Tag Archives: ENDC

Nuclear Security and Nuclear Convenience

24 Thu Mar 2016

Posted by in Nuclear, Security, United States

≈ Comments Off on Nuclear Security and Nuclear Convenience

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

With an important nuclear conference – the last Nuclear Security Summit – about to start in a week, this is usually the time when articles criticising aspects of non-Western nuclear programmes coincidentally begin to appear. India has been a favoured subject recently, inspiring thoughtful prose before the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, biennial meetings of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation, and annual Nuclear Suppliers Group plenaries. It is a lot of ink that only serves to reiterate what VC Trivedi, India’s ambassador to the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee in the mid-1960s, called nuclear apartheid.

The NSS has addressed issues that have not received sufficient attention in existing fora. Juicier topics such as the proliferation of nuclear weapons and sensitive related technology have their own fora in the NPT and NSG communities as well as the United Nations and other regional and bilateral frameworks. By contrast, the safety of nuclear materials seems like plain police work and has largely been left to individual states and industry to handle. Agreements such as the Convention for the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material are rare and safety regime so far inadequate. Nonetheless, participants at the NSS have taken a creative approach to nuclear safety and security, raising the possibility of even stepping away entirely from the use of plutonium and highly enriched uranium. It is in this expanded and comprehensive view of safety and security that we should also consider policy and not just the technicalities of nuclear weapons, energy, and commerce.

First, it is clear that the United States needs reminding that it presently possesses a stockpile of around 7,000 nuclear weapons. This, if you can believe it, is actually the result of years of disarmament from an all-time high level of almost 30,000 nuclear weapons. Since the nuclear ayatollahs have always told us that more weapons mean more danger, it seems obvious that significantly reducing that stockpile is the place to start.

Russia and the United States each have about the same number of nuclear weapons, estimated to be some 25 times (!) that of the next nuclear power, France. By contrast, India is estimated to have 120 nuclear weapons. Even granting Russia and the United States a temporary 10:1 advantage, they would still need to reduce their nuclear weapons stockpile by half before they enter the realm of reason.

Second, the nuclear modernisation drive that all the treaty nuclear powers are on does not augur well for the reputation of the non-proliferation regime. Were a cynical attitude to develop among member states, international cooperation would be made even more difficult; the difficulty in having a common sensical amendment to the Convention for the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material is clear indication that faith in the global nuclear framework is eroding. During the long negotiations with Iran that recently culminated in a favourable agreement, a fear that repeatedly arose was the lack of faith in international institutions as neutral arbiters of law. India’s objection to intrusive inspections that allow fuel tracking through its nuclear complex is also along similar lines of security and questionable impartiality.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreed upon with Iran was a truly commendable diplomatic effort. The Islamic republic had taken creative license with its Article IV right under the NPT to enrich uranium and the international community persuaded Tehran of its obligations to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities for verification. It would be even more commendable were a similar effort put behind reminding the N5 – the five nuclear powers recognised by the NPT – of their long-pending Article VI obligation towards nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control. Until now, there seems to be no sign that the N5 have even recognised this promise. Such double standards weaken the nuclear regime that will find a challenger in every Iran and North Korea when their geopolitical situation demands it.

Such hypocrisy is not new – even before NPT opened for signing, the United States kept it quiet that its interpretation of Articles I and II of the treaty allowed for nuclear sharing between NATO countries; US nuclear weapons could thus be deployed to non-nuclear states such as Italy, Turkey, and West Germany. The US role in the Israeli and Pakistani acquisition of nuclear weapons, of omission or commission, certainly marks it as one of the most irresponsible nuclear powers in the world. China’s overt assistance to the Pakistani nuclear programme puts it in the same company. If the world community is to accept that nuclear weapons present an unbearable risk and their proliferation must be prevented,  Washington’s reckless behaviour from the 1960s to the 1980s does little to convince the sceptics.

