Proliferation
Treaty
By George Monbiot
22 September, 2004
The Guardian
Poor Mr Baradei,His
mission is a parody: He tells the states (with some aplomb) They can
and cannot have the bomb. Here is the world's most nonsensical job description.
Your duty is to work tirelessly to prevent the proliferation of nuclear
weapons. And to work tirelessly to encourage the proliferation of the
means of building them. This is the task of the head of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei.
He is an able diplomat,
and as bold as his predecessor, Hans Blix, in standing up to the global
powers. But what he is obliged to take away with one hand, he is obliged
to give with the other. His message to the non-nuclear powers is this:
you are not allowed to develop the bomb, but we will give you the materials
and expertise with which you can build one. It is this mortal contradiction
which permitted the government of Iran this weekend to tell him to bog
off.
His agency's motto
- "Atoms for Peace" - wasn't always a lie. In 1953, when Eisenhower
founded it with his famous speech to the United Nations, people really
seemed to believe that nuclear fission could solve the world's problems.
An article in the Herald Tribune, for example, promised that atomic
power would create "an earthly paradise... Our automobiles eventually
will have atomic energy units built into them at the factory so that
we will never have to refuel them... In a relatively short time we will
cease to mine coal."
Eisenhower seemed
convinced that the nuclear sword could be beaten into the nuclear ploughshare.
"It is not enough to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers.
It must be put into the hands of those who will know how to strip its
military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace." The nuclear
powers, he said, "should... make joint contributions from their
stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials" which should
then be given to "the power-starved areas of the world", "to
provide abundant electrical energy". This would give them, he argued,
the necessary incentive to forswear the use of nuclear weapons.
The IAEA, its statute
says, should assist "the supplying of materials, equipment, or
facilities" to non-nuclear states. It should train nuclear scientists
and "foster the exchange of scientific and technical information".
Its mission, in other words, is to prevent the development of nuclear
weapons, while spreading nuclear technology to as many countries as
possible. It is also responsible for enforcing the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty, which has the same dual purpose.
There might have
been a case, while Eisenhower's dream could still be dreamt. But to
persist with this programme long after it became clear that it caused
proliferation, not containment, suggests that the global powers are
living in a world of make-believe. The International Atomic Energy Agency
has put nuclear technology "into the hands of those who will know
how to strip its civilian casing and adapt it to the arts of war".
It's not difficult.
Every state which has sought to develop a nuclear weapons programme
over the past 30 years - Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, North
Korea and Iraq - has done so by diverting resources from its nuclear
power programme. In some cases they built their weapons with the direct
assistance of Atoms for Peace.
India developed
its bomb with the help of fissionable material and expertise from Canada,
the US, Germany, France, Norway and the UK. Pakistan was able to answer
the threat with the help of Canada, the US, Germany, France, Belgium,
China and the UK. In the name of peace, we equipped these nations for
total war.
Now there are about
20 countries which, as a result of foreign help for their civilian nuclear
programmes, could, if they choose, become nuclear weapons states within
months. When Russia shipped uranium and the technologies required to
build a bomb to Iran, it not only had a right to do so: under the non-proliferation
treaty, it had a duty to do so.
It's not yet clear
whether Iran has stepped over the brink. It is plainly enriching uranium
and producing heavy water, which could enable it to build both uranium-
and plutonium-based bombs. But both processes are also legitimate means
of developing materials for nuclear power generation. To enrich uranium
from power-grade to bomb-grade you need only pass it through the centrifuges
a few more times. The non-proliferation treaty gives Iran both the right
to own the materials and the cover it requires to use them for a weapons
programme. If you want to build a bomb, you simply sign the treaties,
join the IAEA, then use your entitlements to do what they were designed
to prevent.
Iran certainly has
plenty of motives for seeking to become a nuclear power. Israel has
enough nuclear weapons to wipe it off the map. Sheltered by the US,
it has no incentive to dismantle them and sign the non-proliferation
treaty. Both the US and the UK have abandoned their own obligations
to disarm, and appear to be contemplating a new generation of nuclear
weapons. Both governments have also suggested that they would be prepared
to use them pre-emptively. Iran is surrounded by American military bases,
and is one of the two surviving members of the axis of evil. The other
one, North Korea, has been threatening its neighbours with impunity.
Why? Because it has the bomb. If Iran is not developing a nuclear weapons
programme, it hasn't understood the drift of global politics.
But what can El
Baradei do? He can beg Iran to stop developing enriched uranium, but
the treaty he is supposed to be enforcing gives him no authority to
do so: the government has pointed out that it's legally entitled to
pursue all the processes he fears. This is why he's seeking to persuade
it to stick to "voluntary agreements".
I hope I don't need
to explain how dangerous all this is. The official nuclear powers have
junked the non-proliferation treaty, while the non-nuclear powers are
using it to develop their own programmes. If Hizbullah clobbers Israel,
Israel might turn on Iran, and the Middle East could go up in nuclear
dust, rapidly followed by everyone else who has decided to join the
second nuclear arms race. And the man charged with preventing this from
happening is still facilitating it.
The obvious conclusion
is that you can't phase out nuclear weapons without phasing out nuclear
power. Now that the old treaty has become worse than useless, now that
the promise of an earthly paradise of free power and electricity too
cheap to meter has been shown to be false, isn't it time for a new nuclear
treaty, based not on Eisenhower's chiliastic fantasy but on grim global
realities? Isn't it time for Mr Baradei to stop destroying the world
in order to save it?
www.monbiot.com