by CKR
Two of the documents in the NPT press kit deal primarily with Article VI, and others mention it. It’s a very simple statement.
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
Simple statements are the most difficult to interpret in legal documents, and Article VI is no exception. You can argue forever about what “in good faith” means, or “an early date.”
The basic bargain of the NPT is that the non-nuclear-weapon states agree not to develop nuclear weapons if the nuclear-weapon states will work toward disarmament. Article VI embodies this commitment of the nuclear-weapon states.
Article VI requires
negotiations on the cessation of the nuclear arms race
negotiations on nuclear disarmament
negotations on a treaty on general and complete disarmament
all of which (or perhaps only the last) are to be under strict and effective international control.
The first was largely made obsolete by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Arms races among China, the US and Russia seem not to be a problem at present. India and Pakistan have a mini-arms race going, but they are not signatories to the NPT. Iran may be arms-racing with Israel, but all of these races are constrained by resources.
Negotiations on nuclear disarmament have been going on between the US and the Soviet Union, now Russia, since the NPT came into force. On that basis, it could be argued that Article VI is fulfilled. End of discussion.
The material in the press kit argues something like this, that the US is in complete compliance with Article VI and cites numerous indicators of progress in nuclear disarmament. The indicators are significant and in the right direction. Overall, the two major nuclear powers are reducing their nuclear arms. Some indicative examples:
US strategic bombers are no longer on alert.The US no longer targets any country with nuclear weapons.
The United States has reduced its nuclear weapons stockpile by more than 13,000 nuclear weapons since 1988.
Since 1997, the United States has eliminated 64 heavy bombers and 150 Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) silos.
The United States has withdrawn worldwide and eliminated more than 3,000 tactical nuclear warheads, consisting of artillery shells, warheads for short-range missile systems, and Navy depth bombs.
The United States does not produce fissile material for use in nuclear weapons, and has not done so since 1988.
The United States has removed 34 tons of plutonium and 174 tons of highly enriched uranium from its military stockpile, placed some of this material under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, and converted approximately 60 tons of this material to civil reactor fuel.
The Treaty of Moscow provides for the US and Russia to decrease their deployed warheads to 1700-2200 each.
These are real achievements in the direction of nuclear disarmament, even though several of them are subject to yahbuts, like that non-production of fissile material has more to do with aging plants subject to environmental regulations than it does to a desire to meet Article VI obligations, or that the nice photo of an ARIES worker and gloveboxes for that removed plutonium represent a program that is stumbling along, but we’ll let them go for now.
The press kit documents also asserts that the “new triad” in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review furthers nuclear disarmament. (The entire document is not available, because much of it is classified.) The old strategic triad was heavy bombers, ICBMs, and submarine launched ballistic missiles, the delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons. The new triad is not parallel to this. It is broader, including “nuclear and non-nuclear offensive strike systems, active and passive defenses that include ballistic missile defenses and a revitalized and reshaped defense infrastructure that will provide the ability to promptly respond to emerging threats.” In a sense, the old triad is simply the first item in the new triad.
The material seems to argue that the new triad makes nuclear use much less likely. However, some Russian commentators have interpreted the new triad as being more hostile than the old one. Certainly lumping nuclear and non-nuclear offensive strike systems together risks fuzzing the line between them, as in recent discussions of Global Strike.
Another problem with the material on Article VI is that it dances around some of the issues. This dancing around lends a lack of credibility to what could have been a straightforward and transparent argument.
Under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), the United States reduced its nuclear forces to 6000 accountable nuclear warheads.Note that word accountable. In the context of START, it means deployed warheads, warheads ready for use. But backups and reconditioning require that number be approximately doubled for the entire stockpile. Why not just say that?
Or
The United States has reaffirmed its support for a fissile material cutoff treaty (FMCT) and its desire to move forward expeditiously on negotiations. A comprehensive internal U.S. review led to the conclusion that effective verifi cation of an FMCT is not realistically achievable, but we believe a legally binding FMCT would nonetheless make a useful contribution to global security. We believe such a Treaty could be achieved rapidly. In this context, we hope that FMCT negotiations can begin in the Conference on Disarmament without conditions or linkages to other issues. Meanwhile, the United States will continue its moratorium on production of fissile material for weapons purposes.
This isn’t what the American delegation said when they broke up the talks on the FMCT last fall. No effective verification, end of discussion was more like it.
The press kit completely ignores other proposals that overlap with what the kit says the United States wants. It also ignores the 13 points proposed by the 2000 Review Conference for compliance with Article VI. I've discussed them before.
Maybe Anne-Marie Slaughter is right: the Bush administration just doesn’t get this diplomacy stuff.