Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Non-Proliferation Treaty or NonPerformance Treaty?

*Disclaimer*
All views expressed in this post are those of the author. The author is only excercising his right of speech. This is not an attempt to defame/belittle countries/people. And err.. (in case there is any doubt).. by author, I mean... ME. You are most welcome to point out any flaws in my thinking. But I only ask that you do it politely. Thank you.

I was having breakfast at the dining hall last week when something on television caught my interest. There was talk of Iran's Uranium enrichment plan and how they were going against the International Community by manufacturing pure Uranium that could be used(hypothetically) to produce nuclear weapons. This TV news snippet brought back memories of a conversation I had with my Dad when I was in seventh grade.

Me: Dad, what is NPT?.. It's all over the papers, magazines and there was even a question on a quiz in school about it.

Dad: NPT stands for Non-proliferation treaty.. (sarcastically) You would know that yourself if you do not restrict yourself to only the sports page.

Me(spare the lecture look): Ok..Ok.. but what does the treaty say?

Dad: Basically the US wants India to keep away from nuclear arms research/development and testing.

Me: But America has nuclear arms!!!!?

Dad: Yes they do....

The rest of the conversation is immaterial. Though this exchange occurred ages ago, I still remember thinking of the absurdity of a nation in possession of nuclear arms trying to convince a second nation not to indulge in producing nuclear weapons. I just assumed I was too young to understand all the issues involved and promptly forgot all about it.

However, the whole concept of NPT sounds just as absurd to me today. Imagine a few select countries (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China) the so called "Nuclear weapon states" (NWS) using a possible nuclear catastrophe as a ploy to demand that all other nations do not possess or develop nuclear weapons of their own.

The fact that 183 countries have signed the treaty makes it downright weird. You would think that they would have at the very least, demanded some actual disarmament from the NWS, before becoming a party to the treaty. Though it has been close to 50 years since the treaty came into being, there has been no serious disarmament activity from the NWS.

And what is more.. There has been talk of America imposing possible sanctions on Iran for breaching the treaty. They could have just said..

"We don't want nuclear weapon development in the middle east, which is brimming with terrorists, and risk nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands only to be used against us. So, as the most powerful country in the world, we are going to throw our weight around and ensure that Iran does not produce enriched uranium that may be used for nuclear weapon development."

But to say....

"You are not sticking to the treaty".

"You are endangering the International Community"

...after openly disobeying/ignoring Article VI of the NPT which essentially calls for progressive disarmament from the United States and the other NWS, is a parody of sorts.

Today, the five 'PERMANENT' members of the security council come together in Moscow to discuss sanctions proposed by the United States, to deter Iran from continuing their enrichment process. Please note that these are the only countries in the world that are 'ALLOWED' to possess nuclear weapons according to the 'NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY".

If the United Nations has the power to recommend economic sanctions on the nations that fail to adhere to the NPT, then why haven't any sanctions been imposed on the Nuclear Weapon States('the PERMANENT members') who have so cunningly postponed any actual disarmament for over 10 years now. And would those sanctions help? Would sanctions on the most powerful nations in the world affect them significantly enough? Probably not.

This post is NOT a call for all nations of the world to start nuclear arms production. It is just a call for nations to withdraw from the NPT which has failed miserably to bring about disarmament, the sole aim behind the treaty. (Not that I expect any country presidents to read this.. Just attribute this sentence to one of my fits of megalomania.. ).

For the NPT (or any other disarmament treaty for that matter) to be successful, we need to start with the Nuclear weapon states. Not the rest of the world EXCEPT the NWS. In simple terms, the problem here is nuclear weapons and obviously the best way to solve a problem is the source of the problem, namely the NWS. What is the point in getting a treaty signed by every single country that does NOT possess a nuclear weapon if the ultimate goal is the complete elimination of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth?

If the NWS and other nuclear states(Israel and India) want to pursue disarmament with honorable intentions, they must realize that they will have to start with themselves. They brought this menace into the world and it is they who must take the responsibility of getting rid of the menace. Not by threatening/browbeating other nations into not producing nuclear weapons but by approaching the non-trivial problem of 'disarming' themselves seriously and taking concrete steps that would make the goal of 'disarmament' achievable in real-time.

For more on Nuclear Disarmament click here.

Today happens to be my Dad's birthday.. Well Dad.. Think of this post as an elaborate means of letting you know that I'm in touch with world affairs.. ;-) Happy Birthday!! I love you!

16 comments:

Dad said...

Hi,Nirmal,I could not have asked for a better birthday present than to know that you are not only well informed but could passionately and intelligently analyse such an issue.This means you are well on your way to be a responsible citizen of -not only India- but the civilised community of human beings.
We can spend a lot of time when we meet, analysing various aspects of this case.But the long and short of it is,as you implied,'Might is right'.Might used rightly is supposed to prevent chaos but....but... well let us get back to work.

Navin said...

