Гольцева О.Ю. Международное право в официальных документах. Под ред. И.А. Горшеневой

311

In the meantime, he is reported to be wanting far fewer

US nuclear warheads (in the hundreds rather than thousands) and he wants the US Senate to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty.

There is no suggestion that nuclear-weapon states are ready to disarm completely.

Russia and China have both announced upgrades to their nuclear arsenals and so has the UK, with a plan to build four new submarines with Trident missiles.

However British Prime Minister has proposed that, as part of an overall agreed package, Britain might build three submarines not four.

Are not the nuclear states supposed to be disarming under the NPT?

Yes but by how much is a subject for debate. The main issue is the interpretation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Article VI. The treaty was basically a bargain agreed in 1968 between nuclear-armed and non-nuclear-armed states.

India and Pakistan have both tested nuclear weapons

The nuclear-weapon states – the US, Russia (then the

Soviet Union), China, Britain and France – were allowed to keep their weapons but not to give them to anyone else. The non-nuclear-weapon states were allowed to develop nuclear technology but only for peaceful purposes.

The treaty also laid disarmament obligations on the nuclear states. These states say they are in compliance with the treaty, but critics say the treaty requires further, indeed complete, nuclear disarmament.

What exactly does the NPT say?

The key passage on the issue, Article VI, says: "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to 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".

312

What does it mean?

Interpretations of it vary, and this is the problem. What do critics of the nuclear-weapon states argue?

They say the article clearly implies that nuclear-weapon states should start with an early end to the arms race, move onto negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament and then, with all other states, agree on a treaty on general disarmament.

What do nuclear-weapon states say?

They say they are committed by treaty only to "negotiations in good faith on effective measures" relating to the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament and that they have fulfilled this by reducing their nuclear arsenals.

They are not committed in the treaty, they say, to total nuclear disarmament. They also argue that there is no timeframe, other than to end the arms race "at an early date".

Is the NPT legally binding?

The treaty is binding on all states that are parties to it.

The problem is that not all member states agree on what the disarmament obligations mean. And states not signed up are under no obligations.

What weapons have the nuclear states given up?

The United States and Russia have substantially reduced their nuclear weapons from the tens of thousands they held during the Cold War. After a series of strategic arms treaties, they agreed the Moscow Treaty in 2002 under which they will both cut their strategic nuclear arsenals to 1,700- 2,200 operationally deployed warheads by 2012.

The UK has withdrawn nuclear bombs carried by aircraft and has cut the warheads deployed on its four submarines to 48 at any one time and to fewer than 200 in total. France withdrew its nuclear bombers and cut its submarines from five to four.

China appears to be the exception. The Pentagon said in

2006 that China was "quantitatively and qualitatively" improving its long-range nuclear missile force.

313

Do the nuclear-weapon states have any intention of giving up nuclear weapons?

Not as things stand.

Are nuclear-weapon states building new nuclear weapons and delivery systems?

Yes. The UK government has decided to replace its Trident submarines, though is offering to build three not four. President Putin said in March 2006 that "Russia must be sure that its nuclear arsenal is up to the demands of the modern world".

The United States and France also intend to keep their weapons up to date and China is believed to be developing new missiles and warheads.

The Pentagon did propose a programme to develop new versions of existing smaller nuclear weapons – one of which is designed as a "bunker buster" – but Congress withdrew funding in 2005.

What about other nuclear-armed states?

India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons but they are not parties to the NPT and therefore are not restricted. Israel, which is also not in the NPT, is reckoned to be nu- clear-armed but it has not confirmed or denied this. North Korea has carried out a nuclear test but has withdrawn from the NPT, as any party to it can.

What pressure is being put on these states?

The Security Council has imposed restrictions on trade in arms and luxury goods with North Korea. Even though North Korea has left the NPT, and therefore in theory has the right to do what it wants, the Council has a right to act because it regards North Korea as a threat to international security.

No UN sanctions have been imposed on India and Pakistan following their 1998 nuclear tests partly because they are not in the NPT and are therefore under no obligations. But they also have had and have powerful friends

314

in Russia and the United States who would have vetoed Security Council sanctions.

The US is supportive of Pakistan, whose help it needs in its war on terror. Even when the Pakistani scientist A Q Khan was found in 2004 to have secretly provided nuclear weapons technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, Pakistan was not punished by the US.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was an ally of India but more recently the US has come closer to India, seeing it as a stable, democratic and increasingly important regional power.

It has signalled its acceptance that India is now a nucle- ar-armed state. The two countries reached an agreement under which the US lifted a ban on trade in civilian nuclear technology and India agreed to accept IAEA inspection of its civilian nuclear sites.

What about Israel?

Israel is believed to have several hundred warheads and refuses to allow IAEA inspection of its nuclear facilities. In September 2009, the IAEA passed a resolution that "expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities, and calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards..."

Israel is criticized for maintaining nuclear weapons and for not agreeing to a nuclear-free Middle East zone. While formally not confirming or denying that they have nuclear weapons, Israeli leaders argue that they need a deterrent. Israel is supported by the United States, which would stop any moves in the UN to impose sanctions.

Are double standards operating against some countries?

It is sometimes argued that certain countries – Pakistan, India and Israel – have been allowed to develop nuclear weapons without too much outside pressure because they are friends of the United States. But others – North Korea, Iran and Libya – are declared threats to international secu-

315

rity and face heavy pressure or UN sanctions. In the case of Iran, it has not developed nuclear weapons and says it will not do so but it is developing enrichment technology which can be used both to make nuclear power and a nuclear bomb.

