SANCTIONS DO NOT LEAD TO NUKE ABOLITION IN ASIA
Kalinga Seneviratne -IDN-In Depth News Analysis
North Korea’s response to the United Nations Security Council's
expanded sanctions on January 22 by threatening to resume nuclear tests
and last November’s failure by the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) to persuade the five recalcitrant nuclear powers to sign
the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone Treaty (SEANWFZ) have
focused attention on the atomic threat facing the Asian region that is
fast emerging as the centre of the global economy.
Posited very much in the midst of these developments is the Obama
Administration’s so-called US “pivot” or “rebalance” policy towards
Asia, which is increasingly seen in the region as a security issue
rather than an economic or political re-engagement.
Since this policy announcement two years ago there has been increased
tension in the region with regards to China’s territorial claims in the
South China Sea that has prompted some analysts in Asia to question
whether the US is trying to provoke Asian countries like Japan, the
Philippines and Vietnam into confrontation with China.
Nuclear powers
With North Korea’s recent posturing, the threat of a nuclear
confrontation – though remote – is rather worrisome to Asia that is
emerging from centuries of economic subjugation by the West. A looming
confrontation with China in Asia may be one of the major reasons why the
three nuclear powered states Russia, France and Britain could not agree
to sign the SEANWFZ as planned at the 21st ASEAN Summit in Cambodia in
November 2012. France voiced its reservations on the right of
self-defence, United Kingdom on “new threat and development”, and Russia
on the right of foreign ships and aircraft to pass into the nuclear free
zone, a concern similar to that of the US.
The notion of a SEANWFZ dates back to November 27, 1971, when the
original five members of ASEAN signed a Declaration on a (ASEAN) Zone of
Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) in Kuala Lumpur. The first major
component of the ZOPFAN pursued by ASEAN was the establishment of a
SEANWFZ.
However, due to the unfavourable political environment in the region,
the formal proposal for the establishment of such a zone was tabled only
in the mid-1980s. After a decade of negotiating and drafting efforts by
the ASEAN Working Group on a ZOPFAN, the SEANWFZ Treaty was signed by
the heads of states of all 10 ASEAN member countries in Bangkok on
December 15, 1995 and it took effect two years later. The negotiations
between ASEAN and the five nuclear powers on the protocol have been
under way since May 2001 with no progress achieved.
Among a number of rules and conditions laid out by the treaty, the
main components are that signatory States are obliged not to develop,
manufacture or otherwise acquire, possess or have control over nuclear
weapons; station nuclear weapons; or test or use nuclear weapons
anywhere inside or outside the treaty zone.
The protocol also stipulates that Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) must
abide by articles of the Treaty and not use or threaten to use nuclear
weapons against States parties. China has previously expressed its
willingness to ratify the protocol, but the other four NWS cite the
geographical scope of the Treaty as an obstacle. The treaty zone covers
the territories, continental shelves, and exclusive economic zones (EEZ)
of the States Parties within the zone.
Malaysian political scientist, Dr Chandra Muzzafar, Executive
Director of the International Movement for a Just World says that while
ASEAN states must be commended for drafting and signing the SEANWFZ, at
the same time “all the five nuclear weapons states are determined to
ensure that their nuclear advantage is preserved at all costs,
‘self-defence’ is just a camouflage”.
“Britain and France are US allies and the US through various military
and diplomatic moves is reinforcing its agenda of containing China. So
it should not surprise anyone if its two European allies are seeking to
bolster the US position in the region,” he said in an interview with
IDN-In Depth News.
Non-governmental actors
Asked if the Asian countries should make US access to their markets
conditional on the nuclear powers signing the treaty, Dr Muzzafar said:
“ASEAN and other countries in Asia should first demonstrate a strong
collective commitment towards the control and abolition of nuclear
weapons before they make demands upon outside powers. Such a commitment
does not exist at the moment. This is why I do not see them asking these
powers to sign the Bangkok Treaty as a condition for access to the
expanding markets in Asia.”
|
This file picture taken by North
Korea's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on
December 12, 2012 shows North Korean rocket Unha-3, carrying
the satellite Kwangmyongsong-3, lifting off from the
launching pad in Cholsan county, North Pyongan
province in North Korea. AFP |
Dr Muzzafar is of the view that governments in the region will not be
able to persuade the nuclear powers to sign the treaty and it will have
to be non-governmental actors that need to mount a concerted campaign
for it to happen. “In the ultimate analysis, it is only a powerful
citizens’ movement that can rid the continent of present and future
nuclear weapons”, he argues.
