Proposition One
Treaties
Section 3
***************************************************************
According to a Greenpeace International report, 1994:
"The contradictions inherent to the NPT can be summarized as
follows: The Treaty has the primary objective of preventing
nuclear proliferation, yet it legitimizes the nuclear weapons
possessed by the official nuclear weapons states; the Treaty
promotes the development and trade in nuclear technology and
materials that are directly useable in nuclear weapons; the
Treaty promises the benefits of 'peaceful' nuclear
explosions (PNEs).
"The main weaknesses in the Treaty are: the Treaty is widely
perceived as discriminatory by the majority of its parties. This
has several components. It argues that the obligations on the
non-nuclear weapons states, NNWS, are far greater than the
nuclear weapons states, NWS; and NNWS are prohibited from
developing nuclear weapons, yet the NWS are permitted to expand
and qualitatively develop their own nuclear weapons arsenal.
"The Treaty discriminates in one of the key areas of nuclear
non-proliferation, nuclear safeguards. The official NWS
are not obliged to have any of their nuclear facilities - civil
or military - under international safeguards; whereas the NNWS
have full-scope safeguards applied to them.
"NPT safeguards as implemented by the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) are unable to detect and deter diversion of
nuclear materials into nuclear weapons programmes, and with no
prospect for substantial improvement; the only obligation for the
NWS is to negotiate at an 'early date' effective measures to stop
the nuclear arms race, and move to general nuclear disarmament.
The Treaty was deliberately framed to permit continued
collaboration between the official nuclear weapon states on the
development of nuclear weapons.
"Specifically, the NPT has failed because: it promotes the
trade in nuclear weapon-usable technology and materials; it
continues to defend ineffective IAEA safeguards; it continues to
advocate nuclear energy, threatening economic indebtedness, and
environmental disaster; it has inhibited the development of safe,
economic, and environmentally benign energy sources by all
nations, but in particular the countries of the South; it
continues to promote peaceful nuclear explosions; it has allowed
the NWS's to develop, deploy and target ever more lethal nuclear
weapons."
****************************************************************
A July 20, 1994, Washington Post official editorial (author
unknown), "The Key to the Nuclear Lock":
"The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is the basic law by
which the nations of the world broker and enforce nuclear
restraint. It's up for renewal in 1995, and few things could do
more to undercut the American interest in a safer world than to
have this treaty vitiated or delayed. But something like that
could yet happen, and it could be partly on the American account.
Not that the United States lacks enthusiasm for extending the
treaty. But the United States has the chief responsibility for
the particular development--a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTB)--that enables the nuclear have countries to look the have-
nots in the eye and insist they sign on the non-nuclear line, and
that effort is not going so well.
"The problem is that, among the five acknowledged nuclear
powers, America and Russia have forsworn testing, but China,
France and Britain have not. The non-nuclear countries have some
justification in saying that they cannot really be expected to
abandon their nuclear option altogether when nuclear countries do
not accept concrete limits on their own existing capabilities.
Testing, which facilitates and symbolizes nuclear development and
nuclear pride, is the most conspicuous of these limits. It's the
key to the nuclear lock...."
****************************************************************
The September 10, 1994, Washington Times, The U.N. Report column,
"New NPT text readied," reported:
"The U.N. disarmament conference ended its deliberations for
1994 in Geneva this week after drafting a revised text for the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
"During the past several weeks, the 37 member states have
hammered out a working text to replace the current treaty, which
expires next year.... Verification remains a contentious issue.
"Talks on the NPT ran into difficulties after some of the 165
signatories demanded that the treaty include a ban on nuclear
testing.
"Several states have also demanded a separate treaty in which
nuclear powers pledge not to threaten states with atomic weapons,
but sources said agreement was unlikely to be reached soon."
***************************************************************
A September 16, 1994, London Financial Times article by Frances
Williams in Geneva, reported, "Opposition to nuclear treaty
grows":
"...Mr. Isaac Ayewah of Nigeria, chairman of a meeting in
Geneva to prepare for the NPT extension conference next spring
said yesterday that a majority of states appeared to favour only
a limited extension of the treaty, accompanied by clear moves by
the five declared nuclear-weapons states towards nuclear
disarmament.
"This was later refuted by Mr Thomas Graham, head of the US
delegation, who said about 60 countries were committed to making
the NPT permanent while the remainder of the treaty-s 164 members
had yet to make up their minds....
"A decision to extend the NPT requires a simple majority of
treaty members and can be taken only once....
"Critics single out what they see as the failure of the
nuclear powers to abide by their NPT obligations to enter 'good
faith' negotiations to end the nuclear arms race and work for
eventual elimination of nuclear weapons...." [Article VI]
****************************************************************
The January/February 1995 Interfaith Council for Peace and
Justice, Ann Arbor, Michigan newsletter published "The U.S. Role
in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (excerpts from Dr. Natalie
Goldring's talk on the NPT on November 11, 1994)":
"...[T]here are a large number of countries that we consider
friendly but that have the technical capability to build nuclear
weapons on a very, very short notice - countries like Germany,
Italy, Japan....
