(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
______________________________________________________
The whole month of May, 2010 must have been imprinted in the history while 189 countries’ diplomats were gathered in New York to attend the NPT Review Summit held during 03 - 28 to impede the spread of nuclear weapons and to strengthen the Treaty. A discernible contrast to this harmony during the same month was that both Iran and North Korea are locking horns with UNSC, giving more relevance to nuclear weapon and non-weapon states in NPT group to campaign for Nuclear Non-Proliferation depicting prejudice to proliferation. The review summit is held once in five years to make an assessment of the ongoing advancement in the attainment of goals launched on at the 1970 Treaty. The previous summit held in 2005 was ended in a disappointment.
Whether certain happenings in the proliferation field may seem to be the ‘truth’ or may be just ‘half-truth’ but while analyzing the same, its intrinsic reasons behind the scenario can be presumed in any fashion as per convenience of political diplomacy followed by a nation. Still the allegations by U.S and allies are that Iran, the weapons state is hiding nuclear proliferation, took a U-turn to the LEU swap advised by U.S and Vienna group having the power of Security Council, even tested a weapon, now planned for fresh LEU swap with Turkey for diverting fuel and developing weapons in disguise etc. Similarly North Korea eye-washed powerful nations by silently diverting fuel, developed weapon and finally walked off unperturbedly from the Treaty! Many analysts thought that these nations will try to dilute or block a consensus document at the NPT Review Summit and Egypt the Champion of the Non-Alignment Movement will demand a nuclear weapons-free zone forcing Israel to relinquish its arsenal against the wishes of U.S. Actually nothing of that sort were happened.
In fact we have to appreciate the initiative of Brazil to bring the unbending Iran for the LEU swap is certainly commendable. At the same time Brazil should not have ignored and closed eyes before visible facts that Iran had an eye for enrichment of uranium above 20% while negotiating together with Turkey. Now the Brazilian camp will get the feel that Iran was simply buying time and will be in no mood to compromise with U.S and West. Major Powers had followed a strategy of seeking to talk to Iran about its nuclear programme while dangling the threat of more sanctions if it does not stop enriching uranium. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband’s comment is to be remembered now ….”there was real willingness to treat Iran as a normal country if it behaves like a normal country but also recognition that if it flouts the will of the international community then the sanctions track is inevitable”.
The vote against Iran in IAEA resolution at Vienna in November,2009 referring Iran again to the Security Council reflected exasperation with Iran's retreat from an IAEA-U.S brokered draft deal to provide it with fuel for a medical nuclear reactor if it agreed to part with its enriched uranium, which could be turned into bomb material if further refined. Tehran had a false hope that it can head off any resolution for fresh sanctions due the strength of the latest mediators who seemed to be more considerate and supportive for Iranian ventures. Brazil and Turkey with their temporary status in the Security Council could not get any point to divert the attention of the five permanent members while the Council pursued and endorsed a draft resolution condemning Iran’s overtone as proclamations for active enrichment to make bombs!
The newest element of the sanctions would require countries to inspect ships or planes headed into or out of Iran if there were suspicions that banned materials were aboard. But as in the case of sanctions against North Korea, there will not be any approval to board ships by force at sea. The fresh sanctions may bar countries to invest in nuclear enrichment plants, uranium mines and other nuclear-related technology which is to prevent the rumored Iranian ventures with Venezuela and Zimbabwe, or with some companies in Europe.
It will be a disgrace to U.S and particularly President Obama, if there is an idea allegedly mooted even while the NPT Summit was under way, as reported by western media in the last week, to strike Iran just because there are critical issues in the LEU swap with Turkey under the guidance of Brazil. Iran still may have certain undisclosed grievances for not maintaining a complete transparency. It may also have a long felt desire to simultaneously pursue enrichment in a small way taking into account the threat from Israel. The Nobel Laureate should first do his best for the regional CBMs in the Middle East and win the world.
It is not known to what extent the final document was focused to empower the IAEA to have greater access to any suspected nuclear sites. It is desirable that more penalties are to be imposed to violators and States that do not have existing fuel enrichment facility may have to forget nuclear trading and vacate business, preventing threat of fuel diversion for weapon development. Above all, any nation that tests weapon should have to be denied of access to nuclear trade which will only ensure any repetition of exemptions of rules as granted to India, though this can be viewed as an antipathy against the Indo-U.S nuclear civil agreement that had allegedly set a bad precedent, as felt by certain non-signatory nations.
