Why does this page look this way?
It appears that you are using either an older, classic Web browser or a hand-held device that allows you to view our content but may not work with every feature of our site. If you are using an older browser, please upgrade for the best experience.
Navigation
home > by publication type > daily analysis > A Setback for Nonproliferation
| Prepared by: | Lionel Beehner |
|---|
A propaganda poster demonstrates Pyongyang's disdain for the NPT. (AP/Korea News Service)
North Korea’s nuclear test has nonproliferation experts scratching their heads and asking: Does this, in effect, signal the end of an era (CSMonitor)? After all, North Korea marks the first country to remove itself from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and detonate a nuclear weapon. Further, there are fears its test might embolden pariah states like Iran to ratchet up their own nuclear programs, as this new Backgrounder explains. Another concern is Pyongyang’s actions could set off a domino-like reaction, spurring Japan and South Korea to follow suit (Economist). The same argument applies to the Middle East. Some experts worry if Iran gets nuclear technology, then so will Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. The more states with nuclear weapons, the thinking goes, the greater the likelihood fissile material will fall into the hands of a terrorist organization.
Does this therefore require a reconsideration of nonproliferation strategy? Experts disagree. After all, President John F. Kennedy’s prediction that as many as twenty-five countries would acquire nuclear weapons by the 1970s never came true. Far from it: Only eight states are officially in the nuclear club (two of them—India and Pakistan—are non-signatories to the NPT; Israel also a non-signatory, is widely known to have an arsenal but prefers “strategic ambiguity" when it comes to admitting it; North Korea withdrew in 2003). A number of states, the bulk of them scattered throughout the former Soviet Union, willingly gave up their nuclear weapons. Others, like Libya, have forsaken their nuclear programs in exchange for improved relations with the Western world and economic perks. Longstanding anti-proliferation programs like Nunn-Lugar and the Department of Defense’s Cooperative Threat Reduction Act have shown some success, and newer programs like the Proliferation Security Initiative also show promise. After all, no nuclear weapon has fallen into the hands of a terrorist organization to date. Perhaps more importantly, no nuclear bomb since World War II has been detonated in an act of aggression.
But that masks a number of close calls and egregious violations of the nonproliferation regime, critics charge. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and Indo-Pakistan standoff in 2002 both come to mind. A Q. Khan’s “nuclear Wal-Mart” (GlobalSecurity) demonstrated that sensitive nuclear material can be easily transferable. Efforts over the years to create nuclear-free zones have largely faltered (although a recent nuclear-free initiative in Central Asia passed). And a number of nuclear warheads, or loose nukes (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists), sit in poorly guarded bunkers throughout Russia, keeping alive the apocalyptic scenario of a bomb falling into the hands of an Osama-bin-Laden type. Some critics place blame squarely on the NPT. None of the major powers look likely to implement the “thirteen practical steps,” as stipulated by the NPT 2000 Review Conference, to reduce and eventually eliminate their own nuclear arsenals. Moreover, as currently worded, the NPT grants signatories like Iran the “inalienable” right to enrich uranium, so long as it is ostensibly for peaceful purposes.
If the Bush administration’s top foreign policy priority remains “preventing the world’s most dangerous weapons” from falling into the hands of rogue states or terrorists, how then can bodies like the UN Security Council dissuade would-be proliferators like Iran? Diplomacy seems to still be the preferred route. CFR Fellow Michael A. Levi argues in Slate that negotiations with North Korea and Iran are inextricably linked. “Crafting our response to the North Korean test so that it sends the right signal to Iran would be an excellent first step,” he argues. Former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, writing in the Washington Post, says economic sanctions would be ill-conceived because they “would increase the suffering of [North Korea’s] people but would have little effect on the elite.” Meanwhile, Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center urges the need to prevent other states from withdrawing with impunity from the NPT, keep them from testing nuclear weapons (India, for example), and send clear signals to those with peaceful nuclear programs (Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia) not to join the nuclear club (WSJ).
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
In Termites in the Trading System, Jagdish Bhagwati reveals how the rapid spread of preferential trade agreements endangers the world trading system.
America Between the Wars explores how the decisions and debates of the years between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Twin Towers shaped the events, arguments, and politics of the world we live in today.
In The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, Noah Feldman tells the story behind the increasingly popular call for the establishment of the sharia—the law of the traditional Islamic state—in the modern Muslim world.
Complete list of CFR Books.
This report argues that the United States must lead with domestic action on climate change and proposes a U.S. negotiating strategy for a global UN climate agreement that includes commitments from all major economies, while also promoting a less formal Partnership for Climate Cooperation that would focus the world's largest emitters on implementing aggressive emissions reductions.
This Task Force report examines changes in Latin America and in U.S. influence there, while taking account of the region's enduring importance to the United States. The Task Force offers an agenda for U.S. policy toward Latin America and identifies four critical areas that should provide the basis of a new U.S. approach.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR.
In this report, CFR Fellow Brad W. Setser recommends addressing the U.S. current account deficit in order to strengthen the United States’ position abroad.
This report, written by CFR Senior Fellow Daniel Markey, outlines the nature of the challenges in Pakistan's tribal areas, formulates strategies for addressing those challenges, and distills the strategies into realistic policy proposals worthy of consideration by the incoming administration.
Complete list of Council Special Reports.
“The Next President:” Richard Holbrooke says the next U.S. president will inherit a more difficult set of international challenges than any predecessor since World War II.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1-212-434-9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
To request permission to reuse Council materials, please email publications@cfr.org or fax +1.212.434.9859.
Please include the complete information of the requested work—author, title, sections/pages to be copied or reprinted, and number of copies to be made—along with a brief description of where and how you would like to reuse the work.
You may also request permission for Council material through Copyright Clearance Center. For more information, please click on the link below.
Browse Content By Region IssuePublication TypeThe Think TankFor The MediaFor Educators About CFR
Copyright 2008 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.
