrances of the many epochal historic
events that had taken place four decades earlier, during the seminal
year of 1968. The Tet offensive in Vietnam, which for the first time
caused many Americans to comprehend that this was a war we might
actually lose. The assassination of Martin Luther King, and the riots
that ensued around the country. The assassination of leading
presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy two months later. The melee at
the Chicago Democratic convention. The Mexico City Olympics, and the
black power salutes of Tommie Smith and John Carlos. The tumultuous
three-way November presidential election and the victory of Richard M.
Nixon. And -- at the very end of the year, on Christmas Eve -- the flight
of Apollo 8 from the earth to the moon, and the first view that any
humans had ever been granted of our single, borderless, breathtaking
planet, lonely and fragile and whole, suspended among the blazing stars.
Yet one anniversary, that largely escaped public notice in 2008, may have consequences in the end greater than any of these.
The 1968 Deal
After you finish reading this chapter of Apocalypse Never, go out and try an experiment. Enter a Starbuck's, or some locally owned alternative, and see if you can chat up 100 people waiting in line. There are always people waiting in line at these places. Tell them that on July 1, 1968, in Washington, London, and Moscow, world leaders signed something called the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the "NPT."
Then ask them to tell you what it says. In this age of vast civic disengagement, probably around 90 will respond, "I don't know. I never heard of it." Of the remaining ten, probably eight or nine will tell you, "It's about preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. It's about keeping countries like North Korea and Iran from getting The Bomb."
Those eight or nine respondents will be half right. In the NPT, the human race endeavored to offer a permanent solution to the great problem of the nuclear age. The grand bargain of the NPT was that the many "nuclear have-nots" agreed forever to forego nuclear weapons, while the few "nuclear haves" agreed to get rid of theirs.
No, that is not a misprint. Of your 100 interlocutors, quite likely no more than one or two will know that more than forty years ago, the U.S. government committed itself to eliminate its entire nuclear arsenal. And -- in conjunction with the other nuclear weapon states -- to abolish nuclear weapons from the face of the earth forever.
Really. Try the experiment today.
The NPT does not just impose non-proliferation obligations on countries like Iran and Syria and Libya. The NPT imposes disarmament obligations on us. Article VI of the Treaty commits the nuclear states "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date, and to nuclear disarmament ... under strict and effective international control."
Lest anyone assert any ambiguity in those words, one need turn only to the treaty's preamble, which states that the signatories are "desiring to further the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons ..." It was the first time since the dawn of the age of atomic weapons, nearly a quarter century earlier, that the human race had formally expressed its intent to bring that age eventually to a close.
"The NPT is supposed to lead to a nuclear-free world," says Ben Sanders, a member of the Dutch delegation to the 2000 NPT Review Conference. "The non-nuclear countries see it as a bargain which the weapons states have failed to keep." "The NPT does not simply aim to maintain the nuclear status quo," says Ambassador George Bunn, who served on the original U.S. negotiating team in the late 1960s. "Article VI ... requires that the original five nuclear weapon states pursue effective nuclear disarmament measures." "The NPT is based on a core bargain under which all the non-nuclear-armed countries have agreed they would not acquire nuclear weapons," says former President Jimmy Carter. "In exchange, the five nuclear-armed countries have agreed to take good faith disarmament steps, with the eventual goal of the complete, worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. The Treaty has been remarkably successful on the first part of the bargain, but not so successful on the second."
The NPT for Dummies
The NPT was signed in 1968 by three nuclear weapon states (the U.S., the USSR, and the United Kingdom), and by 59 non-nuclear weapon states. For various reasons the nuclear weapon states France and China did not sign the treaty until 1992, though they did pledge in 1968 to adhere to its terms and for the most part did so during the ensuing quarter century.
The signatories eventually expanded to those five nuclear weapon states, and 183 non-nuclear weapon states. It is the most nearly universal treaty in all of human history, even more so than the United Nations Charter. Only four states remain outside the treaty regime, all of which possess nuclear weapons - India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea, which once was a member but withdrew in 2003. (Every party has a right to do that under Article X, which permits withdrawal if a state party concludes that "extraordinary events ... have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country." The next chapter will argue that North Korea could make quite a good argument that for them, during the Bush era, that was indeed the case.)
