Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Background of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty
Major Terms of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty
Criticisms over the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty
Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The nuclear non proliferation treaty is a treaty that was signed to limit the development and use of nuclear weapons by countries. The treaty that has enlisted the membership of most of the countries in the world was intended to promote the global peace by limiting the access and use nuclear weapons.

This paper seeks to discuss the principal criticism of the nuclear non proliferation treaty. The paper will look into the establishment of the treaty, its major terms, its criticism and the possible means of strengthening the effectiveness of the treaty.

Background of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty

The background of the nuclear non proliferation treaty dates back to the year 1945 when nuclear bombs were used to attack Japan in the course of the Second World War.

After the Japanese attacks, which had adverse negative effects on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States established an internal legislation preventing the transfer of its nuclear weapons to other countries (Bunn and Rhinelander, 2008, p. 1).

The international agreement to limit the spread of the nuclear weapons was however reached in July, 1968. Under the treaty, the countries that had already developed nuclear weapons, “United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom” (FAS, 2011, p. 1), and other countries that had not developed the weapons signed the treaty to limit mobility of nuclear weapons from the countries that had developed them to any other country.

Following the initiative of the 1968, a number of countries, about one hundred and ninety, have signed into the membership of the treaty. In the year 1946, the United States made a proposal to turn its nuclear weaponry to the United Nations. A formal proposal was then later made at the United Nations general council in the year 1953 for a treaty that would limit the transfer of such weapons to other countries.

This proposal, however, did not succeed and another initiative was made in the year 1961 at a United Nations general assembly. Negotiations were then successfully made among the then military supper powers yielding a draft proposal that was presented to the general assembly and adopted in 1968 (Bunn and Rhinelander, 2008, p. 1).

Major Terms of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty

Under the nuclear non proliferation treaty, the countries that already had nuclear weapons were charged with the responsibility of ensuring that they don’t “transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear explosive devices or their technology to any non-nuclear weapon state” (FAS, 2011, p. 1).

The treaty, as provided by article six, requires parties to it to commit to negotiations to ensure that “measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament” (FAS, 2011, p. 1). The treaty also provided for “general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control” (FAS, 2011, p. 1).

Similarly, countries that had not developed nuclear weapons were also obligated not obtain the weapons from the other countries that had developed the weapons or to themselves develop such weapons. The treaty extended the restrictions to other explosives that are of relation to nuclear weapons. The treaty further provided for regulations over other non military nuclear activities such as energy generations.

Under the terms of the treaty, the countries are to cooperate in measures of preventing the development of nuclear weapons from permitted non military nuclear activities. This particular measure is under the supervision of the international atomic energy agency, another treaty body formed under the United Nations (FAS, 2011, p. 1).

Criticisms over the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty

The nuclear non proliferation treaty has over time drawn a lot of mixed criticism from a number of sources. The criticisms to the treaty started almost immediately after it was enacted. India, as a nation, rejected the treaty on its enactment in the year 1968.

One of the criticisms that India had over the non proliferation treaty was what it described as the discriminative nature of the treaty together with its lack of equality as regards to the treaty’s terms with respect to the “nuclear power states and the non-nuclear power states” (Chakma, 2004, p. 189). According to India, the provisions of responsibilities of parties to the treaty lacked fundamental elements of equity.

The countries that had not yet developed nuclear weapons had their duty clearly stated by the treaty that they were not in any way supposed to develop or receive nuclear weapons.

On the contrary, the article six of the treaty that was supposed to outline the responsibility of the countries that had already developed nuclear weapons was not clear. The provisions for disarmament were not clearly stipulated to ensure that these states got rid of the weapons or even strictly limiting further development of these weapons by the nuclear weapon states (Chakma, 2004, p. 189).

Another criticism from the Indian side was the fact that security concerns of the non nuclear weapon countries was not properly taken care of by the treaty. According to India, at the time of enactment of the treaty, the provisions by the treaty restricted security assurance of the non nuclear states on the condition that they signed and ratified the treaty.

The treaty was with this aspect criticized for contradicting the provisions of the United Nations as relates to the global security matters. United Nations chatter had provided that the nuclear weapon countries were to be responsible for maintaining global peace and security while the nuclear non proliferation treaty was putting a condition to this provision of peace and security.

The provision of the treaty that the security of the non nuclear states be assured on the condition that they submitted to the treaty was first in conflict with the provision of the umbrella body, the United Nations, under which the treaty was formed. The treaty was, therefore, criticized for discrimination and conflict of interest.

The treaty was discriminatory in the sense that it would only offer security assurance to some countries, the ones that submitted to the treaty. Its conflict of interest was with respect to the provisions of its parent body which was the United Nations.

The provisions of the United Nation’s chatter had offered security assurance to all countries. India also criticized the entrenchment of the international atomic energy agency into the nuclear non proliferation treaty. This critic was also based on the discriminatory nature of the international atomic energy agency itself (Chakma, 2004, p. 191).

The nuclear non proliferation treaty has also not eluded critics who either holds the opinion that the objectives of the treaty as well as its terms have proved to be unrealistic or that the terms are being applied selectively. There is the issue of failure by the treaty to prevent some countries from developing nuclear weapons. Some countries such as North Korea have publicly expressed their intention to develop nuclear weapons.

Similarly, there are some terrorist organizations that have aimed at developing nuclear weapons. The provision for disarmament of nuclear weaponry has also been criticized to be ineffective with developing information that the United States and India have been investing on developing their nuclear weapon facilities contrary to the disarmament provision of the non-proliferation treaty (Kriega, 2010, p. 23).

The United States, for example is reported to have significantly violated the disarmament provision without any step by the treaty parties to correct the move. In the year 2002, the United States initiated a program to enhance its nuclear capacity through its “reliable replacement warhead program” (Kriega, 2010, p. 28).

