COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY.   Term Paper ID:22538 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: History & 1995 permanent international ratification, negotiations, nuclear & non-nuclear states, principles & provisions, review conferences, U.S. public opinion, unresolved problems.... More...

19 Pages / 4275 Words 14 sources, 30 Citations, APA Format $76.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: History & 1995 permanent international ratification, negotiations, nuclear & non-nuclear states, principles & provisions, review conferences, U.S. public opinion, unresolved problems. Paper Introduction: Negotiating the Comprehensive Test Ban Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was made permanent in May, 25 years after it entered into force and nearly 50 years after the United States wrought devastation on Hiroshima. The four-week NPT Review and Extension Conference, held in New York April 17 to May 12, was the largest arms control conference ever held, with 175 of the treaty's 178 parties participating ("How to," 1995, p. 28). No state got all it wanted, although the weapon states had more reason to be satisfied than the non-weapon states. The United States, Russia, Britain, and France wanted the treaty extended indefinitely and unconditionally. Only the first part of their Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Thecommittee strongly believes that a high degree of confidence must bemaintained in the smaller, less diverse, and aging nuclear weaponsstockpile of the future" (National Defense, 1995, p. 553). And, more important, as each country in the world falls inline, a national peer pressure will allow the NPT to continue after 1996,when it will again be put to the test of agreement. Senate Foreign Relations Committee onJune 23, 1994, on the subject of ratification of the Chemical WeaponsConvention, R. Allstates should pursue general and complete disarmament under strict andeffective international control. (1992). Fifth, China accepted the rationale that nuclear proliferation couldthreaten its interests and that the NPT could contribute to China'ssecurity. P. That might weaken rather than strengthenthe treaty. S. State after state called for the elimination of all nuclear weapons,as did many nongovernmental organizations, which played a more importantrole at the extension conference than at any previous disarmamentconference. 269. In an effort to sidestep a vote, the conference authorizedDhanapala to continue to seek a consensus. pp. Research into and the production and use of nuclear energy forpeaceful purposes is an inalienable right of all parties to the treaty. 72-73). The development of nuclear-weapon-free zones, especially inregions of tension, such as in the Middle East, as well as theestablishment of zones free of all weapons of mass destruction should beencouraged as a matter of priority. Thesteady growth of its power makes China essential to the success of regionaland global nonproliferation efforts. Because of this, Russia has agreed to ceaseplutonium reprocessing, but only if the international community replacesits Krasnoyarsk reactors, which produce not only plutonium, but also energy(Broad, 1993, p. 269). 553). Fissile material transferred frommilitary use to peaceful nuclear activities should be placed under IAEAsafeguards as soon as practical. And fifth is reducing themilitary might of nuclear weapons states, which in turn will reduce thosestates' political influence and ability for force protection. A nuclear-weapon-free world.(1995, August-September). The NPT is not likely to endure indefinitely ifthe security of only the nuclear powers is assured. Texts adopted at the conference at least implied somedegree of conditionality as well as greater accountability by the nuclearpowers. Thepresident's package eventually consisted of three documents or "decisions,"which he considered to be generally acceptable and which constituted a nearconsensus ("Breaking," 1995, p. While the process ofworking toward nuclear disarmament is constructive, the goal of totallyeliminating nuclear weapons is currently neither practical nor desirable.And clearly stating this fact should not be detrimental to the NPT; nuclearnonproliferation is still in the national security interests of most, ifnot all, nations. In April in New York at the NPT Review and Extension Conference, thenegotiations were diversely entered into. 553-56. Third, and particularlyimportant to the United States and former Soviet Union satellites, iscementing the end of the Cold War and preventing its resurgence. If thereshould be attacks or threats of attack on nuclear facilities devoted topeaceful purposes, jeopardizing nuclear safety and raising serious concernsregarding the application of international law, this would warrantappropriate U.N. