Iran's right to obtain nuclear weapons

I've long argued that Iran would have the right to acquire a nuclear arsenal by simply withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Article X.1 of that treaty appears to open that door:

QUOTE:

Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

:UNQUOTE.

At this point, I wish to emphasize the seven words highlighted above:

• Just because a nation signed the NPT doesn't mean that it gave up its right to exercise its national sovereignty;

• The words "if it decides" aren't followed by "unless overruled by the Security Council." The authors attempt to argue that mandating that the Security Council be notified of intent to withdraw somehow gives it the power to "jeopardize the supreme interests" of the nation attempting to withdraw.

I urge you to read the article* posted on this link, which seems to have been written in the spirit of Bush II's legal team when it decided that waterboarding was not an example of torture but, instead, constituted an example of "enhanced interrogation:"

www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd79/79gbjr.htm

This link is part of a website maintained by Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy - the article in question written by George Bunn and John Rhinelander, posted on May 1, 2005.

I started smelling a self-serving rat as soon as I read this article's very first sentence - that is, the sentence that immediately follows its quoting of Article X.1:

QUOTE:

Do the nations that belong to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) have a right to withdraw from it at any time they wish and for any reason?

:UNQUOTE.

Using the word "wish" is an intentional device meant to mislead us into thinking that any nation attempting to withdraw would be doing so as a matter of whim. However, as Article X.1 makes clear:

• Nations attempting to withdraw could only do so after the passage of a 90-day period;

• And not for "any reason," but due to "extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests."

As for what could constitute "extraordinary events," I maintain that the imposition of international sanctions and the saber-rattling of every candidate for US president during the 2012 election cycle would count. All of our pandering pols love saying, "Under no circumstances will Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons." Such actions and such talk clearly demonstrate a hostility toward Iran which hasn't been directed against Israel which already obtained the bomb in the name of its own self-defense. There isn't any talk of insisting that Israel open its borders to UN weapons inspectors.

The very next sentence in this article is revealing in that its authors fail to condemn the US for considering unilateral action in place of a divided Security Council:

QUOTE:

After the failure of the Security Council to act effectively in 1993, the US Secretary of Defense concluded that the use of force against North Korea was necessary to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.

:UNQUOTE.

Let me get this straight: After the Security Council failed to move against North Korea, the US Secretary of Defense advocated the "necessary" use of force against that country. Whatever happened to the rule of law this article's authors are trying to promote against Iran? What they're saying is, if a major power decides it should act because of a failure of the Security Council to reach an agreement, that would be acceptable.


Conclusions

I wonder, what would happen if every single nation not a member of the Security Council would decide to quit the UN? Most of those nations already know the UN exists primarily as an extension of the foreign policies of the major powers. Maybe they figure, it's better to have a UN than not. Or they might be grateful for the aid bestowed by that forum's major supporters. But they are surely aware that the US has no problem in "upgrading" its own nuclear strike force, even though the NPT mandates eventual and complete nuclear disarmament.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of
The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for President of the USA (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnote:

* title of article: The Right to Withdraw from the NPT: Article X is not Unconditional