|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
U.S. Behavior Aids Spread of Nukes |
Current rating: 0 |
by Stephen Zunes and Kevin Martin
(No verified email address) |
01 Feb 2006
|
|
This pattern of threatening selected states with sanctions, or even military action, while tolerating the acquisition and possession of nuclear weapons by other states, suggests less interest in non-proliferation than in geo-politics. If nations are to appeal to international law to control the behavior of other nations, they themselves must demonstrate a willingness to act within the framework of that law. |
In order to address growing tension over Iran’s nuclear program, the United States should re-open negotiations seeking to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East. Now that Iran has withdrawn some facilities from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision, establishment of such a zone is imperative. Negotiations are the best way—perhaps the only way—to prevent a nuclear arms race in this deeply troubled region.
The best intelligence estimates indicate it would take Iran at least five years to develop a nuclear weapon, if that indeed is its intention. Thus, there is ample time to conduct these talks. Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is vitally important, but demands for unilateral concessions are less likely to succeed than efforts to achieve that goal within the framework of a regional disarmament agreement.
UN Security Resolution 687, passed in 1991, which demanded Iraqi disarmament, did so within the context of "establishing in the Middle East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction." It was alleged violations of this resolution that the Bush administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. But through its own refusal to support the establishment of a WMD-free zone for the entire region, the United States has failed to push for full implementation of this resolution.
Israel remains the only Middle Eastern state with nuclear weapons, and has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty or place its nuclear facilities under IAEA inspection. Other countries in the region long have asserted that Israel's nuclear arsenal poses a threat to their security and thus provokes nuclear proliferation.
This would not be the first effort to negotiate a Middle East NWFZ. In 1974, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling for all states in the region to refrain from producing, acquiring, or in any way possessing, nuclear weapons, or permitting the stationing of such weapons on their territories. It called for the states to place all nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. In subsequent years, the General Assembly has renewed its call several times.
In 1991 a U.S. led Madrid conference for Arab-Israeli peace included a process for negotiating a nuclear free zone, but the process was halted four years later when the United States failed to push Israel to compromise. In late 2003, a draft UN Security Council resolution calling for a Middle Eastern NWFZ was tabled following the threat of a U.S. veto. In July of 2004, Mohamed El Baradei, head of the IAEA, visited Israel and secured an agreement from the Israeli government to meet with other Middle Eastern states to discuss the establishment of a NWFZ, but the meeting never took place, without apparent U.S. objections. Clearly, another effort is needed, this time with the full weight of the major powers behind it.
But that effort can only succeed if the United States is willing to pursue nonproliferation without the bias it too often has demonstrated. For example the United States has announced its intention to enter into a nuclear cooperation agreement with India, in violation of both U.S. law and international agreements prohibiting such support for countries that have refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have developed nuclear weapons. The U.S. also has agreed to provide nuclear-capable aircraft to Pakistan. But both countries are in violation of UN Security Council resolution 1172, which calls on both Pakistan and India to eliminate their nuclear weapons programs.
This pattern of threatening selected states with sanctions, or even military action, while tolerating the acquisition and possession of nuclear weapons by other states, suggests less interest in non-proliferation than in geo-politics. If nations are to appeal to international law to control the behavior of other nations, they themselves must demonstrate a willingness to act within the framework of that law.
What recent experience has so clearly demonstrated is that there can be no Pax Americana. If there is to be peace, and especially if humankind is to avoid a nuclear holocaust, there must be a universal, not a selective, commitment to the rule of law and international security.
Stephen Zunes is a Professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and serves on the Board of Directors of the Peace Action Education Fund. Kevin Martin is Executive Director of Peace Action and the Peace Action Education Fund. Peace Action is the country’s largest peace and disarmament organization with over 100,000 members nationwide, headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland.
© 2006 MinutemanMedia.org |
See also:
http://www.minutemanmedia.org
http://www.peace-action.org/
|
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