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, p. U.S. All parties are fullyaware that any party can withdraw from the treaty by giving the requisitethree months notice. First is eliminating the risk ofnuclear war. These reasons provide an example of how most countries thatare not the United States or Europe go about deciding these things. Although the nuclear powers were prepared to proceed to a vote, someof their allies as well as Dhanapala feared that a vote could leave asignificant dissatisfied minority. In summing up the work of the conference in hisclosing address, Dhanapala noted, "The objectives and principles on non-proliferation and disarmament, together with the strengthened reviewprocess, which are intricately bound with the decision on the extension ofthe treaty, represent a pathfinder for a nuclear-weapons-free world" ("Howto," 1995, p. 29. And, most important, how doesthe United States view it? (1993, September 26). J. nuclear weapons (Cozic, 1992, p. 556). citizens do not support the notion ofnuclear disarmament, as was shown in a 1994 public opinion survey("Rearranging," 1995, p. allies inthe industrial North but also some 4 or 5 Third World states to supportindefinite extension of the NPT. (1995, Summer). This, too, willhappen to any country joining the treaty. This second reason has multiplebenefits: nonnuclear weapon states would not need to pursue a nucleardeterrent for themselves; undeclared nuclear weapon states would have anincentive to disarm; and former nuclear weapon states would have increasedmoral authority to pressure potential proliferants. On the one hand, it repeatedly commits to the goal oftotal nuclear disarmament. Combining defenses with arms control. In testimony before the U.S. The powers that be saw relativelylittle harm in allowing negotiations on disarmament, as long as immediateagreement was not a requirement ("Rearranging," 1995, pp. Washington, Moscow, and most other countries perceived mutualinterests in controlling the spread of nuclear weapons, but China rejectedthe non-proliferation norm and refused to cooperate with the institutionsand practices that constitute the regime. In another sense,the opinion is a resounding yes. Nuclear proliferation: Opposing viewpoints. 32). Because the NPT has a vital role to play in preventing theproliferation of nuclear weapons, every effort should be made to implementthe treaty in all its aspects. The nuclear-weapon states reaffirm theircommitment, as stated in Article VI, to pursue in good faith negotiationson effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. 1). Safeguards should be universally appliedonce the complete elimination of nuclear weapons has been achieved. Negotiating the Comprehensive Test Ban Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was made permanent in May,25 years after it entered into force and nearly 5 years after the UnitedStates wrought devastation on Hiroshima. Breaking up the nuclear family. It has not alreadybecome a full partner because it has continued to export nuclear andmissile technology in contradiction to the norms of the regime and to itsown nonproliferation policy. 554-56). Congress. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali alsourged the total elimination of nuclear weapons, saying that the "most safe,sure and swift way to deal with the threat of nuclear arms is to do awaywith them in every regard" (Wittner, 1993, p. Because the number of co-sponsors exceeded the 9 parties requiredfor a majority decision to extend, this settled the question. The compromise gave the non-weapon states someleverage in pressing for nuclear disarmament (Wittner, 1993, pp. The boundaries of the Comprehensive Test Ban Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, adopted by the NPT Extension Conference held in NewYork April 17 to May 12, these are the important agreements that all membercountries were able to agree on. 11-12). With world interest innonproliferation growing and the prospect of observing the 25-year NPTReview and Extension Conference, talked about at the beginning of thispaper, China's status linked with India's status is surely distasteful.Beijing found the marginal rewards of joining the NPT as a nuclear-weaponstate preferable to continued isolation. 