Op-Ed Contributors

Why can't the globe be nuke-free

By Guo Xiaobing (China Daily)
Updated: 2010-06-11 07:55

Contrary to expectations, non-proliferation, supposed to be a priority, has suffered a series of setbacks during these years: the Democratic People's Republic of Korea withdrew from the NPT and conducted two nuclear tests, the Iran nuclear issue reached an impasse and the Syrian nuclear program intensified global concerns.

The developments forced US strategists into introspection and gave rise to the notion of a nuclear-weapon-free world. Its core logic is to resume the "grand bargain" and inject energy into nuclear disarmament again in order to dismiss the excuses of certain countries for acquiring nuclear weapons and reshaping the US-dominated international non-proliferation regime.

US President Barack Obama delivered a speech in April 2009 in Prague, saying Washington would strive for a "nuclear-free world". He presided over the first UN Security Council nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation meeting too. The recent signing of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia, the release of the Nuclear Posture Review Report, which claims to reduce the role of nuclear weapons, and the holding of the global nuclear safety summit are the positive moves the US has taken on the critical issues of disarmament, non-proliferation and nuclear security.

With the US returning to the right path, other countries such as China, Britain and Australia, and international organizations like "Global Zero", have put forward their nuclear-weapons-controlling schemes and disarmament route maps. So disarmament is back in international focus after years of being ignored. The "final document" is expected to reinvigorate the core principles of the treaty and boost the confidence and motivation of the NPT regime.

But experience tells us that it is difficult to reach an agreement on the review conference, and even more difficult to implement it. First, Washington has no intention of changing its deterrence strategy. Large-scale nuclear disarmament efforts have not been on its agenda, either. For the US, a "nuclear-free world" is only a slogan for promoting nuclear disarmament and does not mean it wants to completely prohibit and thoroughly destroy its nuclear arsenals.

In his Prague speech, Obama also said that as long as other countries have nuclear weapons the US has to have secure and effective nuclear deterrence. The 2011 US budget for nuclear arms will reach $7.01 billion, 9.8 percent more than 2010, and next year's level will be maintained until 2015, of course with the provision of further increase. The US, thus, does not show any sign of striving for a nuclear-free world.

The new START, signed by the US and Russia, is intended more at public relations. A country will find itself in a blind alley if it sticks to unilateralism and pursues absolute security. Over-reliance on public relations could make a country break its own promise and cause serious setbacks to arms control.

Second, creating a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East faces tremendous resistance. Owing to the insistence of Arab countries the 1995 NPT Review Conference passed a resolution on a nuclear-free Middle East. But little progress in this area has been made in the 15 years since then. Because of a lack of mandatory binding of the resolution, it is doubtful whether the conference on a nuclear-free Middle East would convene on time or any substantive achievement could be made.

The author is a research scholar in arms control studies with China Institute of Contemporary International Relations.

(China Daily 06/11/2010 page9)