In regard to nuclear proliferation and arms control, the fundamental
problem is clear: Either we begin finding creative, outside-the-box
solutions or the international nuclear safeguards regime will become
obsolete.
For this reason, I have been calling for new approaches in a number of
areas. First, a recommitment to disarmament -- a move away from national
security strategies that rely on nuclear weapons, which serve as a
constant stimulus for other nations to acquire them. Second, tightened
controls on the proliferation-sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle.
By bringing multinational control to any operation that enriches uranium
or separates plutonium, we can lower the risk of these materials being
diverted to weapons. A parallel step would be to create a mechanism to
ensure a reliable supply of reactor fuel to bona fide users, including a
fuel bank under control of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The third area has been more problematic: how to deal creatively with
the three countries that remain outside the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT): Pakistan and India, both holders of nuclear arsenals, and
Israel, which maintains an official policy of ambiguity but is believed
to be nuclear-weapons-capable. However fervently we might wish it, none
of these three is likely to give up its nuclear weapons or the nuclear
weapons option outside of a global or regional arms control framework.
Our traditional strategy -- of treating such states as outsiders -- is
no longer a realistic method of bringing these last few countries into
the fold.
Which brings us to a current controversy -- the recent agreement between
President Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh regarding the exchange
of nuclear technology between the United States and India.
Some insist that the deal will primarily enable India to divert more
uranium to produce more weapons -- that it rewards India for having
developed nuclear weapons and legitimizes its status as a nuclear
weapons state. By contrast, some in India argue that it will bring the
downfall of Indias nuclear weapons program, because of new restrictions
on moving equipment and expertise between civilian and military facilities.
Clearly, this is a complex issue on which intelligent people can
disagree. Ultimately, perhaps, it comes down to a balance of judgment.
But to this array of opinions, I would offer the following:
First, under the NPT, there is no such thing as a "legitimate" or
"illegitimate" nuclear weapons state. The fact that five states are
recognized in the treaty as holders of nuclear weapons was regarded as a
matter of transition; the treaty does not in any sense confer permanent
status on those states as weapons holders. Moreover, the U.S.-India deal
is neutral on this point -- it does not add to or detract from Indias
nuclear weapons program, nor does it confer any "status," legal or
otherwise, on India as a possessor of nuclear weapons. India has never
joined the NPT; it has therefore not violated any legal commitment, and
it has never encouraged nuclear weapons proliferation.
Also, it is important to consider the implications of denying this
exchange of peaceful nuclear technology. As a country with one-sixth of
the worls population, India has an enormous appetite for energy -- and
the fastest-growing civilian nuclear energy program in the world. With
this anticipated growth, it is important that India have access to the
safest and most advanced technology.
India clearly enjoys close cooperation with the United States and many
other countries in a number of areas of technology and security. It is
treated as a valued partner, a trusted contributor to international
peace and security. It is difficult to understand the logic that would
continue to carve out civil nuclear energy as the single area for
noncooperation.
Under the agreement, India commits to following the guidelines of the
Nuclear Suppliers Group, an organization of states that regulates access
to nuclear material and technology. India would bring its civilian
nuclear facilities under international safeguards. India has voiced its
support for the conclusion of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. The
strong support of both India and the United States -- as well as all
other nuclear weapons states -- is sorely needed to make this treaty a
reality.
The U.S.-India agreement is a creative break with the past that, handled
properly, will be a first step forward for both India and the
international community. India will get safe and modern technology to
help lift more than 500 million people from poverty, and it will be part
of the international effort to combat nuclear terrorism and rid our
world of nuclear weapons.
As we face the future, other strategies must be found to enlist Pakistan
and Israel as partners in nuclear arms control and nonproliferation.
Whatever form those solutions take, they will need to address not only
nuclear weapons but also the much broader range of security concerns
facing each country. No one ever said controlling nuclear weapons was
going to be easy. It will take courage and tenacity in large doses, a
great deal more outside-of-the-box thinking, and a sense of realism. And
it will be worth the effort.
(By Mohamed ElBaradei - diretor geral da Agência Internacional de Energia Atômica, Washington Post, 14/06/2006)
(
Washington Post, 14/06/2006)