A World Without Nuclear Weapons: Six Wrong-Headed Cliches about Disarmament

• Print
• E-Mail
• Feedback

Iran has a right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, in particular uranium enrichment.

Yes, but not unconditionally. The NPT does indeed specify free access to the peaceful use of atomic energy, although specific technologies such as uranium enrichment or reprocessing are not mentioned in the treaty. However, within the terms of the NPT the right to the civil use of nuclear energy is strictly linked to the categorical exclusion of all forms of military misappropriation. This is not the case with Iran. As a result of Tehran's nontransparent behavior over the course of many years, the IAEA is not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. Rather, the IAEA is concerned with the existence of a possible military dimension to Iran's nuclear program.

Furthermore, in five resolutions thus far, the UN Security Council has called on Iran to cease its uranium enrichment activities as well as its heavy water program as these two technologies are especially suited to misuse for military purposes and do not comply with international law. To date, the appeals have had no success.

Though Iran has forfeited its right to unrestricted access to civil nuclear technology through its misconduct, it was never the aim of the United States or its European partners to deny Tehran such access -- either as a matter of principle or on a permanent basis. On the contrary, the West principally supported the completion of the Iranian light-water reactor in Bushehr, providing the fuel rods were supplied by Russia and taken back after use. In its proposal from July 2006, the E3 plus 3 even offered Iran support in the construction of further light-water reactors, should Tehran suspend its uranium enrichment activities and heavy water project and clarify open questions with the IAEA. If Iran were to dispel the doubts it has raised by its own behavior, the E3 plus 3 is prepared to lift its call for the suspension of uranium enrichment and other nuclear technologies on a step by step basis. At no point in time was the goal to fundamentally and permanently deny Iran a right to which it is entitled. Rather, it is up to Iran to win the confidence of the international community as a step to utilizing the full spectrum of nuclear energy for civil purposes.

A world without nuclear weapons is unachievable - and dangerous.

That depends. The goal of a world free of nuclear weapons should not be abandoned. In this respect, President Obama's disarmament goals and the latest UN resolution are to be welcomed. Nuclear deterrence may fail. Contrary to popular opinion we do not even know whether it actually functioned during the Cold War, as we cannot logically prove why an event -- in this case war between East and West -- did not occur. Moreover, it was fortunate that 1962 Cuban missile crisis did not end in nuclear escalation as the United States and the Soviet Union did not manage that crisis well at all.

And who is prepared to bank on states involved in future crises having as much luck -- for example India and Pakistan? After all, they have already waged a limited conventional war that was the Kargil war in 1999. Nuclear weapons states are perfectly capable of launching aggression against nuclear neighbors in the hope that the other side is prepared to accept a limited defeat out of fear of nuclear escalation. However, as Clausewitz was aware, war leads to extremes. The prevention of nuclear escalation is by no means guaranteed.

This applies all the more in the Near East, where Israel, by virtue of its geography alone, would not have any second-strike capacity should its territory be threatened, particularly with regards to Iran. Consequently, it must strike the nuclear weapons out of Iran's hand at a relatively early stage in the crisis, which in turn would dispose Tehran to the early deployment of its nuclear capacity -- before it is lost.

Relying on nuclear deterrence to maintain continued stability ultimately means building the future on a foundation of sand. In this respect, the goal of complete nuclear disarmament is unavoidable. However, who has ever claimed that this goal is easy to achieve?

In fact, this is more than a Herculean task. In order to make a world without nuclear weapons a safe place, secret nuclear rearmament must be excluded. All states must join the nuclear weapons ban. Unfortunately, biological or chemical arms bans have been much less successful thus far. Furthermore, a reliable and very intrusive verification system would be required. This would generate high costs and create a gigantic bureaucracy.

Would the dictatorships of this world be willing to comply with the required transparency? And what would happen if a state was caught developing a secret nuclear program? Would the UN Security Council be prepared to take military action against violators of the treaty in the event of an emergency? And what if the violator was a permanent member with a right of veto -- a member against whom it would be impossible to pass legally binding resolutions without their consent? Consequently, the right to veto in the Security Council must be abolished along with nuclear weapons.

In other words: A world without nuclear weapons presupposes a new world order. It is a goal that will not be achieved overnight. However, we should begin. Sooner or later, the assumption that humanity can continue to live with nuclear weapons without deploying them will prove to be a misapprehension.

Missile Defense Impedes Nuclear Disarmament.

Here again, this is not necessarily the case. Despite his September 2009 decision not to pursue the Bush administration's plans for missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, President Obama has far from abandoned missile defense per se. In light of the continued threat that Iran or other countries could procure long range nuclear missiles, the United States will continue to rely on missile defense, albeit with a changed set of priorities and on a reduced scale. Even Russia is continuing with its missile defense projects, despite the fact that Moscow is keen to give the impression that only the United States pursues such schemes.

In light of continued proliferation, missile defense could in fact provide important damage limitation options. Should a Middle East crisis involving a nuclear-armed Iran get out of hand at some point in the future, then Europe would need to be able to defend itself.

However, at the same time, missile defense must not lead to an offensive nuclear arms race between the United States and Russia. For this reason, both parties should thoroughly examine the options for cooperation over missile defense. A start has already been made in this respect. China, which fears a joint American-Russian missile shield, should also be included.

Should this prove successful, a cooperative missile defense strategy could even become an important component of a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons. Such a world would not be free of dictatorships and this would continue to place a limit on verification. Nor would it be a world without missiles owing to the fact that an increasing number of states have begun to pursue civil space projects. Consequently, there would be a danger of secret nuclear armament which would enable it to threaten others over great distances. However, in contrast, a cooperative missile defense strategy would provide counter insurance and thus lay the basis for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

• Back
• 1
• | 2

• Part 1: Six Wrong-Headed Cliches about Disarmament
• Part 2: Does Iran Have the Right to Enrich Uranium?