If you want to halt nuclear proliferation, you need to follow the Non-Proliferation Treaty like Australia's new Labour government. But of course Australia exchanging Howard for Rudd will do little good in this regard unless the United States exchanges Bush for someone better.
« Time Zone Trouble | Main | More Table »
How It's Done, Part II
15 Jan 2008 10:26 am
Comments (10)
unless the United States exchanges Bush for someone better.
Well, it will be hard for us to avoid doing that . . .
Have they also refused to sell to the established nuclear powers because we've shown no interest whatsoever in living up to our obligation under Article VI of the NPT "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control"?
If you want to halt nuclear proliferation, you need to follow the Non-Proliferation Treaty...
Perhaps you didn't think this through, this being a blog and all?
Following the NPT tells others that you are sincere in your desire to halt global proliferation (See Honest Signaling Theory), but, without more, the effect it has on whether another country decides to go nuclear is minimal.
For he that performeth first has no assurance the other will perform after, because the bonds of words are too weak to bridle men's ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions, without the fear of some coercive power. -- Hobbes, Leviathan.
Think about it a little more, and I'm sure you'll get it.
Sorry, I'm impatient, so I'll just tell you the answer. Without a global Leviathan which can bring to bear real punitive costs on those who do decide to proliferate, the adherence of any particular nation to the NPT won't do diddly-squat to "halt nuclear proliferation."
However, if such a common power existed, and if the costs of proliferation were clear and present, then it would be absolutely imperative for signatories of the NPT to adhere to the covenant.
But we're not there yet, so I'm afraid proliferation will continue apace, with or without Australia.
Actually, my guess is that the best way to do proliferation policy would be "controlled proliferation."
Since countries like the US and Russia and China and France are - let's face it - vanishingly unlikely to ever give up their nuclear weapons, this leads to a permanent state of unfairness, encouraging "rogue" states and middle-income regional powers to covertly develop their own weapons. Another problem is that, as fossil fuels run out, nuclear power will get more and more important - and, as we've seen, it's a short technological hop from electricity to bombs. Eventually, nonproliferation policy will require non-nuclear countries to wreck their economies, which of course they won't do.
So, a good idea might be to have the UN establish conditions under which the world will sanction a country to build and maintain a small number of nuclear weapons. Those conditions might include stability, functioning civil institutions, a reasonable amount of civil liberty, and participation in global institutions like the WTO. If such a system could be put in place, it would encourage countries to clean up their act and join a peaceful, liberal world order, and it would stave off the current, more dangerous form of covert proliferation. And under this system, the number and types of bombs (i.e. low-fallout) could be regulated, and agreements could be made to keep the weapons off of hair-trigger launch status.
Asking countries to give up nuclear weapons is like asking teenagers to give up sex. And as we all know, sex education beats abstinence education hands down.
But without an effective enforcement regime, that won't work either.
Plus, adding a matrix of legal outs will muddy the waters more, not less. Think Oil-For-Food.
I really like Rudd, and I would have voted for him over Howard, had I been Aussie.
But Matt, this is a colossally dumb post. The US is more likely to elect Osama bin Laden with Hugo Chavez as VP than the DPRK is to give up their weapons.
Or Pakistan and India. Or Israel. Or anyone but the Afrikaaners, who only did it because none of them wanted to find out what would happen if you gave the ANC nukes.
But without an effective enforcement regime, that won't work either.
Oh, no question about that. There would have to be stern penalties for countries that followed alternate paths to nuclear weapons - multilateral sanctions, expulsion from world institutions, and possible military action (although the last one is, of course, very hard to write into international law and would have to be an informal but widely recognized threat).
An "effective enforcement regime" is also called...a pony.
The problem is that said "enforcement regime", if it isn't the entire international community - which is itself an oxymoron - means basically one big country with nukes and a big conventional military who can threaten everyone else.
I.e., an imperial power.
In fact, the existing NPT and the IAEA would work quite well IF:
1) Certain countries in the ME who shall be nameless to avoid another babble from SLC weren't allowed to slide under the radar.
2) Certain countries elsewhere were also allowed to slide under the radar for political considerations, i.e., India and Pakistan.
Who else has any serious nuclear weapons programs? Iran? Nope? Syria? Nope.
North Korea? Well, they DID - but the only reason they did is because nobody wanted to deal with them seriously, and then they got lumped in with Iran and Iraq for some bizarre reason so the deals we made with them were abrogated for six years until finally the morons in the Bush Administration realized there wasn't a goddamn thing the US could do about it but give in and make a deal - again. Either that or take 50,000 casualties in the first ninety days of war with the North.
And I'm sure we'll abrogate that deal - again - one of these days.
Meanwhile, it turns out that the only reason Pakistan has nukes is because people IN THE US STATE DEPARTMENT SOLD THEM THE SECRETS! Yes, that's the gist of Sibel Edmonds accusations.
So where exactly does it say that "the pony" is going to solve all the problems? It's like saying the US could govern the world perfectly - if it's leaders had perfect sense, honesty and intelligence.
Which isn't the case and never will be.
There really isn't a "proliferation problem" any more than there is an "Iranian nuclear weapons problem."
The problem, as we tech support types like to say, is PEBKAC: Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Chair - the chairs being in the Oval Office and the US Congress.
Comments closed January 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
If you want to halt nuclear proliferation, you need to follow the Non-Proliferation Treaty
I'm not so sure about that. It's not clear how much success followers of the treaty have achieved in halting proliferation. So if there exists a way to halt proliferation, there seems at least some chance that it doesn't involve following the treaty.
Of course, I think following the treaty is a good thing in its own right.
Posted by Mr. Noah | January 15, 2008 10:31 AM