1. Joint statement on non-proliferation. After the president's package was adopted, such concerns werepublicly expressed not only by the non-aligned states that opposedindefinite extension, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, and Tanzania,but also by states such as the Philippines, which had supported indefiniteextension. Currently, the majority of U.S. 28). How to build a bomb treaty. Although the Arab states didnot get that, they got language that urged all states in the Middle East tojoin the NPT. Why did China finally join the treaty? If a votewere taken, indefinite extension would have more than enough votes.However, a consensus on indefinite extension clearly was not likely, unlessthe nuclear powers made binding commitments to comply fully with theirobligations under the treaty and unless some system was devised that wouldlead to greater accountability. Negotiations on a "non-discriminatory and universally applicableconvention banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weaponsor other nuclear explosive devices" should begin immediately and come to"an early conclusion." The nuclear weapon states will engage in "systematicand progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with theultimate goal of eliminating those weapons" (How to, 1995 p. That is, Russia might have not only a stockpile ofweapons materials, but also the functioning capability to make more. This is actually veryunderstandable and is the position of many of the not-quite world powers("Are Missile," 1995, pp. Rearranging deck chairs on the titanic - comprehensive test ban treatyundermined. In any case, the extension decision may well have less impact on thefuture of the treaty than will the changing military and politicalsituation in the world. On the other, it depends on nuclear deterrencefor security and financial military stability ("Trading," 1995, p. society, democracy, economy, or authority. 556). The Arab states, led by Egypt, refused to endorse any proposal forthe extension of the NPT, unless pressure was brought on Israel to accedeto the NPT and accept full-scope safeguards. First, China hoped to deflect criticism of its nuclear export policy,especially in the aftermath of Tiananmen. (1995, Summer). The four-week NPT Review andExtension Conference, held in New York April 17 to May 12, was the largestarms control conference ever held, with 175 of the treaty's 178 partiesparticipating ("How to," 1995, p. And althoughthere is little support for increased spending to develop and test newnuclear weapons, the public favors increased spending for the maintenanceof existing nuclear weapons. Throughout the most tense periods of the Cold War, the United Statesand the Soviet Union cooperated to build the non-proliferation regime,while China remained isolated from nonproliferation and arms controldiplomacy. He also emphasized that the NPT must beextended by consensus. The nationsand the peoples of the world must now follow it. Militarily, the United States would nothave the power that now stems from nuclear weapons. (1995, Summer). 12). 275). Thus, the1995 conference joined the 198 and 199 review conferences (Cozic, 1992,p. References Are missile defenses MAD? However, delegates from a number of non-nuclear states expressed unease and reservations over the outcome. policy-makers need to be more honest. Second, signing the NPT was a step toward securing normal MFN tradestatus from the United States, as it removed the possibility that MFN couldbe denied if Congress were to link MFN with NPT membership. Meanwhile, Mexico said it would accept an indefinite extension,subject to a program of action similar to that of the non-aligned statesbut more specific: a CTB must be achieved by 1996; the nuclear powers mustend the production of nuclear weapons and work toward reducing theirarsenals to zero; International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards must bemade more effective; and all states- the nuclear-weapon powers inparticular- must support and respect the new nuclear-weapon-free zones. 13) in failing to reach agreement on a Final Declaration. Arms Controland Disarmament Agency had succeeded in persuading not only U.S. Somenuclear "have-not" states have security concerns at least as serious asthose of the "have" states. . Thus, there was agreement thatnuclear disarmament should be a goal, but there were differences inperspective about whether that goal should be long- or short-term. 19-25. On May5, it submitted a simple proposal co-sponsored by 1 3 nations (latersponsored by 111 parties) that said the conference decides that the Treatyshall continue in force indefinitely. 24).The non-aligned states had to push for the best extension deal possiblefrom a position of relative weakness. Foreign Affairs, pp. This continued isolation worksagainst all countries refusing the treaty ("A Nuclear," 1995, pp. Reduction anddestruction of all nuclear weapons and the means to make them should become"humanity's great common cause" (Wittner, 1993, p. defense policy. 31). 