Global nuclear market: ‘atom for peace’ or war?

SEVENTY years is a short time in human history. However, in case of nuclear technology, from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, building of over 440 nuclear reactors, to producing 376,000 MWe power, the past seventy years have been very eventful. Since President Eisenhower's historic 'Atoms for Peace' speech of December 8, 1953 at the UN General Assembly, the world history, international politics, global alliances, major crises and scientific developments have been overwhelmed by the advent of nuclear technology, not only in the form of thousands of thermonuclear bombs but also for heating our homes, powering our factories, treating thousands of cancer patients and improving agricultural yields of the crops that feed most of us living on this planet. Nevertheless, two unprecedented developments have occurred recently in the nuclear realm, which not only raise new questions about world powers' responsibilities towards nuclear non-proliferation but also makes one wonder whether the world powers can balance their own economic security and domestic political compulsions with their international obligations towards international peace and security. The good news is that the 'New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty' commonly known as the 'New START', came into force on February 5, 2011 after the exchange of the instruments of ratification between the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Munich, which imposes new limits on the nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles maintained by the US and Russia. But the bad news is the recent announcement by the US President Obama that the US wants to accommodate India in the international export control regimes. It seems that we have learnt nothing from the history of nuclear proliferation. Launched 58 years ago by the US President Eisenhower, the US 'Atoms for Peace' programme helped develop a large nuclear industry in the United States, forged new alliances, created long-term dependencies, expanded the US influence in Europe, Asia and various other regions, countered the Soviet influence and also helped the US administration deal with its domestic anti-nuclear weapon lobby, which was critical of the massive US nuclear weapon buildup. Almost six decades later, the world is entering the second era of a major nuclear revolution but the range and scope of this era is much broader and a lot more money and industrial, commercial and political interests are at stake. At a time of global recession, the US, Russian, British, French and even Japanese interest in exploring new customers in the global nuclear market worth hundreds of billions of dollars around the world including the Middle East, East Asia, Latin America and various other regions, is understandable. China and India, being the two largest and fastest growing economies, are expected to have lion's share of this renewed interest and large-scale investment in nuclear energy, to power their growing industry. Nonetheless, this nuclear revolution, like the Atoms for Peace programme of 1950s, is not without its perils. 'Atoms for peace' was a double-edged sword which besides providing dozens of nations with energy, technology and trained manpower, also armed them with the means to pursue nuclear weapon programmes. The 1974 Indian nuclear test, ironically called 'Smiling Buddha', was made possible by the Canadian-donated CIRUS Nuclear Reactor and US-supplied heavy water and led to the formation of Nuclear Suppliers Group and passing of the US Non-Proliferation Act 1978. After the 1998 nuclear tests, sanctions were imposed by the US on both Pakistan and India but almost 13 years later, it seems that except for the states once described as the 'axis of evil', nuclear proliferation is no longer a threat from the US perspective but a corporate interest, as President Obama wants to bring India into the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which itself was originally formed as a direct consequence of the Indian breach of international trust and confidence, when New Delhi diverted the internationally provided nuclear technology and material for its 1974 nuclear explosion. Moreover, the US President has announced during his recent Indian visit that the US also intends to accommodate New Delhi within additional export control regimes, which are meant to deter export of chemical and biological weapons (Australia Group), missile technology (MTCR), conventional weapons and dual use items (Wassenaar Arrangement). This announcement by President Obama came on the heels of the Conference on Disarmament session in Geneva where Pakistan is facing immense pressure to allow the negotiations to begin on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). According to a current estimate by the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), there is more than 1600 tons of highly enriched uranium and 500 tons of plutonium stocks in the world and a mere ban on future production of these materials used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, will not stop further production of nuclear bombs and FMCT is aimed at only creating 'qualitative and quantitative inequalities' among the older and newer nuclear powers. In fact, a new 100-ton per year capacity reprocessing plant was inaugurated by India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on January 6, 2011 at the Tarapur nuclear site. Mr. Singh termed the plant, "a milestone in India's three-stage nuclear programme." According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the new facility is not covered by any safeguards regime. Parallel to these events has been the discriminatory policy of the US to resist the supply of Chinese civilian nuclear reactors to Islamabad, at the Nuclear Supplier Group. The sole purpose of these power plants is to provide electricity to the power-starved Pakistan, which along with China has clearly reiterated that the entire operations of these power plants would be under IAEA safeguards. At Geneva, Pakistan is being unfairly blamed and singled out for blocking the progress at the Conference on Disarmament, which is the sole forum for such negotiations on the principle of consensus between sovereign states. But the fact remains that the most important and fundamental issue on its agenda is nuclear disarmament, which is being deliberately eclipsed and overshadowed by a more pronounced focus on Arms Control measures such as FMCT and it seems as if the world powers are intent on transforming the 'Conference on Disarmament' into a 'Conference on Arms Control', by undermining its raison d'etre and diverting the world attention from its main goal by blaming Pakistan. In addition, vital global issues on CD's agenda, such as negative security assurances and Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space are also being neglected, to suit major players' interests by sustaining their option of 'nuclear blackmail' and condoning their growing interest in using space for military purposes. Referring to these disturbing developments, Pakistan's Ambassador at the Conference on Disarmament Zamir Akram clearly stated on January 25 that Pakistan has "further strengthened" its opposition to talks on an FMCT because of President Obama's support to India for joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Earlier, he had also highlighted Pakistan's NCA's statement issued on December 14, 2010 that "policies and trends of selectivity, exceptionalism and discrimination relating to strategic export control regimes would perpetuate instability, especially in South Asia" and that "Pakistan will never accept discriminatory treatment and that it rejects any effort to undermine its strategic deterrence." At the moment, no country in the world comes even close to matching China's plans for nuclear power expansion. China will add 78 gigawatts-electric (GWe) of new nuclear energy production to its national grid within the next ten years and is on track to potentially becoming the world's largest user of nuclear power by the year 2030. Therefore, instead of resisting Beijing's modest nuclear cooperation with Pakistan, US can help its own nuclear industry by exploring civil nuclear cooperation with China as it is already doing with India and Russia. On December 8, 1953, standing before the representatives of the entire world at the UN General Assembly, President Eisenhower offered the US nuclear technology to the world by promising that "it is with the book of history, and not with isolated pages, that the United States will ever wish to be identified. My country wants to be constructive, not destructive. It wants agreement, not wars, among nations. The United States pledges before you — and therefore before the world — its determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma, to devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life." Fifty eight years later, can the US live up to this promise it made to the world or will it subordinate its own historic pledge to short-term economic, political or strategic gains by not only exporting nuclear technology and materials to new strategic partners, minus any limits on their nuclear or conventional weapons quest, discrediting strategic export control regimes, destabilising conflict-prone regions and denying the same to longstanding friends and allies? Its approach in CD will answer this. The writer is associated with the Strategic & Nuclear Studies Department of the National Defence University, Islamabad.