The US response is that there is a difference between the threats posed by some countries and not others. North Korea is seen as an unpredictable and potentially dangerous dictatorship and Iran as a country that cannot be trusted because it hid a uranium enrichment programme for 18 years despite its commitment not to do so under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Libya is put forward as an example of a country which admitted to a secret nuclear programme and was rewarded with the lifting of trade restrictions.

Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

OVER TO YOU

There is widespread belief that the United States has expanded its so-called security interests to almost every corner of the world. Do you agree with this statement?

Exercise 15. Read the following article of BBC Europe editor Mark Mardell about the US plan to bring missile defence to Europe.

STAR WARS SEQUEL

For while Ronald Reagan's Evil Empire was consigned to hell years ago, the sequel to his Star Wars scheme is very much alive.

How defence system works

317

GOVERNMENTS V PEOPLE

The Polish government is not so much daunted as enthused by the Russians' ire. In fact it's keen on getting not only the new missiles but even more than the Americans are willing to provide. Perhaps not surprisingly, in view of their history, the Poles are more worried about Russia than Iran, which they've made clear they don't see as much of a threat. In return for housing 10 "delivery systems" on its soil, Poland wants some old-fashioned Patriot missiles, which are rather good at dealing with incoming fire from places much near home, like, say, Russia.

Some Polish politicians, including senior members of the ruling coalition, say there should be a referendum before anything like this happens. But there won't be, not least because the Polish people are nowhere near so keen on the idea as their government.

In the Czech Republic there is similar enthusiasm from the government and similar demands for a referendum, this time from the social democratic opposition. With about 68% against in opinion polls, the Czech people aren't likely to get much of a say either. More problematic is the opposition of the Greens, who are part of the government coalition. At the moment it's difficult to see how the Czech Parliament would vote for the American plan.

VILLAGE VOICES

The United States wants to move and upgrade a microwave radar system from its current home on the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site on a Pacific Island to a new home about 40 miles outside Prague. Preparations are already underway at a military area, which was once a Nazi base, then a concentration camp, before becoming home to Soviet troops. Locals aren't keen on any more foreign military personnel in their neck of the woods, although many stress they are not anti-American.

Several villages have held referendums. In Trokavec it was 71 against, one for. In nearby Skorice it was 164 to

318

one. These votes have no legal power but considerable political clout. The villagers say they are worried about the effects of X-band radiation as well as Russian retaliation. The Americans reply that X-band is just a fancy name for the sort of thing used in airport security systems and the ones on the Pacific atolls have been operating near two schools with no ill effect. When the snows come to Europe, I will feel duty bound to travel to the Pacific to investigate.

STICKING OUT

Perhaps oddly, it's not the environmental or safety factors that alarm the Czech Green Party. Their vicechairman and foreign affairs expert, Ondrej Lisko, told me that it was the USA's failure to consult the people or involve Nato or the European Union that alarmed him. "The public diplomacy has been a complete fiasco. It's just playing with security, because in the 21st Century security has to be anchored in structures and alliances. The US should know by now that unilateralism has proved coun- ter-productive".

The leader of the Czech Social Democrats in the European Parliament, Libor Roucek, agrees. "Look at the risks and the dangers and it's clear we should do it together. There's a danger if we do this bilaterally, just the Czech Republic and the USA. We can't have two standards of protection in Europe".

President Bush may not find it too difficult to give Nato a greater role, although he might not like getting the European Union involved. But there are many in Poland and the Czech Republic who don't want their countries to risk the retaliation of Russia by sticking out alone. If it was missiles they were worried about, then it's hard to see how they could have any better or bigger friend than the States. But when it comes to a war of words they seem to want to know the rest of Europe is right behind them.

319

Exercise 16. Read the article. Do you remember what these acronyms mean: IAEA; NPT?

Washington (CNN) – Turkey's prime minister declined to support President Barack Obama's push for tough new sanctions against Iran but said his country was willing to act as a mediator in the diplomatic standoff over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Turkey has had a strategic alliance with Iran since the 17th century and wants a diplomatic solution to end the deadlock. Erdogan spoke to CNN's Christiane Amanpour while in Washington to attend the Obama administration's summit on nuclear security, saying, "I believe that we can find a way out."

"I am here for a diplomatic solution," he said. Countries that are members of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) "must all work together on this, and as (for) Turkey, we could act as a very important intermediary."

Turkey is a rotating member of the United Nations Security Council, which has demanded that Iran halt its nuclear fuel program. Iran has refused the demand and continued to produce enriched uranium, which in high concentrations can be used to produce a nuclear bomb.

Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the United States has accused it of trying to develop a nuclear bomb.

The IAEA – the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency – reported in February that Iran has begun enriching uranium to higher levels without necessary safeguards, and the agency has said it has been unable to rule out the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program without further cooperation from Tehran.

While declining to endorse the idea of new sanctions against Tehran, Erdogan also said Ankara does not want to see any nuclear weapons in the Middle East. He noted that Israel, which does not recognize the NPT and is believed to have nuclear weapons, remains a member of the IAEA.

320

Exercise 17. Match the expressions as they occur in the text.

Exercise 18. Use these expressions above to summarize the information of the article.

OVER TO YOU

Compare the words of two famous political figures. Make your conclusions in the form of an essay.

“It is not just for a few states to sit and veto global approvals”. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Presidant of Iran.

“Every nation has to be either with us, or against us”. Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State.

Exercise 19. Debate the following questions. Use the chart below to help you.

1.Is it a duty of any country to take part in the nuclear proliferation?

2.Can a country be made to reduce its nuclear heads?

3.What do you know about the so-called “rogue countries”, as, e.g., Iran? Do all countries have right to have nuclear weapons? Why? Why not?

4.Do you think Iran should be made to close its nuclear program?