Can the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty truly protect humanity from nuclear threats, or is it paradoxically encouraging nuclear development?

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was meant to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, but its inequality, weak enforcement, and political use of nuclear weapons have raised questions about whether it is actually encouraging nuclear development.

 

From the most distant past to the present, many scholars have tried to understand nature and make life easier. From the beginnings of agriculture, to the discovery of paper and gunpowder, to the steam engine and information technology, humanity has undergone several dramatic changes. As a result, humans in the modern world seem to be living the most prosperous lives since time immemorial. Based on this history of progress, some might argue that technological advancements drive society forward. Indeed, there is some validity to this argument, as the development of information and communication has greatly changed society and altered our way of life. However, just as there is black and white in everything, there is also a downside to technological advancement. So, for the argument that technological advancement drives society forward, we can question whether society can handle it. To answer this question, we can look at the history of nuclear weapons, which can determine the fate of humanity, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is intended to control them, to see if humans can adequately control technology.
On August 14, 1945, a plane flew over Hiroshima on a clear, blue day. The plane was carrying a bomb named “Little Boy”. Dropped into the city center, the bomb exploded with a tremendous noise and instantly took the lives of 150,000 people. The world was stunned by the devastation caused by a single bomb, and World War II was over. However, the power of the atomic bomb, which was unlike any other weapon, frightened nations and spurred them to develop it further. Meanwhile, even the United States, the first country to develop the bomb, realized its power and feared that other countries would develop atomic bombs, which was the beginning of the formation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was not a smooth process. It was a complicated process involving fierce national interests and Cold War logic. The United States, as the original developer, wanted to prevent other countries from acquiring atomic weapons at all costs, as did the Soviet Union at the other end of the spectrum. But in the Third World, the situation was different. Apart from Cold War logic, India, Pakistan, Israel, and others were secretly developing nuclear weapons to gain the upper hand in regional conflicts, and there was strong opposition in many countries to restricting even the peaceful use of nuclear energy. While the Soviet Union tightly controlled the development of nuclear weapons by its allies, the United States argued that it did not adequately control its allies and needed to transfer nuclear-related technology to some countries in order to encircle the Soviet Union. The future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty looked bleak with this back-and-forth, but news of successful nuclear development in the Third World led to a growing consensus between the United States and the Soviet Union, and a resolution was passed at the United Nations calling for a treaty, which was signed in 1968. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) bans the spread of nuclear weapons, prohibits their development, and requires states to undergo regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure that they are using nuclear energy peacefully. Currently, 189 countries are party to the treaty.
Nearly 40 years after its inception, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is seemingly fulfilling its mission, despite the twists and turns of its signing process. In fact, no state has used nuclear weapons for offensive purposes since 1945. But the effectiveness of human efforts to keep us safe from nuclear weapons, including the NPT, is questionable on three fronts: inequality, enforcement, and the politics of nuclear weapons.
Since its inception, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has been designed to give the major powers – the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom – an advantage over non-nuclear states, and thus has allowed existing nuclear weapons states to retain nuclear weapons. This has encouraged states that do not possess nuclear weapons to pursue nuclear weapons development, especially those that are hostile to the major nuclear powers, such as North Korea and Iran, and those that are confrontational with their neighbors, such as India, Pakistan, and Israel. In fact, India and Pakistan, who were enemies, pursued nuclear weapons in competition with each other, and Israel pursued nuclear weapons to secure its existence in the Middle East. Moreover, Third World countries pursued nuclear weapons for self-reliance in the face of the U.S.-Soviet confrontation because the existing nuclear powers were unwilling to give up their vested interests. Treaties require signatories to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament, but in the mid- to late-20th century Cold War, it was unlikely that nuclear powers would honor this clause. While the Cold War system has since collapsed and global tensions have eased, the established powers still possess thousands of nuclear weapons. Because their mere existence saves enormous military expenditures and serves as a deterrent to war against other countries, the existing nuclear weapon states are reluctant to give them up. This creates a constant security threat to other states, which can lead them to develop nuclear weapons, North Korea being a prime example. The inequality of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty paradoxically encourages nuclear development because it would be easier if everyone gave up, but they never do.
Next, there is the question of the treaty’s enforceability. In the last two decades, North Korea, the de facto biggest security threat to South Korea, has conducted several nuclear tests. North Korea has been working since the 1960s to develop nuclear weapons, a clear asymmetric power, because it is economically isolated and cannot afford to field a conventional army. As a result, it conducted several nuclear tests in the 2000s. Despite international sanctions and warnings from its ally China, North Korea has continued to test nuclear weapons. Countries around the world have imposed numerous sanctions on North Korea and increased inspections, including ship searches, but the country is reportedly planning another nuclear test. This reality shows that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is unenforceable against a closed state like North Korea. In fact, North Korea deliberately evaded IAEA inspections until 1993, leading to the first North Korean nuclear crisis, and even then, the IAEA was unaware of North Korea’s nuclear development because it had no mandate to inspect. The same was true for Iran. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty did not authorize direct sanctions, so the UN Security Council imposed financial sanctions, led by the United States. Nevertheless, Iran continued to pursue its nuclear program for several more years before recently entering into negotiations with the G7 countries to end its nuclear program. It’s been a decade in the making, and it’s doubtful that the world will ever be safe from nuclear weapons if it takes this long for a radicalization to occur.
Finally, there is the politics of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are an important external political bargaining chip because they are unstoppable and pose a significant threat to adversaries. Internally, it is used as an internal political tool because it saves a lot of money on military expenditures. North Korea, as mentioned above, uses its nuclear program as an important external political tool, which is important to the United States and other major players in Northeast Asia. The same is true for Iran. The United States has taken a proactive stance against Iran’s nuclear program, particularly because Iran is located in the geopolitically important region of the Middle East, and its development of nuclear weapons could undermine regional stability, while its anti-American stance and sizeable economy make it difficult to control its future nuclear development. On the other hand, the United States, under the Bush administration in the 2000s, ignored existing nuclear agreements and pushed to build up its nuclear forces in order to reduce its defense burden. This naturally provoked Russia, a former adversary, and led to Russia’s withdrawal from the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which increased international tensions. Today, under the Obama administration, the U.S. is working toward a “nuclear-free world,” but a change of administration at any time can lead to a shift in nuclear policy. In this respect, it is evident that even international treaties are powerless when it comes to the interests of great powers.
Overall, under the current nuclear nonproliferation treaty regime, there is no direct means to prevent individual states from developing nuclear weapons, relying instead on external forces such as the UN Security Council. However, in a trilateral system of the United States, Russia, and China, it is unlikely that any of them will be the first to give up nuclear weapons, and they may even secretly tolerate nuclear development as long as they can keep the other side in check. Furthermore, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s inability to actively address crises when conflicts of interest among the great powers arise, as seen in the Bush administration, raises strong questions about the treaty’s purpose. If the ultimate goal of humanity when it comes to nuclear weapons is the complete elimination of nuclear weapons from the world, the current weakly binding treaty is unlikely to achieve that goal. The fact that the great powers have resisted calls for nuclear disarmament from Third World countries in the past makes it even more difficult to achieve a world without nuclear weapons. In a world where nuclear weapons, which were created for war, have come to dominate humans and create fear in humans, I hope that humans will be able to fully “master” nuclear weapons. Even if it seems a long way off at the moment.