A different kind of recklessness is revealed in Eric Schlosser’s Command and Control, a terrifying book about the several close calls the United States had in handling nuclear weapons. To be sure, it is praiseworthy that the United States is an open society where such research was possible – other nuclear weapons states are far more hesitant to allow such information to be made public. Nonetheless, when Washington finds research in Trombay or Kalpakkam risky, it has little ground to stand on. The recent scandals involving the United States’ missile men shows that this plague of poor maintenance and readiness is not yet over.

Even if the attendees at the NSS were willing to let history remain in the past, there remain some serious questions regarding present US nuclear policy. Washington believes, for example, that reprocessing, even under safeguards, is an unacceptable proliferation risk and the nuclear fuel cycle must remain open. In effect, the United States believes that it is safer to bury radioactive nuclear waste for some 29,000 years than to recycle it until the most dangerous radioactive elements are burned up and store a fraction of the waste for 300 years or less. Such faith in our engineering capabilities will require some proselytism, especially when the other option promises energy security and expands fuel availability by several thousand years.

Perhaps a genuine drive for nuclear safety would include the mainstreaming of thorium reactors for energy. There is plenty of intelligent speculation among nuclear energy enthusiasts that the Molten Salt Reactor programme was abandoned in the 1960s because it was not fissile material-friendly. MSRs do not remove all risk – nothing does – but they substantially reduce the security and safety implications present in light water reactors. Admittedly, nuclear research in the United States is more and more in private hands but a CCC-like (Conference on Climate Change) effort to mobilise international will and resources would address multiple concerns simultaneously. The NSS would not be the appropriate forum for such a venture but issues as grave as nuclear safety and security can know no boundaries.

There is plenty to be said about the United States and N5 behaviour regarding nuclear weapons and energy, a lot of it not laudatory. This would be nice to remember the next time a column raises alarm about some allegedly new development in India. It would put the alarm in context, and chances are, the world will still be here tomorrow.

This post appeared on FirstPost on March 26, 2016.

The Other Side of Geneva

28 Thu Nov 2013

Posted by in Iran, Middle East, Nuclear

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The euphoria over the recent Interim Nuclear Agreement with Iran, despite a few discordant voices, has been global. The agreement eased the buildup of political pressure in the region over the last six years and it has set an optimistic stage for negotiations to begin. The difficult issues well known, the path ahead remains long and arduous, and one wonders if either side knows what an acceptable comprehensive solution to Iran’s nuclear question would look like. We should all wish for a timely and mutually satisfactory resolution to the matter, but the focus on the technical aspects of a resolution may have taken for granted, unwarrantedly, an underlying philosophy of nuclear proliferation.

One difference between the two sides is in their different interpretation of Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Tehran argues that the clause gives each member of the NPT the inalienable right to pursue peaceful nuclear activity, including enrichment, while the United States believes that the NPT confers no such right. On this, Washington’s case appears to be weak; the inalienable right is, however, contingent upon conformity with Article II which states that non-nuclear weapons states will not seek, directly or indirectly, to weaponise their nuclear technology. What this implies is that Iran may enrich uranium to whatever level it chooses – if it plans to develop nuclear submarines, even 90% enrichment may be required – as long as there is adequate verification that Iran is not diverting the fissile material to a secret weapons programme.

The objection to the US interpretation is that it uses the NPT to achieve non-proliferation creep – overstate its mandate. In fact, Article IV (2) even says that members are allowed “the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy,” a clause the US refuses to honour via its infamously stringent Gold Standard 123 Agreements for civil nuclear cooperation. This should concern all countries that engage in nuclear power for it casts doubt on their “inalienable right to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” and have implications on its nuclear commerce with the United States.

