Essay

‘Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished.

Words must mean something. The world must stand

together to prevent the spread of weapons.’

Barak Obama, the US President

When discussing a question about the future of nonproliferation movement and its ideas, the first thing we must observe is the possibility of the safer world. On the one hand, all countries understand the threat of nuclear weapons. But on the other hand, each of them must survive in the strong conditions of reality. What challenges are possible now? Which of them seems to be more feasible?

To my mind, the search of mankind to a united world is impossible at the moment, because each country seeks the opportunity to strengthen its position on the world arena. So, Russia repeats its longstanding concern about US plans for a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, a new security pact to replace NATO. But both countries see a chance “to reset the button” on thorny relations after Cold War time. For example, Medvedev and Obama agreed at their first meeting in London (April, 2009) to start joint work on a successor to the START-1 nuclear arms reduction treaty, which expires in December this year. The first talks on the new pact might begin in Rome this spring.

The scientists and politicians see three options of nuclear challenges today: to eliminate nuclear weapons now, rely on arms control, to keep nuclear weapons as an essential part of national security. It’s difficult for me to answer this question just now, so I tried to study this problem carefully.

As I wrote in benchmark 2, there are currently about 31,000 nuclear warheads deployed or in reserve in the stockpiles of eight countries: China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the USA. Of these about 13,000 are deployed and 4,600 of these are on high alert, i.e. ready to be launched within minutes notice. The combined explosive yield of these weapons is nearly 5,000 megatons. Note: There are some variances in numbers cited for stockpiles due to uncertainties of the status of some weapons- whether they are deployed, in non-active reserve, or dismantled. [4] So, our planet is a huge container of WMD. Howerever, people can’t eliminate weapons at once and completely. I found it reasonable to strengthen the control on nuclear arsenal.

I see that initiatives coming from Russia and the USA (as the most powerful nuclear states) will influence the situation in the whole world. These bilateral efforts can create effective arms control.

Obama pledged in April in the Czech Republic to cut the US nuclear arsenal, bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force and seek tough penalties for those that broke rules on nonproliferation. But the Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev responds cautiously to Washington plans for a nuclear-free world, saying “a number of conditions would need to be met for the vision to become reality. These conditions are fair, but I would want to cite more factors needed to achieve such a treaty.” Among Russia’s suggestions there are:

*A ban on deploying nuclear arms in space- making it impossible to compensate for a cut in nuclear arms by building up of conventional forces.

*Making sure those nuclear weapons are destroyed and not just stockpiled. [1]

What concrete measures can (or must?) be taken to make the world stabile and avoid further proliferation?

Firstly, to give the nuclear weapon states confidence that further reductions in these weapons can be made without undermining international peace and their own security. Partly for this reason, it is critical that NPT Parties comply fully with their Treaty obligations.

Secondly, we need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. Much of this increase in resources and authority needs to go to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose system of safeguards is so vital in verifying compliance with the NPT’s nonproliferation obligations. We must redouble our efforts to update IAEA safeguards technologies and convince those NPT Parties that have not yet done so to bring into force the comprehensive IAEA safeguards agreements required by the Treaty’s Article III. We also must pursue vigorously the universal entry into force of the Additional Protocol to safeguards agreements. Universal adherence to the NPT itself – including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea – also remains a fundamental objective of the United States. [3]

Thirdly, the United States will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). The country will also launch a diplomatic effort to bring on board the other states whose ratifications are required for the treaty to enter into force. [3]

Fourthly, governments must seek a new treaty that verifiably ends production of fissile materials intended for use in nuclear weapons – a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. Such a treaty would not only help fulfill NPT Article VI commitments, but it also could help avoid destabilizing arms races in regions such as South Asia and, by limiting the amount of fissile material worldwide, could facilitate the task of securing such weapons-usable materials against theft or seizure by terrorist groups. The negotiation of a verifiable FMCT is the top U.S. priority at the Conference on Disarmament. The CD has been unable to achieve a consensus on beginning negotiations to end the production of weapons-grade materials dedicated to use in nuclear weapons for far too long, and it is time to move forward. The United States reaffirms its decades-long unilateral moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. It calls on all other governments, especially the other nuclear weapon states, publicly to declare or reaffirm their intention not to produce further fissile material for weapons. [3]

The next task of the mankind is the effort to stop or to reduce the possibility of nuclear terrorism.

To conclude, I’d like to say that only multilateral initiatives might have a positive result. Let’s work together in one direction, and our world will follow a peaceful scenario.

Bibliography:

1. “Medvedev wary on Obama’s call.” The Moscow Times. April 21, 2009.

2. “Obama, Russia’s Medvedev Announce New Arms Control Plan.” Moscow.usembassy.gov. 2009. Moscow.usembassy.gov. 8 May 2009. <http://moscow.usembassy.gov/londonsummit.html>

3. “Preparations for 2010 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review.” America.gov.2009. America.gov. 8 May 2009. < http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/May/2009>

4. “Nuclear stockpiles”. Nuclearfiles.org.2009. Nuclearfiles.org. 13 Mar 2009. <http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/basics/nuclear-stockpiles.htm>

5. “Choices for the 21^st century education program”. Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University. 2009. <http://www.choices.edu>

6. Microsoft Office. Standard pictures.