In this blog post, we will examine whether the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is protecting humanity from nuclear threats or whether it is actually stimulating nuclear development.
Since ancient times, many scholars have been trying to understand nature and make life more convenient. From the beginning of agriculture, the discovery of paper and gunpowder, to the steam engine and information technology, humanity has undergone several dramatic changes. As a result, it seems that modern society is enjoying the most affluent life since the beginning of time. Some argue that technological progress leads society based on the history of these developments. In fact, this argument is valid in that society has changed significantly and lifestyles have changed due to the development of information and communication technology. However, just as there are black and white in everything, there are also adverse effects of technological development. Therefore, the argument that technological development leads society can be questioned by asking whether society can fully cope with the development of technology. To find the answer to this question, we must look at the history of the “nuclear” that can determine the fate of humanity and the “Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty” to control it. If we do so, we will have a strong doubt as to whether humans can properly control technology.
On August 14, 1945, a plane flew over the clear blue sky of Hiroshima. The plane carried a bomb named “Little Boy.” The bomb dropped in the city center instantly took the lives of 150,000 citizens with a tremendous roar. The fact that just one bomb caused such enormous damage shocked the entire world, and World War II ended. However, countries became fearful of the power of the atomic bomb, which was on a different level from existing weapons, and accelerated their development of the atomic bomb. Meanwhile, even the United States, the first country to develop the atomic bomb, was so frightened by its power that it was worried that other countries would develop the atomic bomb, which led to the formation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
The process of concluding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was not smooth. This was because the fierce competition for interests and the logic of the Cold War era were intricately intertwined. The United States, as the first country to develop the atomic bomb, wanted to prevent other countries from possessing the bomb by any means, and the Soviet Union, which was at the opposite end of the spectrum, was no different. However, the situation was different in the third world. Regardless of the logic of the Cold War, India, Pakistan, and Israel were secretly developing nuclear weapons to gain an advantage in regional conflicts, and many countries were strongly opposed to restricting the peaceful use of nuclear energy. While the Soviet Union had thoroughly controlled the development of nuclear weapons by its allies, the United States failed to properly control its allies and argued that it should transfer nuclear-related technology to some countries in order to encircle the Soviet Union. The future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) looked bleak as these countries engaged in a transfer of arms, but as news of the third world’s success in nuclear development continued, a consensus was formed between the United States and the Soviet Union, and a resolution calling for the treaty to be signed at the UN was passed, leading to the treaty being signed in 1968. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) prohibits the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their development, and requires that states undergo regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure that they are using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Currently, 189 countries are party to the treaty.
About 40 years have passed since the treaty was formed, and unlike the signing process, which was full of twists and turns, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is outwardly fulfilling its mission. In fact, no country has used nuclear weapons for offensive purposes since 1945. However, there are three aspects to the question of whether human efforts to protect against nuclear weapons, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, are effective. It is the inequality, enforceability, and political nature of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Since its inception, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has strongly reflected the aim of major powers such as the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom to gain an advantage over countries that do not have nuclear weapons, and therefore it condones the possession of nuclear weapons by existing nuclear weapon states. This has provoked countries that do not possess nuclear weapons, especially countries such as North Korea and Iran that are at odds with major nuclear powers, and countries such as India, Pakistan, and Israel that are at odds with their neighbors, to push ahead with nuclear weapons development out of a sense of opposition. In fact, India and Pakistan, which were in a state of hostility, pursued nuclear weapons development in a competitive manner, and Israel developed nuclear weapons to ensure its existence in the Middle East. Moreover, third world countries pursued nuclear weapons to ensure their independence in the face of the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. This happened because the existing nuclear powers did not want to give up their vested interests. Although the treaty contains a clause that states that the signatory countries must faithfully engage in negotiations for nuclear disarmament, there was little chance that the nuclear powers would honor this clause during the Cold War in the mid-to-late 20th century. As time passed and the Cold War structure collapsed and global tensions eased, the existing powers still have thousands of nuclear weapons. The mere existence of nuclear weapons can save huge amounts of military spending and serve as a deterrent to other countries, which is why existing nuclear weapon states are reluctant to give up their nuclear weapons. This can also cause other countries to feel a constant security threat and develop nuclear weapons, as is the case with North Korea. It would be easy if everyone gave up, but this is never the case, so the inequality of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty paradoxically encourages nuclear development.