Oh, what a difference signing a treaty makes! While Iran’s nuclear programme has received so much (negative) attention in the Western media, Israel has escaped with little mention. Patrick Pexton wrote in 2012 that going back a decade in the Washington Post‘s archives, he found little reporting of Israeli nuclear capabilities. Similarly, Micah Zenko noted that “Iran” and “nuclear” has appeared 603 times in the New York Times headlines since January 01, 2000. In the same period, Russia was mentioned 86 times, China 52 times, and Pakistan 48 times. Tehran’s claim, therefore, that it is being singled out for attention and punishment is hard to refute.

Israel is another bugbear for Iran, not only militarily and strategically, but also in terms of the “nuclear nepotism” it enjoys from the United States. Despite maintaining complete nuclear ambiguity – amimut – it is no secret any longer that Jerusalem has a robust nuclear arsenal. The revelations by Mordechai Vanunu, some excellent scholarship by Avner Cohen, and the cloaked statements by Israel’s own officials leave little doubt that Israel indeed has a clandestine nuclear programme; though the US media does not want to talk about it, the Middle East most certainly does. Saudi Arabia has been quiet as tensions with Iran have risen as Riyadh sees Tehran to be a more immediate threat than Jerusalem, but it was not too long back that Iran and the Arabs, including Saudi Arabia, were insisting that talk of a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone would not hold any meaning without Israel’s participation. Tellingly, in 1985, Iran had called out to Libya and Syria for them all to develop nuclear weapons as a counter to the Israeli nuclear threat. Iran is sure to point out Western double standards with Jerusalem but as a non-signatory to the NPT, Israel technically enjoys a little more leeway than Tehran.

This nuclear hypocrisy is not new; even before the ink was dry on the NPT, the United States deliberately kept its interpretation of the NPT with respect to nuclear sharing between NATO countries secret from other signatories, particularly the Non-Aligned Movement. Later, in the 1980s, the United States looked the other way as Pakistan clandestinely developed its nuclear weapons; when the illicit nuclear proliferation network of AQ Khan was exposed in 2004, Pakistan got a mere slap on the wrist. Pakistan’s nuclear ties with China have also gone without invoking reprimand from Washington or the European Union. The 2008 nuclear deal that Washington aggressively lobbied for with India, whatever its justification, is not in the spirit of the nuclear non-proliferation regime either, and at home, Washington has embarked on a multi-billion dollar nuclear modernisation programme. It is difficult not to concede the point to Tehran that non-proliferation is a matter of convenience for the United States.

While Iran may be called to task for forgetting that its Article IV rights under the NPT must stand in conformity with Article II (or for that matter, forgetting the safeguard stipulations of Article III), one wonders if the five recognised nuclear powers (N5) may be called to task for failing to remember the provisions of Article VI (nuclear disarmament). What yardstick is there to verify that the N5 have been responsible and true to their word? Keeping aside the insanity of accumulating over 120,000 (!!) warheads between the United States and Russia since 1945, it is of little comfort to note that the same two countries still hold approximately 95% of the world’s nuclear arsenal. The greatest violators of the NPT are, in that sense, the United States and Russia.

These issues undermine any genuine nuclear non-proliferation because the whole agenda is seen to be laced with US national interests. The overwhelming presence and reach of US media and its reference mostly to research from US think tanks has dramatically skewed international perception in favour of an American hegemonic discourse of nuclear non-proliferation. Admittedly, US research institutes are among the best in the word in terms of funding, scholars, and research, but a quick glance through the position papers produced by other countries, particularly those in the glare of the nuclear witch hunt, shows strong reservations expressed over vertical proliferation, nuclear apartheid, and other concerns. A blunt declaration of national interest would be understandable and less insulting than the hypocrisy of moralpolitik.

As long as such resentment exists, there cannot be a comprehensive solution. Iran may buckle under economic sanctions for now, but this may only be a sign that it has learned its lesson from this episode well; if it decides to pursue a nuclear weapons programme in the future, it will tread far more gently and when it is in a better position to withstand US and EU pressure. If the negotiations for a comprehensive solution between the E3+3 (France, Germany, Britain + Russia, United States, China) and Iran focus merely on the technical issues of verification and curtailing enrichment & reprocessing, the potential reasons for Tehran’s suspected quest for nuclear weapons will not have been addressed and could remain a sore spot for future conflagrations.