The full bargain of the NPT is actually a bit more complicated than just "we won't get them if you'll get rid of them." One way to grasp the essentials of the treaty is to examine what both sides put forth as their part of the deal.
So what do the non-nuclear weapon states give -- or give up? Two things. Two enormous concessions.
- The non-nuclear weapon states pledge to remain non-nuclear weapon states indefinitely into the future. That, of course, is what many believe to be the only goal of the treaty -- to prevent nuclear weapons from spreading into ever more hands around the planet. The promise comes in Article II, which says that the non-nuclear weapon states commit not to "receive," "manufacture," or "otherwise acquire" nuclear weapons.
- In addition, the non-nuclear weapon states also pledge to provide reports on all their peaceful nuclear activities to the IAEA, to allow international authorities to inspect that peaceful nuclear work to ensure that it doesn't become nuclear weapons work, and to allow significant intrusions upon their sovereignty. It is crucial to recognize that this duty applies only to the non-nuclear weapon states. The nuclear weapon states are under no obligation to report anything at all about their nuclear activities to international authorities -- peaceful or otherwise -- or to allow any kinds of intrusions upon their sovereignty whatsoever. The promise comes in Article III, which says that the non-nuclear weapon states commit "to accept safeguards ... for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons ..."
The nuclear weapon states pledge several things in return.
- The nuclear weapon states agree that the non-nuclear weapon states can pursue civilian nuclear programs. That promise comes in Article IV, which says that the latter hold an "inalienable right" to develop "nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."
- Moreover, the nuclear weapon states agree to assist the nuclear programs of the non-nuclear weapon states by providing the technologies for nuclear energy and other commercial nuclear products. That promise too comes in Article IV, which says that the nuclear weapon states commit "to facilitate ... the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials, and scientific and technological information" for non-weapons related nuclear projects, and that they "shall cooperate" with the non-nuclear weapon states for the "further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."
- In addition, the nuclear weapon states also agree not to launch a nuclear attack on any non-nuclear weapon state. (The agonizing history of this promise will be discussed in a separate section below.)
- Finally, the nuclear weapon states agree that eventually, they will eliminate their nuclear arsenals entirely, and deliver to the human race a nuclear weapon free world. This is the provision contained in Article VI, which remains so widely unknown to the public to this very day. .....
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


13 Comments so far
Show AllSo? Considering the fact that the U.S. ignores fundamental rule of law principles like habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence and trial by a jury of one's peers, dating back to Magna Carta Libertatum (the Great Charter of Freedoms), a few minor transgressions of its obligations under international law and ratified treaties ("supreme law" under its own constitution) are hardly significant. The NPT is merely one among many.
The only slight problem is that no person or nation in their right mind could possibly trust any current and future treaty commitments made by such a rogue member of the global community. And how large a step is it from there to total distrust of ALL legal and contractual agreements, including economic and commerial commitments? If U.S. law fails to prosecute blatant war crimes, can it be expected to fulfill and enforce ANY of its obligations?
Abrogation of the NPT may be regarded as a small price for U.S. "full spectrum dominance" in the geopolitical arena. But the broader imperial implications of a complete loss of international credibility aren't exactly "small potatoes" in the long run. On the other hand, western capitalist interests have never been known for long-term strategic perspicacity.
Well said RV. This point was also made at the end of the superb recent film The Green Zone.
The lack of trust, of credibility, of respect is the price our increasingly militarist government will pay for it's policy of lawlessness and deception. Since the two choices in the international arena are law and war, it looks like war has a bright future--until we bring about a foreign policy based on law and its enforcement instead of lawlessness and impunity.
This is one of those sad issues where good faith/intentions comes smack against ugly reality.
Of course we would like to live in a world without these monstrous weapons. Does anyone think Hitler, when faced with his complete destruction, wouldn't have pilled the trigger? cf. Is Paris Burning?
But the genie is out of the bottle. Just the knowledge that such weapons are possible and that they confer immense power on their possessors trumps any well-meaning attempt to eliminate them. Not just governments want them either. That crazy Japanese cult was actively pursuing them in the 90's.