In a speech at the University of Iceland in October 2012, Dr Gareth
Evans, the former Australian Foreign Minister and the Convener of the
Asia Pacific Leadership Network on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and
Disarmament (APLN)argued that the spirit of optimism that existed about
three years ago that nuclear disarmament could be achieved in the
Asia-Pacific region has evaporated.
“If the existing nuclear-armed states are serious about
non-proliferation, as they all claim to be, and sincerely want to
prevent others from joining their club, they cannot keep justifying the
possession of nuclear weapons as a means of protection for themselves or
their allies against other weapons of mass destruction, especially
biological weapons, or conventional weapons,” he argues. "All the world
hates a hypocrite, and in arms control as in life generally, demanding
that others do as I say is not nearly as compelling as asking them to do
as I do."
Dr Evans also pointed out that nuclear weapons would not deter
terrorists, as many nuclear weapons states tend to argue. "Terrorists
don't usually have territory, industry, a population or a regular army
which could be targeted with nuclear weapons," he argues.
On September 13, 2012, APLN expressed deep disappointment at the
evaporation of political will evident in global and regional efforts
toward nuclear disarmament over the previous year. The statement was
signed by 25 political, diplomatic, military and scientific leaders from
14 Asia Pacific countries.
Professor Ramesh Thakur, Director of the Centre for Nuclear
Non-Proliferation and Disarmament at the Australian National University,
writing in Japan Times noted that plans for upgrades, modernization or
increased numbers and destructive power of nuclear arsenals by all the
nuclear-armed states indicate that none is serious about nuclear
disarmament.
“All countries that have and seek nuclear weapons, or are increasing
the size and modernizing the quality of their arsenals, should be
subjected to international opprobrium,” he argues.
Tactical Nukes
Rather than subjecting nukes to international scorn, several
commentators in regional publications in recent months have argued that
the US may need to be persuaded to re-deploy tactical weapons in the
Korean peninsula, which the Bush administration withdrew in 1991 – in
order to respond to the North Korean threat.
“Tactical nukes on South Korean soil would enhance the credibility of
the US nuclear umbrella against North Korea and also reassure the South
Korean public of the US security commitment” argues Seongwhun Cheon, a
Senior Research Fellow at the Korea Institute for National Unification
in a commentary published by GlobalAsia.
“As North Korea continues to develop long-range missiles, alliance
dynamics in Northeast Asia will come to resemble that of Europe in the
late 1950s.” he argues. “When the Soviet Union first fired its Sputnik
missile and opened the intercontinental missile age, Western European
allies began to worry that America might decouple its own security from
alliance security in fear of a Soviet attack on the US mainland. Similar
concerns on decoupling will become widespread in South Korea, and cause
ripple effects in Japan. To allay looming concerns about such a possible
decoupling, redeploying tactical nukes in South Korea is essential,”
says Cheon.
Yet, China may play a crucial role in decreasing tension in the
region. Ties are expected to become warmer between China and South Korea
under the new leaderships. The newly elected South Korean President Park
Geun-Hye has already sent a special envoy to Beijing and China’s new
Community party chief Xi Jinping has called for a resumption of the
six-party talks on North Korea.
While Park has indicated that she would take a more conciliatory
stance towards North Korea compared to her hawkish predecessor, China’s
Jinping was reported by the Korean Times as saying that he opposes the
development of nuclear weapons by North Korea.
Professor Shen Dingli, Director of the Centre for American Studies at
the Fudan University in Shanghai says that if the US wants stability and
peace in the Asia-Pacific region it could work with China to achieve it,
like what South Korea is now embarking on.
“Rebalancing by ganging up on China will undermine stability in East
Asia, and may ultimately backfire and cause damage to the US' own
interests,” he argues in a commentary published by China Daily. “So far
the US has insisted on ignoring the facts, confusing right and wrong and
taking sides in disputes that don't directly concern it," he says.
He advises the new Obama administration, that “the power shift in the
Asia-Pacific is unstoppable, and the US can only go with the flow,
respect the legitimate and reasonable demands of the emerging powers,
and help seek a fair and proper settlement of major disputes in the
region”.
|