India, Iran and the NPT Abdi Sami Maciej Dakowicz Where are we on the way to nuclear abolition? David C Hall MD Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility with special thanks to Jill Parillo, national PSR staff expert on Iran
I love my family, I love my country, I love the Earth As a child and family psychiatrist I want a sustainably healthy world for all generations The gravest threats to this future include nuclear devastation, perpetual war and catastrophic climate change To achieve this peace we need to reverse global warming, abolish nuclear weapons, and create local energy economies that eliminate poverty This requires a working non-proliferation regime now and carbon-free, nuclear-free energy soon
Disarmament.UN.org • The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to • prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology • promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and • further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament • The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons • Purpose: to limit the spread of nuclear weapons • Time frame: opened for signature on July 1, 1968 with review conferences 1995, 2000, 2005 • Signatories: 190 countries party to the treaty • Nuclear Weapons states: United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, People's Republic of China(the permanent members of the UN Security Council)
Four countries do not belongto the NPT • India has openly tested • Pakistan has openly tested • Israel does not admit its nuclear weapons • North Korea joined the treaty, violated it, and withdrew in 2003
Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (NWFZ) Treaties – (Article VII) These treaties aim to rid entire regions of nuclear weapons and shrink the geographical space in which they can play a role. These zones of safety and security also build cooperation and trust amongst peoples and nations. • Antarctic Treaty of 1959 declared Antarctica a demilitarised zone free of nuclear weapons • Treaty of Tlatelolco of 1969 prohibited nuclear weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean • Rarotonga Treaty of 1983 prohibited nuclear weapons in the South Pacific • Bangkok Treaty of 1995 prohibited nuclear weapons in South East Asia • Pelindaba Treaty of 1996 will prohibit nuclear weapons in Africa when it enters into force • Mongolia in 2000 became a single state nuclear weapons free zone • Semipalatinsk Treaty in September 2006 five Central Asian States - Kazakhstan, Krygyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan signed a NWFZ treaty
Current controversies • Countries outside the NPT • India • Pakistan • North Korea • Israel • Member states • Iran • United States
The 3 pillars of the NPT • Non-proliferation • Disarmament • The right to peacefully use nuclear technology subject to verification
The NPT’s Faustian Bargain • 1945: Hiroshima and Nagasaki • 1953: “Atoms for Peace” • 1956: Nuclear energy “too cheap to meter” • 1968: Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty • Article VI commits the nuclear weapons states to disarm their nuclear arsenals through good faith negotiations and in exchange the nuclear have-not states are guaranteed in • Article IV unrestricted access to nuclear power technologies from the nuclear weapons states or elsewhere
President Eisenhower"Atoms for Peace" speech UN General Assembly 12/8/53 • “…a special purpose [for fissionable materials] would be to provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world. Thus the contributing powers would be dedicating some of their strength to serve the needs rather than the fears of mankind.” WPSR July 2007
Fifty-five years later (1953-2008) • The Cold War is over • Russia and the United States still retain nearly 10,000 nuclear weapons each, perhaps half actively deployed • Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea have active nuclear weapons programs • South Africa, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Libya, Brazil and Argentina have given up nuclear weapons programs • Over 30 NNWSs have the technical capacity to build nuclear weapons
Fifty-five years later (1953-2008)- continued - • France has rededicated and expanded its reliance on nuclear power • Al-Qaeda records indicate active pursuit of nuclear weapons • The nuclear industry claims that nuclear power is essential to combat human-induced climate change
So, What’s the Problem? • Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive, and the NPT is suffering the consequences for promising unlimited nuclear power • The NPT 5-year review conferences in 2000 and 2005 were unable to agree to a final statement based on dissent from US plans to rebuild our nuclear weapons complex
Tensions • Israel never signed the NPT and as the principal ally of the US in the Middle East has secretly developed nuclear weapons out of its nuclear power program • Iraq was on a similar course when the Israelis bombed their power reactor in the 1981 • North Korea developed its nuclear capability out of its nuclear power program and pulled out of the NPT when ready to test a nuclear weapon • The NPT allows a nation to withdraw with six months notice
Tensions (continued) • Iran worked secretly up until 2003 to develop weapons-grade nuclear fuel in violation of the NPT inspection guidelines, and was stopped by international pressure • To date there is no evidence that Iran is trying again to reprocess reactor fuel into bomb-grade fuel
Bushehr nuclear power plant Iran is already nuclear capable with contracts with Russia. As with North Korea, if pressed it can exit the NPT and proceed with building nuclear weapons Evidence from 2003 used to confront Iran
Can we contain the nuclear genie? • Iran can manufacture a nuclear weapon and there is little short of war the rest of the world can do about it • The same is true for Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Egypt, Taiwan, South Korea, and Turkey, which all have the capacity and know-how to make nuclear weapons • Israel, India and Pakistan have remained outside the NPT regime and all have developed nuclear weapons
