Can the proliferation of nuclear weapons of mass destruction be halted?

Résumé du document

Proliferation is a traditional issue of International Security and has always been at the heart of strategic analysis. In the last few weeks, the International Community has been worried about the situation in Pakistan. General Musharaff proclaimed a state of emergency and convened general elections. His opponents, both democratic and Islamic, organized their campaigns, and the most famous among them, Benazir Bhutto, was killed in Islamabad. Thus, Musharaff had to cope with the Islamist networks that already control part of Pakistanis territory alone.

The situation is very dangerous for the International Community because Pakistan has been an unofficial nuclear power since 1998, and one of the strongest American non NATO allies. In case of an Islamist victory, there is the risk of seeing Al Qaeda ending up with the nuclear bomb.

Thus it is relevant to think about the actual protection against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Is it really effective? In 1963, the five nuclear powers, that happened to be the five permanent members of the Security Council, agreed on the Treaty of Non Proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT). The Treaty rests on the theory that only a rational state can own the nuclear bomb. Indeed, they assess that each country that will develop a military nuclear program after 1966 will be regarded as criminal under international law. In exchange, they proposed to help all the countries that are willing to develop a civilian nuclear program. Is this protection system sufficient today?

The failure of the Non Proliferation Treaty System:
I assume that the system is a failure because it is illegitimate. In addition, the Treaty has not been designed to face all the changes that took place in International Relations after the end of the Cold War.

An unfair treaty:First of all, the legitimacy of the treaty is patently unfair. Why do some States have the right to develop military nuclear defense while others do not?

Extraits

[...] Russian does possess nuclear weapons but not the first strike capability against the US. In such a world, the United Nations are unable to control mass destruction weapons proliferation. The 1963 Treaty that was negotiated among the United Nation process, scheduled a monitoring body: the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) This agency depends directly from the Security Council. Its role is to check nuclear sites in both military and civilian programs, in order to be sure that States do not sell their unused fuel and that the goal peaceful meaning of civilians programs is respected. [...]

[...] Thanks to a financial agreement, they accepted to mover their arms to Russia, but some of them, such as Belarus are still able to produce a bomb very quickly. This leads us to another new aspect that the 1963 Treaty do not take into account: some countries are able to set up in a short time a comprehensive military nuclear program. This is the case of Japan or Germany that do know the technology to product mass destruction weapons. This ability to produce a bomb quickly is a relevant aspect of dissuasion: it is not necessarily aimed to be a threat to International Security. [...]

[...] Why do some States have the right to develop military nuclear defense while other do not? It is the most relevant question that the NPT's system supporters must answer. The most commonly admitted answer is about rationality of the bomb owners States. The whole system rests on the fact that every State is able to destroy the other one very quickly. This mutual destruction ability is the key concept of nuclear dissuasion. It is this balance of terror that allows peoples of the world to live in peace. [...]

[...] They now possess their own nuclear weapons. Such important admitted violations of international law have weakened both the legitimacy and the trust on the NPT's system. Let us consider example of Iran: how can the triumvirate composed of the United-Kingdom, France and Germany legitimate its action? Iran argues that there is a threat to its own security because Israel possesses the bomb. Some military powerful States are now tempted by the use of force as a mean to regulate the proliferation of mass destruction weapons. [...]

[...] To sum up my opinion, I would say that the actual legal framework is not able to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear arms. I would like to underline another fact that confers, in my view an extra importance to the proliferation of nuclear weapons issue: the failure of the Anti Ballistic Missile defense agreement which could not protect people from a nuclear attack. Indeed, a reform of the Treaty is more than desirable. Indicative bibliography Dangerous Deterrent: Nuclear Weapons Proliferation and Conflict in South Asia par S. [...]