It is not known to what extent the final document was focused to empower the IAEA to have greater access to any suspected nuclear sites. It is desirable that more penalties are to be imposed to violators and States that do not have existing fuel enrichment facility may have to forget nuclear trading and vacate business, preventing threat of fuel diversion for weapon development. Above all, any nation that tests weapon should have to be denied of access to nuclear trade which will only ensure any repetition of exemptions of rules as granted to India, though this can be viewed as an antipathy against the Indo-U.S nuclear civil agreement that had allegedly set a bad precedent, as felt by certain non-signatory nations.
The last NPT conference, in 2005, failed to adopt a consensus declaration, in part because U.S. President George W. Bush had withdrawn U.S. backing for nonproliferation steps to ratify the treaty that ban all nuclear tests. President Barack Obama’s support for an array of arms—control measures improved the obliging ambiance at the 2010 conference. For the first time at an NPT review, the final declaration laid out complex action plans for all three of the treaty’s “pillars” - nonproliferation, disarmament and peaceful nuclear energy.
This time, the final draft the five weapons states are committed to “accelerate concrete progress” toward reducing their atomic weaponry, and to report on progress in 2014 in preparation for the 2015 NPT review session. These powers were directed to shrink the element of nuclear arms in their military doctrines and consider downgrading the alert status of weapons systems, and it held out the possibility of negotiations on a global treaty abolishing nuclear arms. The most visible draw-back at this point will be on the non-compliance of the action plans by Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan, just because these nations are not part of NPT despite purportedly having nuclear arsenals and commemorated as nuclear powers by the international community! The conference had called on the three states- Israel, India and Pakistan, operating unsafeguarded nuclear facilities to reverse clearly and urgently any policies to pursue any nuclear weapon development or deployment and to refrain from any action that would undermine regional peace and security. The final document of the summit specifically called these three nations to accede to the treaty without with no pre-conditions at the earliest.
The Indian perceptive thinking on proliferation and the resultant question arising will be that, how can the NPT camp expect India with so much of threats from across the boundaries to sign Treaties while two neighbors China and Pakistan have stockpiles of nuclear weapons? There is no clandestine issue as the world know that due to geographical and political reasons, India is entwined into host of adverse situations wherein not even a peace-loving simple villager will assent for his nation to be a signatory as a ‘non nuclear weapons state’ in NPT. The powerful nations should know that as far as India is concerned a Treaty can be acceptable only when a signatory nation feels like a genuine beneficiary and served the purpose of a common interest. Unquestionably India cannot afford to deprive of its security and sign neither NPT nor CTBT! obliging ambiance
India was very much disturbed and also discomfited by the A.Q. Khan disclosures that the former Pakistan nuclear establishment chief had business links with Iran, at a time when India wanted to show some soft corner to the long-standing NAM-Associate but could not do so because of the same. Further there was mounting global concern that Iran due to its geographical location and its presence in the Gulf region as a member of OPEC, may use its nuclear power and possession of bombs for its influence in the region. Even it will lead to acquisition of nuclear weapons by some Arab nations which are prone to use it obstinately. Nuclear weapons of mass destruction will de-stabilize the oil-rich Gulf region, with a negative impact on Asia’s, particularly India’s long-term energy supplies.
India had voted in favour of the German sponsored resolution at the Vienna IAEA in November,2009 on referring the Iran’s nuclear programme yet again to the U.N Security Council. Of course India only joined with other 24 nations while voting for the resolution the nuclear watch-dog IAEA that censured Tehran’s ventures at Qom. India with lot of apprehension cautioned against the resolution becoming the basis of a renewed punitive approach for fresh sanctions. IAEA meeting in Vienna expressed serious concern on the potential military aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme. The resolution and the resulting vote of the IAEA’s decision making body comprising 35 nations became a historical event on the global nuclear scenario.
In case, the issue of Abdul Qadeer Khan, architect of Pakistan's nuclear program was not leaked out by himself confirming that he was operating a mafia to spread nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, India would not have taken stand and voted against Iran even in 2005, though the efforts to negotiate with Iran to address the international community’s concern over its secret enrichment programme had reached a dead-end then.
India has no avowed desire for parity with China in respect of nuclear capabilities and will not think of counter-weighing the neighbor. No nuclear or non-nuclear nation will suspect the integrity of India as they know that India always gives a thrust for positive negotiation and disintegration of any pressure even at the verge of a war and is desirous of peace in the region. At the same time few find it hard to believe this reality while imagining that India nurses an ostensible aspiration for nuclear weapons’ Capability to show off regional superiority or just to maintain a bargaining power!
India had voted in favour of the German sponsored resolution at the Vienna IAEA in November,2009 on referring the Iran’s nuclear programme yet again to the U.N Security Council. Of course India only joined with other 24 nations while voting for the resolution the nuclear watch-dog IAEA that censured Tehran’s ventures at Qom. India with lot of apprehension cautioned against the resolution becoming the basis of a renewed punitive approach for fresh sanctions. IAEA meeting in Vienna expressed serious concern on the potential military aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme. The resolution and the resulting vote of the IAEA’s decision making body comprising 35 nations became a historical event on the global nuclear scenario.