In the game of accusations and counter-accusations between Iran and the West over the NPT – what Hindi speakers refer to in a manner that is more onomatopoeically pleasing as तू-तू मैं-मैं (tu-tu main-main) – an interesting anecdote comes to mind. It recently came to light that Russia has been violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty it signed with the United States in 1987. Under this treaty, both superpowers are forbidden to develop nuclear missiles with a range between 500 kms and 5,500 kms, but Russia has indicated several times of late that it plans to withdraw from the treaty. When asked to comment, Sergei Ivanov, Chief of Staff Presidential Administration of Russia. replied, “Why is it that everyone and anyone can have this class of weapons and we and the United States cannot? The question arises. On the one hand, we signed the Soviet-American agreement. We perform, but it cannot go on for infinity.” One could ask the same thing of the United States and the four other nuclear powers about the NPT.

This post appeared on Daily News & Analysis on December 03, 2013.

Nuclear Monopolies

15 Sat Jun 2013

Posted by in India, Nuclear, South Asia

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) held its 2013 plenary meeting in Prague last week. Little of what transpired at the meet has trickled out, but it is known that Britain lobbied strongly for India’s membership into the exclusive nuclear club. After the meetings, a brief statement was issued that said that “only the NSG’s relationship with India was discussed.” An earlier meeting in March this year revealed that though four of the five Non-Proliferation Treaty sanctioned nuclear powers – France, Russia, Britain, and the United States – supported India’s membership, the proposal was opposed by China and a few other countries (most likely Austria, Ireland, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and New Zealand).

The NSG was established in the immediate aftermath of India’s 1974 “peaceful nuclear explosion” at Pokhran. From an initial seven members in 1975, the group today has 47 members that are all part of the nuclear cycle, be it ore, technology, or even important shipping hubs. The secretive body works on consensus, and its rulings are not legally binding but serve as guidelines to coordinate and regulate nuclear commerce between states.

Despite the Pokhran impetus behind the creation of the NSG, the Indo-US nuclear deal supported strongly by George W Bush brought about a thaw in civilian nuclear relations with India. The United States was able to arm-twist the few hesitant Participating Governments (PG) of the NSG into giving India a waiver for its non-NPT status. Yet this was only a quick fix – in the long-run, US pressure upon the NSG regarding India brought to the fore related tensions within the group over enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) and China.

India has publicly downplayed its interest in joining the NSG and other technology denying regimes such as the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), Zangger Committee, and the Wassenaar Arrangement. Nonetheless, its apparent nonchalance should not be misread: if anything, Delhi is extremely eager to have a seat at the “Big Boys’ Table.” Some analysts perceive this, quite narrow-mindedly, as a matter of prestige. However, these memberships are important to India as they provide a better platform from which to voice India’s views on nuclear commerce and non-proliferation and thereby protect its own nuclear establishment.

The NSG’s India Quandary

India critics are quite right in their warning that India does not see eye-to-eye with the NSG and the body’s opening its doors to the South Asian country will dilute its mission. Had anyone paid attention, this would have been obvious from the mid-1960s at the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee (ENDC) negotiations over the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and at every opportunity to discuss nuclear issues since. The PGs must decide whether the nuclear status quo serves the world’s best interests (and risk being made irrelevant) or allow changes to reflect the realities which they had been in a position to ignore 40 years ago.

By allowing India into the NSG, the group also risks looking hypocritical, at least on paper, and losing credibility with trouble spots like Pakistan, Iran, and a slew of countries newly interested in nuclear power (29 according to the International Atomic Energy Agency). China has already not-so-obliquely hinted, however debatably, at the double standards exhibited by the group regarding India and Pakistan, and used the Indo-US nuclear deal as an excuse to make further sales to Pakistan under the, again debatable, pretext of ‘grandfathering’ its sales into a previous bilateral treaty between the two states.

