 |
Short Circuiting the Nuclear Cycle |
 |
Are you a small, under-respected nation? Do you want to get the attention of the "big boys" and be taken seriously on the world stage? All you need to do is obtain a nuclear weapon and you'll be rolling in cash, favors, and prestige.
This seems to be the message the U.S. and others in the so-called "first world" are sending. Get a nuke and we'll take you seriously. Until then, we can and will ignore you. Clearly, this is a counterproductive message to send, as it encourages nuclear proliferation.
The cycle works surprisingly well for the under-respected countries in question. After hinting for years, India and Pakistan, two developing powers who were essentially ignored by the Western world, tested nuclear devices nearly simultaneously in 1998. The tests "shocked" the world, though nobody really should have been surprised.
As a result, India negotiated a landmark agreement with the U.S. to purchase nuclear technology and fuel, allowing it to greatly expand its civilian nuclear program as well as possibly expand its military program. The agreement represented a large shift away from nonproliferation by the U.S. and a warming in India/U.S. relations. In addition, since the nuclear test India's economy has taken off, growing at 9.4% last year, one of the fastest growing in the world. Though correlation clearly doesn't prove causation, I think there is a good case to be made for India's economic growth being fueled by the warming of relations between the two countries following its nuclear test.
Pakistan has also benefited from its nuclear status. Large amounts of aid to Pakistan were resumed in 2001, adding billions of dollars to the country's coffers. Pakistan, and in particular President Musharraf, has become a key ally in George Bush's war on terror, I think largely because it is one of the few nuclear states on the front lines of this "war." These increased geopolitical interdependencies have strengthened alliances between the two countries.
To take an expanded view, Pakistan and India are now well respected members of the club of powerful (and nuclear) nations. Governments in the West now take their needs seriously and are eager for increased trade and alliances. In a very real way, the nuclear tests of 1998 at least opened the doors to these positive developments.
Similarly, North Korea was able to barter its nuclear capabilities for the aid and respect it so desperately needed. Following a test in 2006, North Korea agreed to disarm its nuclear program and allow international inspectors into the country in return for a unfreezing of its assets abroad, greatly increased aid, and a removal of its name from Washington's list of states that sponsor terrorism. While relations between North Korea and the rest of the world remain frosty, there has been increased diplomatic talks and cautious movement in a positive direction. North Korea is still a lower level country in the eyes of Western leaders, but they are now taken seriously when they ask for a place at the table.
A similar cycle, I believe, is taking place in Iran right now. Threatened by a U.S. military presence on two borders (Iraq and Afghanistan) and angling for greater power in the Middle East and on the world stage, Iran has, correctly it seems, decided that possessing a nuclear weapon is the best thing it can do to change its international fortunes. Iran wants increased trade with the Western world to bolster its under-performing economy, as evidenced by its Five-Year Economic Development Plan. Unfortunately, in today's world, if Iran can hold off U.S. aggression long enough to develop a weapon, they will most likely get the kinds of deals and respect they are looking for.
This cycle is unacceptable. Nuclear proliferation is a bad thing not because "third world" states shouldn't possess them, but because the more nuclear weapons there are in the world, the more likely they will be used or their dangerous material or technology stolen by unaccountable non-state actors. We must short circuit this dangerous cycle and give lesser countries a way to gain respect without first gaining nukes.
To do so, the U.S. and other world powers need to be proactive. When a country starts threatening to create a nuclear arsenal, instead of rattling our sabers, we need to step up and find out what they really want. In exchange for international inspection and a halting of nuclear development, the Western world needs to be prepared to offer generous aid packages, trade deals, and alliances to those countries who want them. We need a new "Atoms for Peace" philosophy, one that gives other nations the respect they deserve in exchange for a verifiable commitment to peaceful nuclear use through international inspections.
Nuclear proliferation is not good, period. It is a problem that I believe can be controlled by thoughtful action instead of mindless bluster. Perhaps I'm being too naive, but I do believe most countries trying to develop nuclear weapons these days want more than a simple military deterrent. By giving these countries the other things they want, perhaps we can persuade them that nuclear weapons are not worth the expense to develop. The cycle we have put in place now seems clear: get a nuke and we'll take you seriously. It's time to change that.
Any thoughts on how you would do it?
Consider this, too http://www.samsonblinded.org/news/muslim-world/pakistan
All countries should rid themselves of nuclear weapons. We can start on Pennsylvania Ave.
It is not good, in theory. But it is realpolitic, been discussed for years, and no one has found a way out. International politics is not about rule of law or principles, but about power. Has always been and will be. If you change that, the first victim of international rule of law will be the US - and I am not sure thats good for the world, or US either.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same things, Matt. This isn't really a rule of law issue. I agree completely that it's a power issue.
Ok, let's look at this is quasi-economic terms. It costs a state a lot to build a nuclear weapon. That cost is monetary, but it also comes in the form of time, talented people, and possibly (temporary) loss of prestige in the world, sanctions directly after a test, etc….
Right now, states view that cost as acceptable because eventually they get it back many times over in power. Once they test a nuke and the world gets over its "shock," the country ends up being much more powerful then before.
I'm arguing that you can give states the power they want (in the form of alliances, trade deals, respect, etc…) without waiting for them to build a nuke. The idea is that states that get the power they want won't be able to rationalize the cost of actually building a weapon, thus preventing proliferation.
How can aspiring regional powers become world powers if superpowers like the U.S. won't even consider disarmament?
How can the U.S. criticize other countries for wishing to possess the same power (in terms of nuclear arms and the fringe benefits such possession brings)?
Why is it acceptable for the U.S. to pursue a nuclear deal with India while threatening to start WWIII with Iran over its desire to similarly equip itself with nuclear power?
Why are the moral implications (as well as agreements like the NPT) only used selectively (i.e., when it's convenient)?
What can we, in the U.S. and other nuclear arms states, do to convince our governments to pursue disarmament?
Ultimately, this is true, but baby steps. When we get to a point that there is nothing we can offer to other nations to make us more equal besides giving up our weapons, then disarmament is the necessary next step. The problem is, right now, I don't see the U.S. giving up its weapons. That doesn't mean we still can't stop this cycle. As noted above, there is a ton of things we can offer nations, things that they want, in exchange for non-proliferation. We need to start there.