Next, there is a question about the treaty’s enforceability. In the last 20 years, North Korea, which is the de facto biggest security threat to South Korea, has conducted several nuclear tests. North Korea has been trying to develop nuclear weapons, which are a clear asymmetric power, since the 1960s because it was economically isolated and lacked the resources to operate conventional forces. As a result, it conducted several nuclear tests in the 2000s. Despite sanctions from the international community and warnings from its ally, China, North Korea has continued to conduct nuclear tests. Countries around the world have imposed numerous sanctions on North Korea and have stepped up inspections, including ship searches, but it is reported that North Korea is planning another nuclear test. This reality shows that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty cannot be enforced against closed countries like North Korea. In fact, North Korea deliberately avoided the International Atomic Energy Agency’s due diligence until 1993, which led to the first North Korean nuclear crisis. Even then, the IAEA did not notice North Korea’s nuclear development because it did not have the right to conduct a compulsory investigation. The same was true of Iran. Since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty did not give the IAEA the authority to directly sanction, the UN Security Council imposed financial sanctions on Iran at the initiative of the United States. Nevertheless, Iran has been pushing ahead with nuclear development for several years and has recently entered into negotiations with the G7 countries and is taking steps to abandon nuclear development. It has been a problem for about 10 years, and if it takes this long in the event of a sudden change, it is questionable whether the world will be safe from nuclear weapons.
Finally, there is the political nature of nuclear weapons. Having nuclear weapons makes it difficult to attack them rashly, and they pose a major threat to hostile countries, making them an important bargaining chip in foreign relations. Internally, they can save a huge amount of military spending, so they are used as a domestic political tool. As mentioned earlier, North Korea is using nuclear weapons as an important foreign political tool, which is an important factor for the United States and major Northeast Asian countries. The same was true of Iran. The United States has taken a particularly hardline stance on Iran’s nuclear development, as Iran is located in the geopolitically important Middle East, and there is a great concern that developing nuclear weapons could destabilize the region. In addition, Iran is taking an anti-American stance and has a large economy, making it difficult to control its nuclear development in the future. Meanwhile, the United States, under the Bush administration in the 2000s, ignored existing nuclear agreements and pushed to strengthen its nuclear forces to reduce defense spending. This naturally provoked Russia, which was once a rival, and led to Russia’s withdrawal from the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). This also led to increased international tensions. Currently, the United States is making efforts to create a “world without nuclear weapons” under the Obama administration, but the nuclear policy direction could change at any time as the administration changes. In this respect, it is clear that even international treaties cannot be used to resolve the interests of major powers.
Overall, under the current nuclear non-proliferation treaty regime, there is no direct means to prevent individual countries from developing nuclear weapons, and they must rely solely on external forces such as the UN Security Council. However, in the three-way system of the United States, Russia, and China, none of the three countries are likely to give up their nuclear weapons first, and in fact, they may tolerate nuclear development in secret if it allows them to keep a check on their opponents. In addition, as seen in the case of the Bush administration, the failure of the NPT to actively address crises caused by conflicts of interest between major powers casts strong doubts on the purpose of the treaty. If the ultimate goal of humanity in terms of nuclear weapons is to completely eliminate nuclear weapons from the world, it will be difficult to achieve that goal with a treaty that has such weak binding power as it currently is. It seems even more difficult to create a world without nuclear weapons, as the powers that be have also expressed reluctance to the demands for nuclear disarmament that have been raised by third world countries in the past. Nuclear weapons, which were created for war, have created fear in humans, and in a world where humans have come to dominate, I hope that a world will come where humans can fully “dominate” nuclear weapons. Although the road to that end seems long at the moment.