However, by not letting in India, the NSG might be hastening its own demise – as India’s economy grows so will its nuclear energy sector. Increased confidence in designing, building, and running nuclear reactors will inevitably lead to India eventually becoming a nuclear exporter – it is already among the leading countries in fast breeder and thorium reactor research. At this point, Delhi will have little to hold it back from establishing its own criteria for safe nuclear commerce outside the scope of the NSG. Every country pursuing nuclear power has its own strategic equation, and if an Indian-led export regime is perceived as less intrusive and insulting to national sovereignty while offering similar benefits, the NSG may have few bargaining chips to use with India.

The View From Delhi

India’s dealings with the NSG have revealed two anti-India blocs – a small group of nations whose opposition is on ideological grounds, and China. The first group’s idealism prohibits it from accepting the sort of exceptions the NSG would have to make to allow India to become a member. This group also opposed the India-specific waiver in 2008 and would have voted against it had it not been for “tremendous pressure” exerted upon them by the White House.

India can, and has in the past, use persuasive diplomacy with the group of European states (and New Zealand) to convince them of the merit of India’s case. India can also count on the countries that have the most to gain from India’s unrestricted entry into the nuclear market to also speak on its behalf to these states. Though not easy, Delhi can probably persuade these states not to block its membership if not support it.

The bigger hindrance for Delhi is Beijing. Not only has China flouted NSG guidelines in its dealings with Pakistan, but it is also the main obstacle to India in several international fora including the NSG and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Strategists in Delhi must rue the day Jawaharlal Nehru refused a permanent seat on the UNSC (the US offered to support India’s bid in 1952 and again in 1955) in favour of China. If India expects its northeastern neighbour’s behaviour to change, it will have to wait long. These memberships amplify India’s voice on the world stage; they are diplomatic force multipliers that once given, cannot be taken back or negated. Beijing might be willing to make small and temporary concessions on the border and on its support to anti-India forces in the region but it will never accede to a place at the table for Delhi.

There is little doubt that China is using its clout to squeeze benefits out of the group for its protégé and several PGs accept the logic equating an unstable and nuclear black-marketeering Pakistan to India. Not only has Chashma 3 and 4 been grandfathered in soon after the announcement of the Indo-US nuclear deal, a new deal for two more reactors has been struck between China and Pakistan. Worse, the NSG has been unwilling (and unable) to take Beijing to task for its violations.

India’s Way Forward

There is little hope for India with regard to the NSG (or UNSC) while it faces what is practically a veto from China; the organisational structures of these groups do not allow for much room to manoeuvre. However, India can lobby the other members of the NSG hard and enter into bilateral deals with them as it tries to block Pakistan’s way up that same path. India’s booming economy and energy needs are an enticing carrot if deployed well, and few countries would be able to resist such an offer in an era of global economic slowdown.

India also needs to develop good relations with states not in the NSG that have significant nuclear activities, particularly Namibia, Niger, and Morocco, who are all major suppliers of uranium ore concentrates. The IAEA lists 72 countries with significant nuclear activity of which 47 are members of the NSG. The remaining 25 represent a market India can create, nurture, and develop outside the ambit of NSG restrictions. This is not to say that India should not insist upon IAEA safeguards; on the contrary, it should. However, India can write its own rules beyond IAEA protocols.

In all honesty, this is too bold a step for India’s nuclear establishment that struggles even to construct a reactor on time without finding substandard parts or accusations of incompetence. In addition, India’s political masters have never exhibited the mettle or vision required to work around such a diplomatic impasse. The threat of the evolution of an alternate nuclear control regime is the surest way to force members of the NSG to consider India’s views and membership, but the real question is if Delhi has the stomach for a long drawn out and demanding game of nuclear chess. My guess is no.