The Facade of the NPT
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 is the international communities attempt to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Since its introduction, 189 countries have become party to the treaty. There are two classes of signatories: nuclear weapon states, including the U.S., the U.K., Russia, China, and France, who were pre-NPT nuclear powers; and non-nuclear weapon states (all the others). The 4 nations not party to the treaty are India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea — all nations with nuclear capabilities.
Article six of the NPT states that all nations party to the treaty, both nuclear states and non-nuclear states, “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” Bear in mind that the entire point to the NPT is too see to a proliferation-free international community.
Does the existence of the Nuclear Weapon States completely undermine the purpose of the treaty? I believe so. It is essentially a double standard and is the reason why nations like Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea have no incentive to be a part of the treaty. If they wish to sign onto the treaty they will be pressured to dismantle their nuclear capability, which to the leaders of those 4 nations seems a bit irrational.
Furthermore, when nations like the United States actively pursue “mini-nuke” programs under the leadership of the Bush Administration it serves to further undermine the legitimacy and solvency of the treaty. Even more, it overthrows the U.S. stance of non-preemptive nuclear strikes, because “mini-nukes” have no other purpose than use for preemptive (or possibly preventative) low-level strikes. This subsequently sets a dangerous international precedent and encourages other nations to take similar steps.
Will nuclear weapons ever be completely eradicated from the international system? I don’t imagine any time soon and perhaps for good cause. As international theorist Kenneth Waltz dictated in his article Nuclear Weapons: More May be Better, in the realist international system the presence of nuclear weapons actually stabilizes the system and acts as the strongest deterrent known to man. It is hard to disagree. A nation that possesses nuclear weapons is virtually immune from invasion and is given a higher degree of international leverage. What state leader wouldn’t want nuclear weapons? Would a nuclear Iran help to stabilize the Middle East and force the U.S. to deal with them purely diplomatically?
The point is that the NPT is perfect in the land of utopia, but is wholly quixotic in a realist international system.
Is it really a facade just because it recognizes the truth of the situation (that some states have nuclear weapons and will continue to have them)?
This may sound redundant, but the point of the NPT is “non-proliferation,” not “nuclear elimination.” The main motive for the hundreds of non-nuclear states out there to remain that way is that they will be given assistance in their civilian nuclear programs by other states.
So, what do we do with the 4 outliers? Tell them to dismantle their nuclear arsenal? Yeah right. The fact that these 4 states see it unreasonable that the 5 nuclear-states party to the NPT are able to maintain their arsenal (and even continue to proliferate, hence the mini-nukes) undermines the point of article XI and essentially guarantees that those 4 outsider states will remain on the outside.
Even so, this international regime still provides incentives for over 100 other nations to not develop nuclear technology. So even if those 4 remain outliers, the treaty is still accomplishing some good.
I know it’s not perfect, though. There really isn’t a perfect way to prevent nuclear proliferation for some states with certain amounts of resources and strategic needs.
As Denney pointed out, the point of the treaty, and the only way we got the non-declared states to sign on to it was to promise that we would dismantle our arsenals. By not doing so, it is quite clear that we have duped the rest of the world into going along with this corrupt regime. We established this system in bad faith. Pure and simple. David, I don’t know how you can see Article 6 as anything but establishing a nuclear-elimination provision in the treaty.
In contract law, there is the principle of good faith. If one party doesn’t negotiate in good faith, the other party can void the contract. I see no reason why that shouldn’t apply to international law. If we’re not willing to abide by the terms of the NPT, how can we be surprised when NK withdraws from it or Iran tries to circumvent it?