Iran as of June 2008 • 3,000 centrifuges spinning in 18 disconnected cascades • To enrich uranium, first the uranium from the ground is turned into UF6, a gas with which is .7% U235 (the isotope fissionable by bombarding it with neutrons) and 99.3% U238 • Iran has taken UF6 and spun it through 3,000 centrifuges to enrich it to ~ 4.5% U235 • Most nations use 3-5% enriched uranium for power production • No sign that Iran has taken its stocks of 4.5% enriched uranium and fed them back through its centrifuges to enrich it to bomb grade (~90% U235)
What is new: Iran now has a “break-out capability” • Iran is developing another large set of 3,000 centrifuges and is developing advanced centrifuges which will be stronger and faster than the current set of 3,000. • Iran will have enough low enriched uranium to throw out the IAEA inspectors and feed that stock back into its centrifuges to enrich enough to make a bomb within 6 months. This is called a break-out capability
Secret Iranian documents from a German spy • Outline work on high explosives, only used around a nuclear implosion devise • Missile re-entry vehicles (for nuclear warheads on Iran’s Shahab ballistic missile) • However, there are things missing like uranium metallurgy and development of neutron initiators, which a state would have in the same place here • The IAEA is tired of Iran not answering questions directly about past weapon work
Iran: Nuclear Intentions andCapabilities US National Intelligence Estimate – Nov 2007 A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work. -- http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/12/03/iran.nie.pdf
US NIE – Finding A. (continued) • We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons. • We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.) • We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons. • We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon. • Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.
Iran: Nuclear Intentions andCapabilities US National Intelligence Estimate – Nov 2007 • F. We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities—rather than its declared nuclear sites—for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been restarted through at least mid-2007. • G. We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015. • H. We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so. -- http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/12/03/iran.nie.pdf
Parillo conclusions about Iran • It is too late to prevent Iran from developing a peaceful nuclear energy capability • We need to build trust with the Iranians and give them security guarantees, so they do not feel isolated and threatened enough to exit the NPT and build a bomb • Decreasing financial restrictions and ending the threat propaganda on Iran, while also engaging the nation, will help move us towards a new policy which will decrease tension and give Iran a sense of security in its hostile region
John McCain on Iran America has made "terrible mistakes" in Iraq. The consequences of failure there would be "catastrophic". The whole region, he says, would slide into "Muslim extremism". The US, he says, is paying a price for its mistakes in Iraq in its inability to deal with the nuclear threat from Iran. Military action must always be the last option, but he warns: "There is only one scenario worse than military action in Iran and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."
Barack Obama on Iran "By keeping our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we’ll be in a better position to press nations like North Korea and Iran to keep theirs. In particular, it will give us more credibility and leverage in dealing with Iran. "We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table… I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy – diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions.
Joe Biden on Iran “Let me get right to the point of today’s hearing and let me be in my view, as a result of the policies this administration has pursued, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march in the Middle East. Iran’s influence has grown in Iraq. Its proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon. Its ally Hamas dominates Gaza. It is testing intermediate range missiles. And Iran is getting closer to a nuclear weapons capacity by mastering the process of uranium enrichment. “The issue is not whether Iran presents a real security challenge. It does. The question is whether we have a realistic view of that challenge -- and a coherent policy to deal with it. Iran is not ten feet tall. It is not the Soviet Union at the height of its power. Despite is large oil reserves it faces serious economic problems – including high inflation and unemployment. It has very few friends and its people chafe under social and political repression. It spends about $7 billion on defense every year – about what we spend in Iraq every two weeks. “But Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon would dramatically destabilize an already unstable region and probably fuel a nuclear arms race in the region. It is profoundly in our interest to prevent that from happening. “Our choices are straightforward. We either engage, maintain the status quo, or use some sort of military force. “If we don’t engage, we're stuck with a Hobson’s choice between an ineffectual policy that allows our partners but not the United States to engage Iran on its nuclear program… and military strikes that could quickly spiral out of control.
US Statement following 2005 NPT Review Conference · The United States has dismantled more than 13,000 nuclear weapons since 1988.· When the START Treaty was signed in 1991, the United States and Russia each had deployed over 10,000 strategic warheads. Both reduced this level to below 6,000 by December 2001.· United States and Russian operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads will be reduced further to 1,700-2,200 by December 31, 2012, as agreed by Presidents Bush and Putin and codified in the 2002 Moscow Treaty.
