Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons to serve whose interest?

That the physicist and self-proclaimed absolute pacifist Albert Einstein inspired the development of the most devastating weapon of mass destruction, the atomic bomb, is no secret. His theory of relativity concludes that a large amount of energy could be released from a small amount of matter, hence the equation E=MC2, meaning that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared (whatever that means). This was demonstrated by the results of the so-called Manhattan Project — a projected initiated by President Theodore Roosevelt on recommendations of Einstein to develop the bomb on suspicion that Nazi Germany could be on a sinister path. So began the nuclear race.

At present there are a number of countries which are known and have declared to possess nuclear weapons. Of those only five countries, namely the United States, France, United Kingdom, Russia and the Communist Republic of China are recognised as nuclear weapon states in terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, although other countries like India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are also nuclear states. Incidentally, the five “nuclear weapon states” are the permanent members of the UN Security Council (I smell a fish).

South Africa during the days of brutal apartheid repression belonged to this Boys’ Club of nuclear weapons; it was, however, the only stupid country in the world to voluntarily give up its nuclear weapons capability. As it became clearer South Africa’s voluntary disarmament in the 1990s was driven by fear of a black government having access to the nuclear arsenal. The destruction of South Africa’s nuclear weapons occurred when it was evidently clear that the ANC was to take over the government. Perhaps with hindsight, given the number of imbeciles and convicted criminals in the ANC NEC who could potentially be in cabinet from 2009, that was the right move.

The so-called “nuclear weapons states” are signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which among other things calls for its signatories to “ease international tension and strengthen international trust so as to create someday the conditions for a halt to the production of nuclear weapons, and treaty on general and complete disarmament that liquidates, in particular, nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles from national arsenals.”

Article VI of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty requires of its signatories, “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.”

The brouhaha surrounding Iran’s quest to join the Boys’ Club appears to be more hypocritical than intending to serve any specific interests of all member states to the United Nations. It is alleged that Iran poses a threat to international peace and security, and it must therefore at all costs be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons; a threat supposedly arising from regular sabre-rattling between Israel and Iran. Similar allegations of being a threat to international peace and security were levelled at North Korea not so long ago.

The hostile reaction by the Boys’ Club to the desire by other countries to also possess aspirational weapons of mass destruction, appear to fly against what is contained in the treaty they are all signatories to. Nothing in the conduct of the Boys’ Club expresses “good faith” in their dealings with other countries. Without any legal background, I would suppose that a treaty is binding, in similar fashion to any contract, only between parties which are its signatories. It therefore defies any form of logic that non-signatories would be expected by certain bullies to bind themselves to something they are not party to.

If the Boys’ Club is determined to see a nuclear-free world, it would be exemplary that the course to complete nuclear disarmament be led by them. Common sense dictates that super powers lead by example, not through intimidation and coercion; by driving fear in other less powerful countries in order that they remain so. If the UNSC member states had good intentions, they would have begun by sending their little Chihuahua, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to oversee the disarmament of the “nuclear weapon states” which pose more threat to international peace and security than some insignificant countries in some corner of the world somewhere.

Every country has the right of self-defence. It is in the interest of every country that it possesses the capacity to respond to any threat in equal or greater proportion to that particular threat it is faced with. Each country must be allowed the right to determine its own destiny. With each country readily standing with a sweaty finger on the nuclear trigger, it is without doubt that the sentiment and popular demand of peace would spread around the world like wildfire.