"There are lots of threats to the NPT. One is the continued
modernization of the nuclear powers' weapons, particularly the
United States, France and the United Kingdom these days... The
more these countries treat nuclear weapons as a sign of status
and importance in the international community, the more other
countries are going to want these weapons...
"U.S. policy has been weak. We claim to have a significant
interest in non-proliferation, but we tend to work in two
directions at the same time. We say we are trying to amend the
Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, to provide for the opportunity to
deploy theater short range missile defenses. We say we're doing
that to protect against all of these proliferating countries who
are developing ballistic missile capability. The defenses ...
highlight the nuclear powers' continued commitment to their
nuclear weapons.
"...Third piece of bad news is this general failure of the
nuclear weapons states to meet their commitments under the
treaty... article six.... The general and complete disarmament
is conventional, nukes, biological, chemical, everything. That's
what these countries committed themselves to when they signed the
treaty...."
****************************************************************
A report in the January 11, 1995, Wall Street Journal by Peter
Waldman (reporter) advised, "Egypt Confronts Israel on Nuclear
Arms; Pressure to Sign Non-Proliferation Pact Strains Ties":
"...In recent weeks, Egypt has launched a campaign aimed at
pressuring Israel into signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty when it comes up for renewal this spring. Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak has declared that, unless Israel signs
the treaty, Egypt won't sign either, a stand that several other
Arab states probably will follow.... Egyptian officials say they
don't want to spark a crisis with Israel over the nuclear issue.
At the same time, Egypt wants to hear from Israel, at least in
private, how and when Israel plans to open up its suspected
nuclear program, officials say. One reason for their increased
concern is Iran. The Egyptians ask how Arab states can help
rally opposition to Iran's alleged nuclear program, which some
Arabs fear more than Israel's, as long as Israel remains in the
nuclear closet....
"Israeli President Ezer Weizman recently said Israel will end
its nuclear ambiguity once it achieves genuine peace with all its
enemies, including Iran... [called by Egypt] 'a delaying
tactic.'"
****************************************************************
The January 19, 1995 Washington Post published an article by John
Lancaster and Barton Gellman, "Dispute Over Nuclear Weapons
Strains Egyptian-Israeli Ties":
"...The dispute over the Non-Proliferation Treaty has
intensified in recent weeks. Although Israel has never
acknowledged having a nuclear weapons program, it is widely
believed to possess about 200 nuclear devices...
"Arab diplomats warn that if Israel fails to join their
countries in renouncing nuclear weapons, it could set off a new
arms race in the region, as Arab governments embark on nuclear
programs of their own.
"'Israel has to understand that countries cannot but seek a
means of defending themselves if one of them possesses the means
of destruction,' said Adnan Omran, a Syrian who is deputy
secretary general of the Arab League. 'You cannot think that
peace will prevail in the Middle East, even with Egypt, if the
Israelis persist in being the only nuclear country in the
region.'
"Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq have all pledged to join
Egypt in withholding their signatures from the treaty if Israel
does not sign...."
****************************************************************
A January 28, 1995, New York Times editorial suggested, in
"Extend the Nuclear Firewall," that "The 1968 Nonproliferation
Treaty... has helped keep nuclear power programs from being used
to make arms and was a factor in persuading South Africa, Brazil,
Argentina and Ukraine to give up their nuclear arms or
arms-making...."
****************************************************************
January 31, 1995, New York Times, by Douglas Jehl: "U.S. in
new pledge on atom test ban; seeks to persuade 3d World to Halt
Weapons' Spread":
"...Under the plan, Mr. Clinton directed that a moratorium on
nuclear testing by the US be extended through at least September
1996, when the nuclear powers are expected to sign a treaty
imposing a comprehensive ban on such tests. At the same time, he
ordered negotiators in Geneva to abandon what has been his
Administration's insistence that the accord be fully binding for
only 10 years....
"Until today, the Pentagon had argued that the US should leave
itself room to withdraw from a CTB so it could conduct any tests
needed to insure that its arsenal remained safe.... Mr. Lake
announced the reversal in an address today after the President
gave it his endorsement.... If a CTB proved hostile to American
interests, Mr.Lake said in his speech, the US could still
withdraw from the accord even if it did not contain the specific
escape clause the Administration has sought.
"The US last conducted an underground nuclear explosion on
Sept. 23, 1992. While the law passed by Congress would have
permitted 15 more such nuclear tests after Mr Clinton took
office, the President announced in July 1993 that he had decided
instead to impose a temporary moratorium, which he renewed last
year and again today.... [W]hile China has conducted three
nuclear tests since the American moratorium began, the White
House has chosen each time merely to condemn them, and
Administration officials said today that they could not imagine
that more tests by the Chinese would persuade Mr. Clinton to
resume American testing.... France, Russia and China have all
pressed for a test ban that would allow the powers to conduct
large explosions to maintain the safety of their arsenals, and
Administration officials said today that the US would now be more
flexible about its previous insistence that any tests permitted
under the accord involve no more than four pounds of nuclear
material."
[Sounds contradictory, somehow, doesn't it?]