23-25. Although the USSR is nolonger, the former Soviet Union's reaction will always be significant.Despite decades of effort focused on determining the number of warheads andamount of special nuclear materials possessed by Moscow, the United Statessignificantly underestimated the quantity. Likewise, the majority of the American public interviewedbelieves that the retention of nuclear weapons is important. U.S. Even if moresophisticated technologies are developed to "sniff out" illicit productionactivity, a nation may to produce fissile materials without producingemissions or other telltale signs upon which detection equipment woulddepend (Cozic, 1992, pp. Although, with environmental sampling, one might be ableto detect the activity of uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing, onewould first have to have good intelligence data identifying the generalarea to sample and, second, physical access to the site. Russian says Soviet atom arsenalwas larger than West estimated. The structure of this treaty is remarkably simple. The non-nuclear statesrefused to go along, arguing that it might perpetuate the idea that nuclear-weapon states could hold on to their nuclear weapons forever, while denyingnon-nuclear states their sovereign right to develop such weapons. The general U.S. Third, NPT membership would secure China's ability to purchasenuclear goods and services, particularly from France and other countriesincreasingly unwilling to sell nuclear technology to non-NPT states. Trading in the apocalypse. Nation, pp. Beijing cannot close the gap between itsdeclarations of support for nonproliferation and its continued pattern ofcontroversial exports without implementing export controls on sensitivetechnologies. Every effort should be made to insure that theInternational Atomic Energy Agency has the financial and human resourcesnecessary in order to meet effectively its responsibilities. Whenthe NPT was being negotiated in the 196 s, the United States and the SovietUnion pressed for a treaty of indefinite duration. (1994, January). should do so without delay. While certain negative and positive security assurances are a matterof record, further steps should be considered to assure non-nuclear-weaponstates party to the treaty against the use or threat of use of nuclearweapons. line on this issue is thatmany, particularly the government in the United States, recognized when theNPT was being negotiated that undertaking nuclear disarmament was notrealistic, primarily because complete nuclear disarmament was not then- andis not yet- technically verifiable. A number of possible motivations havebeen suggested. Senate Armed Services Committee recommended increasedfunding for stockpile stewardship for fiscal 1995 and stated, "Nuclearweapons continue to play an integral role in U.S. Transparency in nuclear-related export controls should be promotedamong all interested parties to the treaty. There currently are notechnical means to find hidden stockpiles of nuclear weapons or materials.A country might even be able to successfully hide a fissile materialsproduction plant. James Woolsey, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency,stated, "I cannot state that we have high confidence in our ability todetect non-compliance with this treaty, especially non-compliance on asmall scale" ("Remarks," 1994, p. The cooperation of all the nuclear-weapon states and their respect and support for the relevant protocols isnecessary for the maximum effectiveness of such nuclear-weapon-free zones. government have taken astrong position. How do the former major powers of the cold war view the ComprehensiveTest Ban Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? China was willing to accept either an indefinite extension ormultiple fixed extensions of no less than 25 years. Cozic, C. However, this is increasinglyunacceptable to non-nuclear weapon states, who rightly observe that theUnited States is not seriously willing to undertake total nucleardisarmament as its part of the bargain under the Nuclear Non-ProliferationTreaty (NPT). But, for states that desired a series of renewable fixedperiods, it was a partly successful outcome, as their leverage forobtaining full compliance with the treaty by the nuclear powers had beendiminished. Even if every nation on Earthsigns a treaty saying that it has forsworn nuclear weapons, there can be noguarantee, given the limitations of today's verification technology, thattotal nuclear disarmament has been achieved. U.N. (1994,December). Getting China to sign was a big step for the entire world and thetest ban treaty in general. New Perspective Quarterly,12, pp. In addition, the Arab states reiterated their opposition toindefinite extension of the treaty as long as Israel was not a party to it("How to," 1995, p. President Clinton issued a presidential directive orderingthe establishment of a stockpile stewardship program to assure thecontinued viability of U.S. Only the first part of theirwish was fully granted. The issue is the ability to reconstitutea weapons force. Whethernuclear disarmament is practical and useful depends on whether it isperceived as feasiblile and politically acceptable in the United States. controls on sensitive exports to China and newreactor deals with France, Canada, Japan, Russia, and South Korea in 1994seem to confirm the utility of Beijing's signing the NPT. What about the other former super-power? 