Lately Iran, its nuclear program, capacity for creating nuclear weapons and the surmised attack of Israel and the USA have been in the thick of the global politics. Discussion of these essential points has become a kind of a betting shop, where venturesome political analysts place their bets for the sheer timing of attack. It is weird that at the same time no one analyzes the legal aspect of Iranian nuclear weapon and the threat of using military force against it.
In order to understand how does the current nuclear program crisis correlate to the effective legislation we will have to look at the history of the matter. The UN General Assembly passed the Treaty of Non-Proliferation (NPT) on Jun 12, 1968 — 44 years ago. NPT defines nuclear and non-nuclear states. So the country possessing the nuclear weapon is a one that manufactured and exploded such weapon or device prior to Jan 1, 1967 (i.e. the USSR, the USA, Great Britain, France and China). According to the Treaty, each member-state pledges not to pass these weapons, other nuclear devices, direct or indirect control over them to anyone; they also commit not to assist or prompt other states to manufacture or purchase nuclear weapons or devices (article I of the Treaty).
Each member-state that does not dispose nuclear weapons commits never to acquire nuclear weapons or control over them from anyone; they also commit not to manufacture or purchase through any means and never to accept any assistance in their creation. (Article II).
Article IV defines the rights of all Treaty participants: “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty”.
Iranian nuclear program was initiated as far back as in 1967 with the United States of America passing the 5 megawatt nuclear reactors to Shah Reza Pahlavi. Subsequently, Germany and France rendered Iran technological assistance. Iran is the NPT participant since 1970, i.e. since the moment of its ratification.
Obviously, the main objective of the Treaty is the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons for the sake of maintaining the global security. Despite this, the Treaty contains article X that acknowledges the right of its participants (the non-nuclear states just as well) to withdraw from the Treaty:
“Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.”
Supreme interests of the country may be interpreted as a threat to its national security, which demands the creation of a nuclear weapon for the sake of protection. Despite the unequivocal threats coming from Israel and the USA, Iran has never raised the question of its withdrawal from the Treaty. Moreover, the Treaty preamble reminds that “in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, and that the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security are to be promoted with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources”.
For some reason this aspect — crucial for understanding of Iranian nuclear crisis — has fallen out of Israeli and American sight. From the standpoint of international legislation the situation looks ridiculous. There are four nuclear states staying outside of the NPT. Those are Pakistan, India, Israel and the DPRK. Obviously, each of them acquired nuclear weapons bypassing the Treaty. At that, Pakistan and DPRK can hardly be considered states that match the NPT requirements — both from the non-proliferation and the security enforcement standpoints. Neither unstable Pakistan, balancing at the edge of coup and funding the variety of radical Islamist groups, nor a more or less predictable North Korea engaged in nuclear extortion bother the USA. Paradox of the situation is that Israel (whose nuclear capacity makes up 100 up to 200 nuclear warheads, which were acquired in an illegal manner) threatens an NPT participant (Iran) with destruction of its nuclear objects. It is known that in due time Libya, the Republic of South Africa, Iraq and Taiwan attempted to create such weapons. There are also grounds to believe that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt have already accumulated sufficient technical capacity for producing a nuclear weapon in no time. It is also clear that the ears of certain nuclear states stick out a mile here. When Richard Cheney was a Halliburton CEO and prior to becoming the U.S. Vice President, Department of Justice found him guilty of violating state laws for trade with Libya. He sold the late Colonel Gaddafi six neutron impulse generators (devices, which may be used within the nuclear bomb detonators). Halliburton was fined $3.8 million for that. Role of European and American middlemen in the creation of Pakistani and North Korean atomic bombs would make splendid grounds for entire detective novels. Out of four countries that had acquired the nuclear weapons illegally only India established a reputation of a responsible WMD owner, avoiding the international conflicts ever since the weapon had come into its possession.
According to various experts, no less than forty countries these days are almost ready to create a nuclear weapon. Story of the South African nuclear program is not entirely clear. During the age of apartheid Israel has allegedly assisted it to conduct a testing nuclear exposion over the Atlantic, but subsequently the program was closed and in the middle of the 90s the Republic of South African signed the NPT, having destroyed its modest nuclear arsenal. It is also clear that an advanced country like Japan could have created the atomic bomb in no time. Saudi Arabia, a well-known sponsor of Pakistan, could have apparently gained access to Pakistani nuclear weapons, had the need arised.
It is unclear what may condition the heightened interest for Iranian nuclear program — apart from political rhetoric — in a situation like that. All the more, it is actually the U.S. actions, which may be acknowledged as violating the international legislation — America has seemingly forgotten that the Treaty it signed obliges it “to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State”.
No comments:
Post a Comment