Saving Nonproliferation by Jimmy Carter Washington Post / Associated Press 6:05pm 28th Feb, 2005   28 Mar 2005      Renewal talks for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are scheduled for May, yet the United States and other nuclear powers seem indifferent to its fate. This is remarkable, considering the addition of Iran and North Korea as states that either possess or seek nuclear weapons programs. A recent United Nations report warned starkly: "We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation."    A group of "Middle States" has a simple goal: "To exert leverage on the nuclear powers to take some minimum steps to save the non-proliferation treaty in 2005." Last year this coalition of nuclear-capable states -- including Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, Sweden and eight NATO members -- voted for a new agenda resolution calling for implementing NPT commitments already made. Tragically, the United States, Britain and France voted against this resolution.    So far the preparatory committee for the forthcoming NPT talks has failed even to achieve an agenda because of the deep divisions between nuclear powers that refuse to meet their own disarmament commitments and the nonnuclear movement, whose demands include honoring these pledges and considering the Israeli arsenal.    Until recently all American presidents since Dwight Eisenhower had striven to restrict and reduce nuclear arsenals -- some more than others. So far as I know, there are no present efforts by any of the nuclear powers to accomplish these crucial goals.    The United States is the major culprit in this erosion of the NPT. While claiming to be protecting the world from proliferation threats in Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea, American leaders not only have abandoned existing treaty restraints but also have asserted plans to test and develop new weapons, including anti-ballistic missiles, the earth-penetrating "bunker buster" and perhaps some new "small" bombs. They also have abandoned past pledges and now threaten first use of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states.    Some corrective actions are obvious:    * The United States needs to address remaining nuclear issues with Russia, demanding the same standards of transparency and verification of past arms control agreements and dismantling and disposal of decommissioned weapons. With massive arsenals still on hair-trigger alert status, a global holocaust is just as possible now, through mistakes or misjudgments, as it was during the depths of the Cold War. We could address perhaps the world's greatest proliferation threat by fully securing Russia's stockpiles.    * While all nuclear weapons states should agree to non-first use, the United States, as the sole superpower, should take the lead on this issue.    * NATO needs to de-emphasize the role of its nuclear weapons and consider an end to their deployment in Western Europe. Despite its eastward expansion, NATO is keeping the same stockpiles and policies as when the Iron Curtain divided the continent.    * The comprehensive test ban treaty should be honored, but the United States is moving in the opposite direction. The administration's 2005 budget refers for the first time to a list of test scenarios, and other nations are waiting to take the same action.    * The United States should support a fissile materials treaty to prevent the creation and transport of highly enriched uranium and plutonium.    * Curtail U.S. development of the infeasible missile defense shield, which is wasting huge resources, while breaking our commitment to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty without a working substitute.    * Act on nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, an increasing source of instability in that region. Iran has repeatedly hidden its intentions to enrich uranium while claiming that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. This explanation has been given before, by India, Pakistan and North Korea, and has led to weapons programs in all three states. Iran must be called to account and held to its promises under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. At the same time, we fail to acknowledge how Israel's nuclear status entices Iran, Syria, Egypt and other states to join the community of nuclear weapons states.    These are vital questions, and the world will know the answers during the NPT conference in May.    (Former US President Jimmy Carter is founder of the Carter Center in Atlanta).    March 31, 2005    "Most Americans Say No Nations Should Have Nuclear Weapons", by Will Lester. (The Associated Press)    Most Americans surveyed in a poll say they do not think any country, including the United States, should have nuclear weapons. That sentiment is at odds with current efforts by some nations that are trying to develop the weapons and by terrorists seeking to add them to their arsenal.    Two-thirds of respondents say no nation should have nuclear weapons, including the United States.    The only use of an atomic bomb - by the United States against Japan at the end of World War II - provokes sharply different reactions, depending on the age of those asked. Young adults tend to disapprove, while older Americans tend to approve, an AP-Ipsos poll found.    Albert Kauzmann, a 57-year-old resident of Norcross, Ga., said using the bomb in 1945 "was the best way they had of ending" World War II.    Six in 10 people age 65 and older approve of the use of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II; the same percentage of respondents 18 to 29 disapprove.    Even though the Soviet Union is gone, the nuclear fears that fueled the Cold War have not gone away. A majority of people believe it is likely that terrorists or a country will use the weapons within five years.    North Korea claims it has nuclear weapons now and is making more. Iran is widely believed to be within five years of developing such weapons. Security for the nuclear material scattered across the countries of the old Soviet Union remains a major concern.    Lurking in the background is the threat that worries U.S. officials the most: terrorists' desire to acquire nuclear weapons.    All that helps explain why 52 percent of Americans think a nuclear attack by one country against another is somewhat or very likely by 2010. Also, 53 percent think a nuclear attack by terrorists is at least somewhat likely.    The Bush administration repeatedly warns about nuclear weapons and is using diplomacy - and force - to try to limit the threat.    Two-thirds of respondents say no nation should have nuclear weapons, including the United States. Most of the others surveyed say no more countries should get the weapons.    "I worry about Pakistan and India," said Barbara Smith, who lives in a Philadelphia suburb. "I don't know what's going to happen with Iran, don't know what's going to happen with North Korea."    Smith said she wants to see the spread of nuclear weapons stopped. "It's too dangerous, too many things can go wrong," she said.    About one-third of those in an ABC News-Washington Post poll in the mid-1980s - when the Cold War was hot - thought there would be a nuclear war in the next few years between the two superpowers.    The AP-Ipsos poll found 44 percent of those surveyed said they frequently or occasionally worry about a terrorist attack using nuclear weapons, while 55 percent said they rarely or never do.    Susan Winter of McLean, Va., says her awareness of the nuclear threat does not cause her to fret constantly. "I'm concerned, but I don't worry about it," Winter said. "I'm not a nail biter. I don't lose sleep over it."    People were divided about the use of the atomic bomb in 1945, though they were asked about Hiroshima and Nagasaki after a series of questions on the nuclear threat.    Overall, 47 percent of those surveyed approved of dropping the bombs on Japan while 46 percent disapproved, according to the poll of 1,000 conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs from March 21-23 with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.    The United States, Britain, Russia, France and China have nuclear weapons, and Pakistan and India have also conducted nuclear tests. Many believe Israel has nuclear weapons, but that country has never acknowledged it. North Korea claimed in February that it had nuclear weapons.    The threat from nuclear terrorism is greatest, analysts say, because terrorists with nuclear weapons would feel little or no hesitance about using them. That's why those who monitor nuclear proliferation are so concerned about securing weapons stockpiles and dismantling weapons as quickly as possible.    "We're in the race of our lives," said Joe Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "and we're not running fast enough."    © 2005 The Associated Press.
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item