If 183 nations were stupid enough to sign a even stupider treaty, I think even analysing it is useless...I agree with you here, but no nation ( not just the US) if tomorrow another nation became a bully it would do the same..make a stupid treaty and tell people to sign it. To me it sounds like a big muscular built man ( using steroids) walking on the road suddenly comes to me and says sign this paper- which says "you and I are both morons", if you sign the paper I will give you 100 bucks and if you don't sign this paper I am gonna kick your butt..what options do I have?
- I walk away with my 100 bucks and happy that he did not kick my butt. If I am healthy enough I will try to fight him, if not 100 bucks is not a bad deal. ...good post by the way...and wishing a belated happy birthday to your dad.

Leon said...

[Dad] Sure Dad, we'll discuss this and all the other issues under the sun.. Thanks.. :-)


[Navin] Ironically 'Ireland' came up with this treaty in 1968. Not the United States. Hard to believe isn't it!!?

Well.. India didn't sign.. Good for them.. :-).

Divya said...

fiiiiinally.... u got to post!!

did u draw inspiration frm me in trying to keep up with world affairs?? ;)

good one here.

Sayesha said...

1. Good post :)

2. Is the first commentator really your Dad or one of your friends trying to pull a gag? If yes, your Dad reads your blog????? :O
ps: Errr... hello Uncle... in case you're reading this.. :)

3. Pray tell me why this post is supposed to be for me! :/

Leon said...

[Divya] It feels good to know that you're still keeping track of my blog inspite of my miserable updation rate.. :-)

I thought u knew more than me about our undergrad class affairs not about WORLD affairs.. :p lol..

Thanks..


[Sayesha]

1. Thanks.. :-)

2. It really is my dad. I remember you asking me this question once before.. I had to make a choice when I started blogging. Being anonymous or not letting close friends, acquaintances know would allow for more exaggerations, fun and talk of more personal issues. But I just thought there was enough to write about that my dad COULD read. (I sometimes feel I was wrong.. ;-))

Obviously when your son tells you he's blogging, the first question is "what's blogging?". The second question is "Oh, what's your blog site address then?".

In any case, I like to keep my blog such that ANYONE under the sun can read it. In fact many american pals have a link to my blog and this post might make them see red. But I don't care. I like MANY things about the US but in this issue, I'm certain in my mind that the US is wrong.

3. Because you 'demanded' a new post... :-)

Divya said...

I knew more than you about our undergrad class affairs ALSO!!..

c'mon.. i knw.. rather u knw... u've been quite amused by wat all i keep track off!! dnt u??

and ya... i chk on ur blog quite often... not hoping for a new post... but to link to other blogs blogrolled on urs... i am not quite good at remembering addresses...

this post was quite a surprise... i dint expect u to post until after ur finals.... good tat u hv time for posting among soooooo many other things ;)

crazy schmuck said...

very logical. it's impossible to talk sense to a bully. but in this case i have to hope that the bully wins the arguement.
have you watched the movie 'lord of war' starring nicholas cage? it ends with a wonderful little commentary on how the five permanent members of the security council are the biggest weapons proliferators on earth. the weapons in question here are guns, but the message is the same...

Incognito said...

"..with terrorists, and risk nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands only to be used against us"
What is "wrong hands"? Terrorists? Then what did they do by attacking innocent people in Middle East? Noblemen fighting for a cause?
Who are they to decide who is right/wrong?
So their nuclear weapons are in the "right" hands is it?
They will use this power and make sure the no other country raise voices/arms against them? And thereby making them the most powerful country..
"So, as the most powerful country in the world, we are going to throw our weight around.."
This is definitely the definition of being selfish.

The powerful country will become more powerful.
The lesser-equipped/dependent will be more dependent.

A good post!

And belated birthday wishes uncle! :)

183 countries! With what faith.. absurd..

Camphor said...

CTBT too, and that is even more ridiculous - At least Clinton had the grace to look ashamed. Bush lacks even that.

Thank God for American law that doesn't let a President serve more than two terms... unless they plan to amend that, or Rabri Devi style, make Laura Bush next Presi. Bush is at least as bad as Laloo..

Anonymous said...

wen r u updatin!!??

Anonymous said...

y is it tat u dont update for more tan a month?? [#:-S][:-w]

Anonymous said...

Hi,
I Found Absolutely FREE PlayBoy & PentHouse:
http://www.playmates-girls.com
http://www.oxpe.net
If I find something else I'll inform you.
Best Regards, Yuriy

kristen said...

Awesome stuff on your blog… rock on!!!

Just last week I happened to land this sweet deal on tickets to Malaysia!! I got it from :-

http://cfares.regalix.com/cfares/cfares/index.jsp?channel=blpo&adgroup=leon-cyril.blogspot

Check it out.. it’s free!!! Trust me.. the best deals and nothing else!! You can get tickets from US to anywhere in the world!!! Ask everyone to register using this URL (its free for a Gold membership).

Happy traveling…n joi !!

Thủ thuật smartphone said...

thực phẩm chức năng tăng chiều cao tốt nhất
thuốc tăng chiều cao tốt nhất
gối chống trào ngược hiệu quả
bài tập giúp tăng chiều cao nhanh

Tuyết Nhi said...

http://phuongphaptangchieucao.info
http://tangchieucaohieuqua.info
http://thucdontangchieucao.net
http://thucdontangchieucao.org
http://canxi-nano.com
http://thucdontangchieucao.com
http://nano-canxi.com