The End of the Non-Proliferation Treaty

Robert Farley says that the more we understand about Israel's recent air strikes in Syria, the more it looks like Bush and co. have succeeded in killing the Non-Proliferation Treaty:

The strike, and especially the apparent acquiesence of the United States in its planning and execution, means that the NPT is pretty much a dead letter. The treaty has always been open to charges of unfairness, since it legitimized the nuclear programs of a select number of states while delegitimizing similar programs in other states. This was a deal worth upholding, based on the principle that fewer nuclear states is better than more nuclear states. The deal also ensured that signatories would have the capability to engage in peaceful nuclear activity, some of which is indistiguishable from the opening steps of a long term weapons program. American complicity in this strike means that the deal is as good as dead, and has been replaced by a de facto arrangement in which states that the US approves of are allowed to have nuclear power, while states we dislike get airstrikes. I think this is a tragedy; the NPT has, in my view, worked to minimize the spread of nuclear weapons across the international system through a combination of moral suasion and legal inspection for the last forty years. It only works if the states involved agree that it's legitimate and of some benefit to all; as I said before, that concept is pretty much dead now. Combine this with the recent nuclear deal with India, and I'd have to say that the Bush administration's effort to kill a legal cornerstone of international stability have been remarkably successful.

The upshot of this is going to be more nuclear proliferation over the long run. Iraq was the neocons' big chance to show that the approach to WMD policy they prefer -- basically an ad hoc regime enforced by American military power and undergirded by nothing more principled than American whim -- was workable. To make it work, they needed to show that we could successful topple a regime we didn't like and replace it with one we liked better cheaply and easily enough to make it credible that we'd go and do it again. But it failed. The low-cost airstrike approach isn't going to succeed against any kind of determined adversary, and the more we act like a rogue superpower the harder it will be to get our way.

Comments

In the last debate, Hillary said she didnt know anything about the Israeli strike, but supported it 100%.

Posted by MJ Rosenberg | October 14, 2007 9:57 AM

People care too much about what candidates say. I just read the Bush portion of Lemann's long article on Bush and Gore. I don't think you would have necessarily predicted Iraq based on the following:

And Rwanda’s a great example of what you’re referring to. There will be times when the United States can lend its prestige and help and wealth to help ameliorate a situation. But people should understand that I will commit troops only where our strategic interests are involved. And, as you said, there’s no strategic importance to the United States.

HRC's worrisome in that she's (Al From's) DLC and she's the neocon's favorite among the Dems. She's unlikely to speak her way out of that position.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 14, 2007 10:18 AM

You're too kind Matt. Don't forget that the Iraq invasion has also proven that we can't tell whether our enemies are developing nuclear weapons or not.

Posted by aleks | October 14, 2007 10:59 AM

The NPT has worked as well as the Washington Naval Talk did.

Which is to say, not well at all. International agreements work when all parties involved have a common stake - this is why trade talks with the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia don't lead to gunplay.

When the parties don't have a common stake (Japan and the US in the 1920s and 30s), then these deals end up being delusions - possibly dangerous ones.

Posted by James Robertson | October 14, 2007 11:13 AM

Re James Robertson

Actually, the Washington Navel Treaties worked fairly well as these things go. Both Great Britain and the US saved hundreds of millions of dollars (billions in todays dollars/pounds) by forgoing the construction of useless battleships. The Japanese cheating availed them of nothing as the two treaty violating battleships they built, namely the Yamato and the Musashi never fired a shot in anger at anything important.

Posted by SLC | October 14, 2007 12:06 PM

You're too kind Matt. Don't forget that the Iraq invasion has also proven that we can't tell whether our enemies are developing nuclear weapons or not.
Posted by aleks

Which invasion? The 1st, the Gulf War, when we found Iraq had a robust national program to enrich uranium by calutrons we saw proved our intelligence "failed"?
The second, where the UN inspectors invaded and "failed" to notice that Iraq had reconstituted it's biowar and chem programs while discarding it's calutrons for centrifuge work and the UN Inspectors were on the verge of giving Iraq a "clean inspection report" when two disaffected sons in laws of Saddam spilled the beans on the vast, hidden program the inspectors never found?
Maybe you mean the 3rd, when Clinton's "failed intelligence" led him to have Congress declare WMD and Saddam's intransigence made "regime change" the stated policy of the USA, which also led to his massive 3-day strategic bombing of all suspected WMD sites the UN inspectors were barred from before Saddam threw them out.
Or, maybe you refer to the 4th invasion, when the US assembled an invasion force and Saddam allowed UN inspectors to "invade" his military infrastructure, looking around again..
But, most likely, you mean the 5th invasion, which found Saddam had engaged in a suicidal bluff - lying to his generals and top scientists that "other" generals and top scientists had WMD responsiblity and each would be shot if they inquired who...

The Iraq invasion has "proved" nothing about the nature of intelligence.

It is a Lefty disease to think that national intelligence is all seeing, all knowing by nature - and anything they miss must be a "failure". All while the Left blubbers and whines about use using "bad guys" to get intelligence by use of money and bribes, interrogating the captured enemy, wants to ban "provocative" spy plane activity, and stop listening to enemy conversations on "human rights" grounds.

Then, in an activity where a batting average of .400 would be incredibly good in figuring out any enemy's closely held state secrets and human assets...to hear Lefties talk about investigating "intelligence failures" in the absence of perfection while maintaining Lefty handcuffs on our intelligence gathering activities.....

The enemy is thinking, adapting, and intelligent - nearly always - and we similarly seek to keep our secrets. That means they conceal part of their secrets and activities, we get knowledge of some. And vice-versa.