In case, the issue of Abdul Qadeer Khan, architect of Pakistan's nuclear program was not leaked out by himself confirming that he was operating a mafia to spread nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya, India would not have taken stand and voted against Iran even in 2005, though the efforts to negotiate with Iran to address the international community’s concern over its secret enrichment programme had reached a dead-end then.
India has no avowed desire for parity with China in respect of nuclear capabilities and will not think of counter-weighing the neighbor. No nuclear or non-nuclear nation will suspect the integrity of India as they know that India always gives a thrust for positive negotiation and disintegration of any pressure even at the verge of a war and is desirous of peace in the region. At the same time few find it hard to believe this reality while imagining that India nurses an ostensible aspiration for nuclear weapons’ Capability to show off regional superiority or just to maintain a bargaining power!
India is one of the countries opted to have the ‘No-first-use’ doctrine, pledging for not using nuclear weapons unless attacked by an enemy country by nuclear weapons. Further, though not signed NPT or CTBT, India has already declared a unilateral moratorium on testing nuclear weapons which is appreciated by a large majority of countries around the globe.
It is to be noted that ICNND had submitted its report ahead of the NPT review summit, 2010. Gareth Evans, Co-chair in an exclusive interview to the BBC’s Hindi service had remarked that there is a stalemate as nobody will allow India, Pakistan and Israel to join (the NPT) as nuclear-weapon states and at the same time these three countries has no chance to join NPT as non-weapon states as well. Probably there will be an attempt to accommodate these three nations into the non-proliferation regime without giving recognition as ‘de jure nuclear powers’. Evans had openly commented that Indo-U.S civil nuclear mechanism became a one-sided deal that favoured India.
It is to be noted that ICNND had submitted its report ahead of the NPT review summit, 2010. Gareth Evans, Co-chair in an exclusive interview to the BBC’s Hindi service had remarked that there is a stalemate as nobody will allow India, Pakistan and Israel to join (the NPT) as nuclear-weapon states and at the same time these three countries has no chance to join NPT as non-weapon states as well. Probably there will be an attempt to accommodate these three nations into the non-proliferation regime without giving recognition as ‘de jure nuclear powers’. Evans had openly commented that Indo-U.S civil nuclear mechanism became a one-sided deal that favoured India.
CTBT is adopted by General Assembly of United Nations and 150 countries have been ratified the same. The Treaty will come into force only when all 44 countries mentioned in the Annex II ratify it. Of these only 32 countries have signed and ratified, 9 countries which includes China, Egypt, Iran, Indonesia, Israel and U.S have signed but not ratified.3 countries – India, Pakistan and North Korea are still not signed it. The CTBT calls for a total ban on nuclear tests.
India had eminently rejected Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) with four eloquent words: "Not Now, Not Ever." Yet the Pressure will be on India and eight other countries - including Pakistan, Israel and China - that have still not ratified CTBT. The other eight are expected to fall in line once US ratifies, leaving India with perhaps little option but to sign.
India had eminently rejected Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) with four eloquent words: "Not Now, Not Ever." Yet the Pressure will be on India and eight other countries - including Pakistan, Israel and China - that have still not ratified CTBT. The other eight are expected to fall in line once US ratifies, leaving India with perhaps little option but to sign.
President Obama celebrating as a champion of peace with the Nobel adornment may be keen that U.S ratifies CTBT, but it will be unattainable for him to muster two-thirds majority in the U.S Senate!
Now it is clear that there is no justification to expect India in signing up NPT and CTBT. Is there any prospect for revamping these blemished Treaties to the satisfaction all nations? US-EU formation should explore the prospects for a refurbished NPT and CTBT to dispel the consternation of all non-signatory nations.
Whether the demanding need of India to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council is being declined in anticipation of signing these Treaties?
The regional security dynamics was analyzed at the ICNND (International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament) Regional Summit, New Delhi /2009 in the context of scope for CBMs (Confidence Building Measures) to triumph tensions in certain international boarders and in the absence of progress in resolving the same, the big question still remains unanswered…… how can the nuclear arsenals could be contained? It is very comprehensible that critical regional challenges are to be primarily addressed in order to create conducive state of affairs while moving forward the nuclear non-proliferation. Thus the global effort must be synchronized by addressing regional challenges!
The NPT Review Summit’s final document had incorporated the agreement to hold a regional conference in 2012 to discuss issues relevant to a Middle East zone free of WMD and their delivery systems will be in the right spirit of building CBMs in the region.
