Do not proliferate or disarm?

The treaty laid the foundations for nuclear inequality

Forty years ago, on July 1, 1968, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed in New York. The document divided the countries of the world into those who have an atomic bomb and those who do not and should not have one.

The treaty was born in the conditions of the Cold War and the confrontation between two systems; its first main signatories were the USSR, the USA and Great Britain. US President Lyndon Johnson submitted the NPT to the US Senate for ratification on July 9, 1968, but after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in August of that year, the Senate refused to ratify any agreements with Moscow. Only at the beginning of 1969, the new US President Richard Nixon again submitted the document for ratification. The Senate approved it on March 13, 1969, and the President signed the bill into force on November 24, 1969. In March 1970, the treaty entered into force as an international legal document.

The NPT determined that China and France could join it as full-fledged nuclear states: all countries that detonated a bomb before January 1, 1967 were automatically included in the elite club. But Paris and Beijing were in no hurry. China, immersed in the abyss of the “cultural revolution” in those years, called the NPT a “conspiracy” of two superpowers aimed at maintaining the nuclear monopoly of the USA and the USSR. Beijing indicated that the ban on the development of nuclear weapons would only come into force after the nuclear capabilities of the superpowers were eliminated. France promised to follow the provisions of the NPT, but without signing the document. As a result, China and France joined the treaty only in 1992.

The three main ideas of the NPT are non-proliferation, disarmament and the right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology. It seems that these goals have been partially achieved, because with the end of the Cold War the dangerous nuclear race between the USA and the USSR ceased. But there is no sign of complete disarmament in the world, which gives grounds for critics of the NPT to reproach nuclear states for hypocrisy and the desire to impose their will on others without making concessions.

There are, of course, positive examples. South Africa tested nuclear weapons in the 1970s, but then destroyed them and signed the NPT in 1991. This is a unique example of the abandonment of the atomic bomb, created on the basis of a national scientific and industrial base. Western experts like to recall the refusal of Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan after gaining independence from Soviet nuclear weapons stationed on their territory. This is true, but it must be taken into account that the mission of the nuclear successor of the USSR was technically within the power of only Russia.

Not all countries involved in nuclear development sought to become parties to the treaty. India actively participated in the NPT negotiations, but refused to join it, citing the nuclear threat from China. Pakistan did the same, citing India's refusal. Israel also decided not to tie its hands to the treaty. In the 1970s and 1980s, all this was not so dangerous, since in a bipolar world there was order generated by the confrontation of two systems. Now nuclear programs in the Middle East and South Asia threaten to develop into a regional arms race. According to various estimates, India, Israel and Pakistan each have about a hundred atomic bombs.

According to the NPT, non-nuclear countries have the right to develop nuclear energy under international control and build their own nuclear power plants. But then there is no reason to prohibit them from enriching uranium for these purposes. However, a similar situation around Iran turned into an international problem. Tehran is a member of the NPT and cooperates with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but the West is irritated and demands that it curtail its nuclear program, suspecting that a military program is hidden behind the words of Iranian leaders about peaceful atom.

In May 1995, parties to the NPT agreed to its indefinite extension. However, this decision does not eliminate the internal conflict between the parties to the agreement. The United States is focused on the problem of Iran and North Korea, which are considered violators of the nonproliferation regime. Other countries continue to ask questions about the promised universal nuclear disarmament. In addition, Washington’s desire to resolve international disputes by force only strengthens the desire of US opponents to acquire a nuclear bomb.

Ivan SOLOVIEV