The greatest intelligence failures were the Nazi and Japs not knowing about Manhattan Project, or our invasion schedules. The Soviets being caught flat-footed by the China Bomb in 1964. The American failure to learn of the vast illegal Soviet biowar effort "VEKTOR" in the late 70s and 80s. The Soviet failure and American failure to learn of the potency of radical Islam. Our counter-espionage failures to detect critical moles. Or, until recently, China and the AQ Khan Network's nuclear proliferation activities.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 14, 2007 12:35 PM

In the course of our 17 1/2 invasions of Iraq, we discovered the extent to which Saddam Hussein was collaborating with Lefties to develop nuclear weapons which could one day be used by the Jews to stop the Confederates from Renewing America.

Call that a failure, if you wish, but it sounds like success to any reasonable person.

Posted by El Cid | October 14, 2007 3:14 PM

Re Chris "white trash" Ford

Actually, there several intelligence failures in WW 2:

1. the Soviet Union being caught flat footed by the German invasion in June, 1941, in spite of being warned by the British who know all about it because of Ultra intercepts.

2. The US getting caught flat footed by the attack on Pearl Harbor. The administration knew an attack was coming but was convinced that it would be on the Philippines.

3. The Germans getting caught flat footed by the Normandy invasion, thinking it was coming at the Pas de Calais.

Posted by SLC | October 14, 2007 3:15 PM

Chris Ford Fraud, a degenerate racist, an inveterate liar and complete scum.

Posted by Jennifer | October 14, 2007 3:30 PM

Jennifer is a cunt, and a stupid cunt at that.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 14, 2007 4:05 PM

Chris Fraud, and can you spell Japanese for us. With every line you show what scum you are so keep on keeping on, Scummy.

Posted by Jennifer | October 14, 2007 5:06 PM

Chris Ford Fraud, a degenerate racist, an inveterate liar and complete scum.

Posted by Jennifer | October 14, 2007 5:07 PM

Re Jennifer

Actually, Mr. Ford is a red neck peckerwood.

Posted by SLC | October 14, 2007 7:08 PM

Ford continues to babble about "Saddam lying to his generals" - or maybe it's "his scientists lied to Saddam" - whatever, it's all bullshit because the IAEA and the UN inspectors clearly showed there was nothing there. They went everywhere the CIA told them to and found zip. They considered the CIA intelligence to be worthless.

Ford ignores all of this with his bullshit.

CIA intelligence estimates of who has what are probably worthless - not to mention compromised by the politics of the Agency higher ups.

The IAEA has generally been right because they're on the ground looking - and they know HOW to look.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 14, 2007 7:12 PM

By the way, according to Philip Giraldi, the ex-CIA op who works with Cannistraro Associates, the consensus of most US intelligence types is that Syria has ZERO chance of having any kind of nuclear program, outside of the small research reactor they have.

So why the sudden spate of articles indicating that everybody takes the Israeli intelligence about the so-called "nuclear reactor" in Syria seriously?

Something ain't right - either Giraldi and the rest of his contacts are wrong, or this is just another disinformation campaign by Cheney and the politicized intelligence guys over at CIA and elsewhere.

The best guess for the Syrian strike is still a raid on a North Korean-supplied missile storage site with the intent to damage some missile parts and as a bonus test the Syrian radar - which by Giraldi's account didn't work as planned because the Syrians didn't turn the radar on to be ELINT'd by the Israelis.

If that assessment is correct, it is clearly a run up to an Israeli attack on Syria - because the only way Syria can hurt Israel is via its missiles, and by its air defense system enabling it to down Israeli jets during any attack.

As I've said before, the plan being hatched by the US and Israel is to attack Iran, Syria, Hizballah in Lebanon, AND probably Hamas in Gaza all at the same time. The neocons and Zionists are going to go for broke in the ME, and raise the ante.

And it's going to be an unmitigated disaster for both the US and Israel - and, of course, the countries under attack.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 14, 2007 11:40 PM

SLC-

Although this is entirely irrelevant to the main thread, it has occured to me in my reading of the naval history of WWII, that a ship did not need to enter action to be a major factor. Admirals were always very cautious when committing capital ships to action, so holding a battleship or two in reserve could encourage an opponent to refuse to commit his battleships, in case they be lost and a devastating strategic disadvantage result (or something).

Posted by mpowell | October 15, 2007 4:36 PM

His analysis about the NPT is flawed.

Yes, it's been moderately successful at limiting the amount of nuclear weapons states over the years, but the problem with the NPT is that "the inalienable right" to peaceful nuclear power enshrined in the treaty creates a backdoor way for states to get nuclear weapons while pretending to build peaceful nuclear plants.

North Korea built its nuclear arms via just this method, and now it looks like Iran is doing so as well. What value is the NPT if it contains a loophole that actually encourages the spread of nuclear weapons?

The NPT bargain is an imperfect one, and one that obviously needs to be amended, since it satisfies neither the security concerns of the nuclear weapons states nor allows non-weapons states to fully exercise their "inalienable right."

Posted by barron | October 16, 2007 7:36 PM

"the Soviet Union being caught flat footed by the German invasion in June, 1941, in spite of being warned by the British who know all about it because of Ultra intercepts."

The Soviets also had intel from German Communists -- specifically, a German printer who happened to be a Communist was hired by the Nazis to make Russian phrase books for their invading troops. That printer took a copy of the phrase book to the Soviet embassy in Berlin. That this was ignored along with the British intel wasn't so much an intelligence failure as it was the failure of a paranoid, arrogant, and deluded dictator.

Posted by Juan | October 17, 2007 4:53 PM