Pogo was right. The good/evil. yin/yang meme of the inherent duality of man will play itself out regardless of anyone's intentions. The best bet I see is that we have a 50/50 chance of surviving.
Anyone see it differently?
Hitler made it abundantly clear that he wanted the "unworthy" German nation to die with him and did his very best to accomplish just that by every means at his disposal at the time. The U.S. is still more ambitious and appears likely to pursue a global "Samson option", similar to its closest Middle East ally, in retribution for its own ultimate self-generated failure.
As for your 50/50 bet, there are times when I'd consider that overly optimistic for the long run. Hopefully, the planet itself will survive and its next evolutionary round will replace the badly misnamed homo sapiens species with something a little more rational -- or at least less destructive.
So a non-signatory client state claims Iran is not in compliance.
So a non-compliant signatory state agrees with it's client state.
This seems like two big liars to me.
bombs away!
When the U.S. signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968, it agreed not to launch a nuclear attack on any non-nuclear weapon state. Under the U.S. Constitution, U.S. treaties are "the supreme law of the land."
But, Obama's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), issued last month, specifically excludes "countries designated as not in compliance with the NPT" from that provision.
In other words, Obama has announced that the U.S. is abrogating the 1968 treaty, and since it considers that Iran is not in compliance with the NPT, the U.S. may attack non-nuclear Iran with nuclear weapons if it so chooses.
This comes on top of Obama's continuation of the "Bush Doctrine"—which itself violates international law by declaring the U.S. has the right to preemptively attack a country that has not attacked it, and is not an imminent threat.
So now, in violation of the 1968 NPT, other international law and the U.S. Constitution, Obama claims the U.S. can preemptively attack Iran and it can do so with a nuclear first-strike—even though Iran has not attacked the U.S. or it's allies, is not an imminent threat to attack the U.S. or it's allies, and even though Iran is a non-nuclear state.
Well, he said he would bring "change."
Sioux Rose
NATURALLY: Smooth and savvy stealth analysis. Thanks for sharing it. And I PRAY that you are wrong!
These are all important and valid charges. While no US president has been prosecuted for war crimes, it is never too late. When Obama wanted to look forward, not backward, in reference to Bush II war crims, we now know he meant he was "looking forward" to committing more of them himself, such as over 500 civilians killed in airstrikes in Afghanistan and Pakstan. (Far more innocents than Timothy McVeigh killed and was executed for.)
Today on Meet the Press Hillary Clinton claimed that Iran was in violation of the NPT.
David Gregory neither asked her for evidence nor raised the issue of obvious breeches in the NPT (Article 6) by the US under her leadership.
The only way Clinton and her enabeling stenogropher, David Gregory, gets away with this is because the contents of articles like this one, are unknown to most Americans. I praise this article for its clarity.
"by the US under her leadership."
Last I heard, she's not the president. Obama is president. It's his policy and his leadership. Hillary is dispatched to the Sunday talk shows to represent Obama's policy.
Further, if she has any disagreement with Obama's policies she is not going to say so on national TV.
It is under her leadership AND Obama's. By Nuremberg principles both of them are to be held accountable for their many crimes, from drone attacks on civilians, to threats against Iran, to holding prisoners indefinitely, and more. If Clinton disagreed with the litany of war crimes being commited, she could resign, as others before her did, such as Elliot Richardson.
The larger point I made is that the administration's lying posture regarding Iran, and David Gregory's complicity, can only happen when large percentages of the public don't know about the terms of the NPT, and/or, don't care.
There are disagreements within administrations, and conscientious resignation is not always in the country's best interests. Colin Powell says he spent hours trying to dissuade Bush from invading Iraq, for example. Lawrence Wilkerson would not have knowledge of Bush crimes—which he is now blowing the whistle about—had he not been an administration insider.
Currently, in the Obama administration, some argue for military action against Iran, while others favor U.N. sanctions and diplomatic engagement. A nuclear first-strike is on the table. We don't know the details of the disagreement, because no one has yet leaked them. It should be apparent, however, that the resignations of all those appalled by the consideration of a nuclear first-strike would leave no moderate voices remaining within the administration, and would lead to the worst of all possible outcomes.
Those familiar with her record in the Senate, and able to see beyond the corporatist spin, know that Hillary is one of the voices of moderation.