Russia is also seen to be in the step of contravening the non proliferation treaty. It has been noted that the Russian previous reduced levels of nuclear weapons was not at all the cause of its compliance to the treaty’s disarmament provision, but rather a consequence of its economic recession.

Following its economic recovery, Russia has as well been reported to be on the armament side with respect to nuclear weaponry. Similarly, the United Kingdom has pledged commitment to its nuclear weaponry with intentions to improve its marine nuclear facilities.

France and china have also portrayed the same attitude of developing their nuclear weapons capacities contrary to the non proliferation treaty. With this respect, the treaty is criticized to be ineffective in terms of implementation.

This weakness was further evidenced by the bold step taken by India and Pakistan to openly develop and test their nuclear weapons in the year 1998. The little commitment of the parties to the treaty as well as the defiance of the non party states has led to a wide criticism of the ineffectiveness of the treaty (Kriega, 2010, p. 29).

Another criticism to the non proliferation treaty is derived from the allowance it gave to the development of nuclear facilities for peaceful purposes such us energy production. Countries were allowed to develop nuclear facilities under supervision of the international atomic energy agency. However, a number of countries have misused the provision and secretly developed or attempted to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran for example is believed to be developing nuclear weapons though it claims otherwise. In such circumstances, the member countries to the treaty can take advantage of the provisions for peaceful application of nuclear capacity as a cover up for the establishment and development of nuclear weapons. The treaty also lacks any jurisdiction to counter any non member state from developing nuclear weapons.

It is therefore not sufficient enough in obtaining its set objectives because, like North Korea did, a member state that wants to develop these weapons can just withdraw its membership upon which it shall be free from international interference as relates to its internal affairs in the development of such weapons.

According to an interview covered by BBC news in the year 2005, it was revealed that the United States was even at the moment planning to “test new weapons, including anti ballistic missiles, the earth penetrating bunker buster” among other weapons (BBC, 2005, p. 1).

It is also viewed that the steps by non parties to the non proliferation treaty to develop nuclear weapons could as a result lure party states to follow suit by withdrawing from the treaty and hence developing the weapons without any form of control or regulation.

These aspects also criticizes the treaty’s ineffectiveness to either control the development of the nuclear weapons or even the disarmament of the states that already had the weapons prior to the establishment of the treaty (BBC, 2005, p. 1).

Among the current criticisms of the treaty’s lack of effectiveness is the inability it has expressed towards the case of nuclear weapons developments in Iran. It is reported that the United Nations as the global and umbrella body to the nuclear non proliferation treaty has seemingly failed to control the “Iranian enrichment” of the nuclear weapons (Global, 2011, p. 1).

The only measure taken against Iran by the nuclear weapon states had so far been sanctions which were aimed at pushing Iran into abolishing its nuclear weapon developments. This is, however, seen as a weak approach to stopping the development of nuclear weapons by Iran as Iran could and is as at present operating under the sanctions.

The ineffective steps taken so far indicates the weak capacity of the treaty which charged nuclear weapon states, which are also members of the united nations security council, with the responsibility of ensuring that no transfer of these weapons to or from the development of the weapons by non nuclear states ever occurred (Global, 2011, p. 1).

Strengthening the Effectiveness of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty

Several measures have over time been proposed to help in developing and strengthening the effectiveness of the non proliferation treaty. One of the ways that can be used to strengthen the effectiveness of the treaty is the establishment of a “decision making mechanism for determining treaty compliance” (Carlson, 2010, p. 2).

The treaty on non proliferation was seemingly based on the good faith of both the nuclear weapon states and the non nuclear weapon states with the assumption that individual countries would responsibly take the initiative of fostering the goals of the treaty. No mechanism was however put to monitor the developments and the effectiveness of the treaty.

Formation of such a mechanism could help in facilitating decision makings towards ensuring adherence to the provisions of the treaty. Another weakness faced by the treaty is the withdrawal of members who are then not obliged to the provisions of the treaty.

Steps should with this respect be taken by the United Nations through its decision making organ to “severely discourage withdrawal from the NPT” (Carlson, 2010, p. 3). This will in effect control withdrawal of countries from the treaty to use resources gained from its members for developing nuclear weapons.

Strict conditions should also be put to countries acquiring nuclear facilities to ensure that the importing countries relinquish the rights over such facilities as soon as they renounce their membership to the treaty (Carlson, 2010, p. 3).

A faster move by the United Nation Security Council to take measures against a country withdrawing from the treaty together with increasing the steps of inspecting compliance to the treaty by members would also increase the effectiveness of the treaty (Staff, 2005, p. 1).

Conclusion

The nuclear non proliferation treaty was established to control the transfer and use of nuclear weapons across the globe. The treaty has however been faced with challenges of violations of its provisions by countries that are not its members either by withdrawal or those which had never signed the treaty. There are however a variety of measures that can be taken by the UN Security Council to enhance the effectiveness of the treaty.

References

BBC. (2005) Pros and cons of the NPT. Web.

Bunn, G and Rhinelander, J. (2008) Looking back: the nuclear non proliferation treaty then and now. Web.

Carlson, J. (2010) Strengthening the NPT and IAEA safeguards. Web.

Chakma, B. (2004) Strategic dynamics and nuclear weapons proliferation in South Asia: a historical analysis. New York, NY: Cengage.

FAS. (2011) Treaty on the non proliferation of nuclear weapons [NPT]. Web.

Global. (2011) U.N. Penalties Not Curbing Iranian Enrichment: Pentagon Intel Chief. Web.

Kriega, D. (2010) The Challenge of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons. London, UK: Transaction Publishers.

Staff. (2005) Strengthening the NPT and World Security. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!