72-75. The United States, Russia, Britain, and France wanted the treatyextended indefinitely and unconditionally. 2464-66. This is important to studybecause it does indeed follow the case of many world powers. IAEAsafeguards should be regularly assessed and evaluated. Reportedly, an equal number are being dismantled by Russia, althoughthe United States has not verified this. 553). TheUnited States would not. 11-12. 29). A core group of 14 non-aligned states, led byIndonesia, wanted the treaty extended for a series of rolling fixed periodsof 25 years, subject to reaching certain goals during each period. During the negotiations, many countries had many agendas. Wittner, L. 3 -31). As a result, the more than 1 states ofthe Non-Aligned Movement, which in the past had often opposed indefiniteextension, came into the conference with divided views on the issue andwere unable to adopt a broad-based united position ("Joint," 1994, p. Viktor N. Theimpasse was broken by a compromise: The treaty called for the nuclear-weapon parties to negotiate in good faith on effective nuclear disarmamentand to convene an extension conference in 25 years to determine theduration of the treaty. This has a lot to do with past instances of goodwill or not-so-goodwill, depending on which countries' perspectives are looked through. If this evolution continues,China could become a senior partner in the regime. The majority of the public, just over 51percent, believes that elimination of nuclear weapons in the next 25 yearsis not feasible. However, continuing reports ofBeijing's nuclear and missile exports and its refusal to adhere to theNuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines or to require full-scopesafeguards on its nuclear exports suggest that China is not yet ready tosupport fully the nonproliferation regime. With the help of the 2 mostactive delegations, including the five nuclear powers, he skillfully puttogether a compromise package of three linked proposals based on Canada'sextension proposal as well as on specific ideas put forward by the coregroup of 14, as well as by Mexico, Indonesia, and South Africa. . The dissatisfaction of some states was alsodemonstrated by the inability of the conference to agree on a FinalDeclaration on its overall review of the operation of the NPT. 1). But they did get commitments that were politically, if notlegally, binding. But, if they continue to insist thattheir security depends on the indefinite retention of nuclear weapons, thenmany observers believe the treaty will ultimately be in jeopardy. Universality meansbringing Israel, India, and Pakistan, all undeclared nuclear powers, intothe fold. Broad, W. If no nations possess nuclear weapons, there will be no riskof using them. The 14 non-aligned states did not gettheir 25-year rolling extensions, and neither they nor Mexico gotconditions. Moreover,except for the 1996 date for the comprehensive test ban, the "Principles"included no deadlines or target dates; the elimination of nuclear weaponswas described as merely an "ultimate goal". 28). Not only had this association equated Chinawith lesser powers in a general sense, it linked Beijing with arch-rivalNew Delhi as the main critics of the treaty. The Struggle Against the Bomb. 32). This, of course, is the whole reason for the treaty in the firstplace. Departmentof State Dispatch. policymakers have avoided rectifying the contradiction bylabeling disarmament as a long-term goal. In this discussion, the views of other countries involved are alsoimportant. However, in the end, the nuclear powers managed to maintaintheir monopoly on nuclear weapons. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist,51, pp. No state got all it wanted, althoughthe weapon states had more reason to be satisfied than the non-weaponstates. Fourth is ending the discrimination inherent when some nationshave nuclear weapons while others do not. (1995, April24). (1993). The conviction that the establishment of internationally recognizednuclear-weapon-free zones enhances global and regional peace and securityis reaffirmed. Investment," 1995, pp. 32). The stewardshipprogram continues to receive bipartisan support in the U.S. States that have not yet joined the NPTare called upon to "accede to the treaty at the earliest date, particularlythose states that operate unsafeguarded nuclear facilities" ("N.P.T.,"1995, p. 183). Amicus Journal, 17, pp. There is no question that nuclear disarmament would fulfill part ofthe obligations under Article VI of the NPT. That is, the UnitedStates and Europe always have an advantage. One obstacleto deciding on a timetable for disarmament is that the pace of arms controlhas already outstripped the capacities of both the United States and