Whatever is the reason, not known to the media on the exclusion of Israel from the said conference has become a matter of protest by U.S. Probably many NPT members and analysts of global issues would have felt it as a big lapse in the outcome of the summit.
U.S President Barack Obama had expressed unhappiness for discrimination on Israel purposely with the influence of Arab world, over talks on weapons-free Asia and had hinted that U.S have to resist on any move to endanger the Israel’s national security. Obama’s comment has to be taken as a scornful declaration against Iran’s clandestinely pursuing nuclear ambitions and he had bluntly remarked on its failure to comply with NPT obligations. Iran's safeguards violations and continuation of LEU enrichment despite threats of UNSC resolutions were already criticised in the Final document. Thus it has not included Iran too in the list of nations for the regional conference to be held in 2012. It is fine that Iran's IAEA representative Ali Asghar Soltanieh, who attended the Summit, had welcomed the move for a regional conference.
The very purpose of a regional conference will be lost if both Iran and Israel well known for their repugnance between themselves are not formally invited to attend the same in 2012. In fact the issues between these two nations if resolved, will make the Middle East region one of the most serene parts of the world!
Israel had responded against the proposal for regional conference, rejecting the action plans on nuclear weapons as agreed by 189 nations in the NPT summit. According to Israel, It had ‘deeply flawed’ as it ignored the realities and real threats emerging from Middle East that goes even beyond the region.
NPT had stressed Israel the need for it to join in the Treaty without mentioning the nation’s expanding nuclear programme. U.S diplomats had to reluctantly accept this proposition to prevent the conclusion of the summit with a borderline final statement. But accepting the same had created a fresh issue of strain between allies prior to the state visit by Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to Washington.
Israel’s disputation is that, being the only true democracy in the region, it faces threat by Iran which has stealthy ‘LEU swap’ programmed against the NPT norms and despite UNSC cautions, while having nuclear ambitions to develop warheads aimed to annihilate any nation of the region that is opposed politically, economically or socially. Prime Minister Netanyahu had protested - "Yet the terrorist regime in Iran, which is racing to develop nuclear weapons and which openly threatens to wipe Israel off the map, is not even mentioned (in NPT resolution)”.
The global community has to wait and see how Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Barack Obama will interface with each other at Washington on Tuesday 01 June, 2010 and discuss on Iran, the peace process with the Palestinians and the resolution of the NPT review summit.
It is a known fact that the U.S diplomacy will seldom fail to keep the enduring ally on its fold and uphold the bond for mutual benefits.
It is a known fact that the U.S diplomacy will seldom fail to keep the enduring ally on its fold and uphold the bond for mutual benefits.
After the conclusion of the NPT Summit at New York by 28th May,2010, simultaneously with the state visit of Prime Minister of Israel and the connected diplomatic meetings, the first Indo-U.S Strategic Dialogue is also to be held at Washington on the next couple of days, between 1st June to 4th June,2010. May be the outcome of the NPT summit had given enough ammunition to India’s antagonist groups. Though U.S was also forcing India to sign Treaties and gratify them, the U.S State Department Spokesman P J Crowley had remarked on the eve of the Bilateral Dialogue that India is a great and emerging global power with significant common interests in terms of environment, regional security, counterterrorism, economic issues etc.
U.S had recently concluded its strategic dialogues with Pakistan and China. President Barack Obama has described India, the world’s second fastest growing economy, an indispensable partner and will be one of the defining partnerships for the United States in the 21st century. Robert Blake, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia had confidently revealed that in just 10 years U.S had a complete transformation in Indo-U.S bilateral relations that enjoy bipartisan support at both nations and keen on addressing global concerns of mutual interest.
The current incidence of Israeli military boarding into one of the six vessels of Gaza aid flotilla with humanitarian aid, killing nine civilians and wounding many has been condemned worldwide. The assault will certainly complicate the Obama administration’s efforts to improve ties with Israel and may even distract from the push to sanction Iran over its nuclear swap program with Turkey. Iran has even become like a beneficiary from this incident. The timing of the Israel’s attacks on vessels in Gaza will add dimensions to the agenda for Obama’s meeting with Binyamin Netanyahu as a part of “kiss and make-up” session.
The current incidence of Israeli military boarding into one of the six vessels of Gaza aid flotilla with humanitarian aid, killing nine civilians and wounding many has been condemned worldwide. The assault will certainly complicate the Obama administration’s efforts to improve ties with Israel and may even distract from the push to sanction Iran over its nuclear swap program with Turkey. Iran has even become like a beneficiary from this incident. The timing of the Israel’s attacks on vessels in Gaza will add dimensions to the agenda for Obama’s meeting with Binyamin Netanyahu as a part of “kiss and make-up” session.
We can be confident of the American diplomacy.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Note: THis Article was prepared in end May,2010.