US Statement after 2005 Review Conference (continued) · In May 2004, President Bush approved a plan that will cut the stockpile by almost one-half from the 2001 level. By the end of 2012, the United States stockpile will be the smallest that it has been in several decades. These represent reductions by nearly a factor of four since the end of the Cold War.· In total, United States non-strategic nuclear weapons in NATO have been reduced by nearly ninety percent (90%) since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Iranian Statement after 2005 Review Conference The United States had adopted its Nuclear Posture Review, incorporating the breach of the obligations on “irreversibility”, “diminished role of nuclear weapons” and “lowering the operational status of nuclear weapons” by stressing the essential role of nuclear weapons as an effective tool for achieving security ends and foreign policy objectives; developing new nuclear weapon systems, and constructing new facilities for producing nuclear weapons; resuming efforts to develop and deploy tactical nuclear weapons, despite the commitment to reverse the process and reduce them; and targeting non-nuclear weapon States parties to the Treaty and planning to attack those States. - Summary of statement by Ambassador Javad Zarif
The US-India nuclear deal • The US and India agreed in August 2007 to transfer civilian nuclear technology and fissile materials to India • The deal requires consent from the IAEA and the NSG • The IAEA endorsed the deal • The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), consisting of 45 nuclear capable nations and headed currently by Germany must agree by consensus to the inspections regime that India agrees to in guaranteeing that this nuclear deal will be for civilian power only and not new weapons • NSG this past week postponed ruling on the deal until September
IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei supports US-India deal "I have always maintained that if we were to move forward toward strengthening non-proliferation to reduce the nuclear weapons arsenal, toward moving to a world free from nuclear weapons, that dialogue has to be universal and inclusive. We cannot exclude from that debate India or Pakistan or Israel - the three countries who remain outside the NPT. These represent 20% of the world´s population and they have to be included.”
ElBaradei (continued) • India committed itself to harmonize its laws on export controls with those of the supplier group • India has 1.1 billion people. They need a tremendous amount of electricity for development • “… the big picture is that I hope the agreement will reignite the debate on nuclear disarmament” • A new environment of cooperation leading to a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty
Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) unlikely to approve the deal • Several NSG nations are unlikely to approve an exemption unless it makes clear certain events -- such as India testing a nuclear bomb or not allowing inspections at its nuclear facilities -- would trigger a review. • Diplomats said the overall weakness of the draft might be a tactical U.S. move to overcome India's aim to win a "clean and unconditional" waiver by prompting resistance from NSG states.
Opposition within India • India's government almost collapsed last month when the Communists left the coalition, saying the nuclear deal would make India dependent on the United States. • "The Indian left is opposed to any demands coming from the Americans, but if they come from other countries, that may go down better domestically," a third diplomat said.
International Opposition to US-India deal • Arms control groups have vigorously opposed the deal as a reinforcement of nuclear apartheid wherein “good guys” can have nuclear technologies and “bad guys” cannot, thereby undermining the NPT • Iran in this case is seen as a “bad guy” when so far as we know they have yet to pursue bomb-grade fuel
Nuclear power = nuclear weapons capability • The only barrier to developing a nuclear weapon is the hugely expensive and energy-consuming process of refining nuclear power fuel into weapons-grade fuel • So a party either invests in centrifuges as Iran is doing, or it steals the bomb-grade fuel
To save the NPT and reverse global warming • abolish nuclear weapons • phase out nuclear power • invest massively in truly sustainable energy technologies
Summary: US role is key • So long as the United States maintains its current nuclear posture which gives nuclear weapons a central role, other proud nations will pursue them and the NPT will not be enough to stem proliferation • Nuclear power will undermine our ability to address global warming in a timely and effective way
What can you do? • The usual: • Write your Senators and Congress people • Write letters to the editor • Write Op-ed pieces • Talk with family and friends • Support groups that speak out on these issues with money, time, encouragement • Leaflet neighborhoods and downtown
What can you do? • The less usual: • Street theater • Demonstrations • Picket the Federal Building • Civil resistance to nuclear weapons • They are illegal under international humanitarian treaties to which the United States is a party • Prepare a talk for your club, community or religious gathering • Invite me somewhere else
Civil Resistance to Weapons of Mass Destruction Martin Luther King Jr Day at the Bangor Submarine Main Gate Rev. Bill Bichsel called to civil resistance Despite health problems, Tacoma activist the Rev. Bill Bichsel has an undimmed passion for people in need – and for peace -- Tacoma News Tribune 8-24-2008
by Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D. A Joint Project of theNuclear Policy Research Institute and theInstitute for Energy and Environmental Research IEER Press and RDR Books, 2007257 pages, paperback http://www.ieer.org