Russiato dismantle nuclear warheads. Fourth, without NPT membership, China would remain the onlyacknowledged nuclear-weapon state not to be a party to the treaty and wouldcontinue to share non-NPT status with threshold nuclear states such asIndia, Pakistan, and Israel. Intrying to promote a constructive bilateral relationship, President Bushcited China's accession to the treaty and its increased support for globalnonproliferation efforts when he recommended normal trade tariffs for Chinain June 1992 and vetoed legislation to tie conditions to MFN status inSeptember 1992 (Wittner, 1993, p. The United States holds contradictory policies which are on acollision course. Inthe past, U.S. Yet China's nonproliferation policy isstill an enigma that has evolved from outright opposition to the nuclearnonproliferation regime to partial membership. (1995, Summer). Setting aside the question ofverifiability and whether nations would actually comply with nucleardisarmament, there are at present some practical limitations. Theloosening of some U.S. So disgruntled are some of these states that they proposelinking their continued commitment to nonproliferation to nuclear weaponstates setting a timetable to dismantle their arsenals. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press. But unresolved problems remain in both nations, such as how to storeweapon components until they can be destroyed, how to destroy them faster,what to do with the plutonium and other materials, and how to pay for itall. Canada ledthe effort at the conference to achieve an indefinite extension, but itdropped the unconditional requirement, which had much less support. 2 -24 U.S. N.P.T - Back to ground zero: Non-proliferation treaty. With thebreakup of the Soviet Union, Western perceptions of this threat havediminished. Government Printing Office. In a broadsense, signing the NPT was a cost-free step that enabled Beijing to gainlegitimacy and status as a great power with little risk to its diplomatic,economic, and strategic interests. The politics ofnon-proliferation will always favor the powerful. On topof this, the U.S. All ofhumanity hangs in the balance of the Comprehensive Test Ban Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. New PerspectivesQuarterly, 12, p. (1995, September-October). Parties to the NPT that have been slow to sign and bring into forcecomprehensive safeguards agreements . Thefullest possible exchange of equipment, materials, and scientific andtechnological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy should befully implemented. action ("N.P.T.," 1995, pp. New York Times, p. Mikhailov, head of theRussian Ministry of Atomic Energy, stated that Moscow once had 45, warheads, which is 12, more than believed by the most generous estimateby the United States, and more than twice the amount of stockpiled enricheduranium than commonly believed(Broad, 1993, p. The negotiations were tense. SanDiego, CA: Greenhaven Press. Theyregretted that the "Principles and Objectives" adopted by the conferencedid not contain specific commitments or strong enough language. 22-24). These steps should take the form of a legally binding instrument.In addition, nothing should be done to undermine the authority of theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with respect to its nuclearsafeguards system. Issues inScience and Technology, 11, pp. The IAEA's abilityto detect undeclared nuclear activities should be increased. But, for those in this country who still believe in having a strongnuclear arsenal, the question is, "Would disarming the United States reducethat nation's stature and greatness and make it more equal to others?" Inone sense, the opinion is no. Five reasons for disarmament are universally important to the worldand the citizens of the United States. The new resolution, sponsored by theUnited States, Russia, and Britain, endorsed the Middle East peace process,called on all states in the Middle East that had not yet done so to accedeto the NPT as soon as possible and place their nuclear facilities underfull-scope IAEA safeguards, and urged all states in the Middle East and allparties to the NPT to cooperate in the early establishment of a zone freeof nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systemsin the Middle East ("How to," 1995, p. The following measures are important for the effective implementationof Article VI: A universal and internationally and effectively verifiablecomprehensive nuclear test ban treaty should be negotiated no later than1996. Similarly, one state after another asserted that the nuclearpowers had not lived up to their disarmament obligations under the NPT- butthen, surprisingly, those states announced that they would support anindefinite extension to avoid any uncertainty over the treaty's future(Wittner, 1993, p. 27-31. Additionally, many believed that the negotiations were and are highlyconstructive, as they lead to arms control and reductions, and that theyserve to build understanding and trust. Canada, too, called for a consensusdecision and for a deeper commitment to accountability and implementationof the treaty. One of the most important of the newer players is China. The United States is attempting to dismantleapproximately 2, warheads per year, although safety concerns andtechnical problems have slowed the process("U.S. Concerning fissionable material, before entering into arrangements tosupply fissionable material or reprocessing equipment to a non-nuclearweapon state, supplier states should require acceptance of full-scope IAEAsafeguards and legally binding commitments not to acquire nuclear weaponsor other nuclear explosive devices. Remarks at a nuclear agreements signing ceremony in Budapest. By signing thetreaty, many countries would stand to be favored by the United States. The idea that any country will not sign is verydetrimental. 23-4). Theirdemands included the following: a comprehensive test ban treaty (CTB);legally binding assurances to non-nuclear states against the use or threatof use of nuclear weapons; a cut-off of the production of and theelimination of stockpiles of weapons-usable fissile material; theelimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction; theestablishment of additional nuclear-weapon-free zones; the non-discriminatory transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes; andthe achievement of universality ("How to," 1995, p. The United States opposed the resolution, and intense negotiationsled to less controversial issues. Washington, DC: U.S. The Chinese attitude of exceptionalism toward non-proliferation isyielding to a policy of differentiation among nonproliferation commitments.A selective policy enables the Chinese government to deflect criticism ofits non-proliferation behavior through partial acceptance of certaincommitments while keeping others at arms length ("A Nuclear," 1995, pp. By signing the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and agreeing toabide by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) guidelines, Chinamoved closer to the nonproliferation regime. On the question of nuclear weapons possession, both theexecutive and legislative branches of the U.S. investment in a peaceful Russia. 2465). For states that wanted the treaty made permanent, the conference wasa success. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, pp. By playing both sidesof the extension issue, it insured itself a strong voice with the nuclearpowers and with the non-aligned nation ("Trading," 1995, pp. By intensive efforts over the past two years, the U.S. Second is providing a model for non-nuclear weapon statesto bolster nuclear non-proliferation. Public opinion is, of course, often swayed by the views of politicalleadership. The nuclear powers and most of their allies and friends were pleasedwith the outcome of the conference. In signing the NPT, Chinacommitted to few, if any, new constraints on its policy or behavior, but itmuted criticism in Western industrialized countries that Beijing wasleading a Third World revolt against the nonproliferation regime. In all activities designed to promote the peaceful usesof nuclear energy, preferential treatment should be given to the non-nuclear weapon states party to the treaty, taking the needs of developingcountries particularly into account. 47-52). Many people believe that the point here is not that the United Statesneeds more plutonium; it does not. Nuclear disarmament would not necessarilychange U.S. TechnologyReview,98, pp. The NPT extension has illumined that path. (1995,January-February). If fissile materials removed from dismantled warheads areplaced under controls that prevent their reuse in weapons- as is now beingdiscussed- while Russia continues to produce "civil" plutonium, animbalance could evolve. 24). 28-32. Conference President JayanthaDhanapala of Sri Lanka opened the conference with a call for outlawingnuclear weapons "in the same way we have outlawed chemical and biologicalweapons" ("N.P.T," 1995, p. In this way, all states shouldmaintain- through rigorous national measures and international cooperation-the highest practical levels of nuclear safety including waste management,nuclear materials accounting, and the physical protection and transport ofnuclear materials. 74-75). Even if total nuclear disarmament were agreed to today, the pace ofstockpile reductions could not happen much faster than at present. 52-3). That policy has evolved, however,as Beijing has gradually accommodated the non-proliferation regime tofurther its foreign policy interests. States notparty to the NPT should be urged to enter into comprehensive safeguardsagreements with the agency. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.