Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Some manage to say 'no? to nuclear aims

By DAVID ADAMS
Published October 21, 2006

North Korea’s recent nuclear bomb test raises the specter of another country joining the club of nuclear nations. But history shows that it’s possible to step back from the brink.

Has any country ever completely abandoned fully developed nuclear weapons?

Yes, one. In 1991 South Africa announced a ban on further development of nuclear weapons and signed the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It destroyed all six of its nuclear weapons.

Have other countries been persuaded to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons technology before reaching their goal?

Yes. The list includes countries as diverse as Sweden, Switzerland, South Korea, Taiwan, Libya, Brazil and Argentina.

What persuaded them?

The reasons vary from country to country, but there are several common factors, according to Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, an independent group that promotes public understanding of arms control issues.

The most important force is the global nuclear nonproliferation system, which uses a regimen of carrots and sticks to convince countries to pursue only peaceful nuclear use — electricity generation, for example. This involves limiting trade in nuclear energy technology, materials considered to have “dual use” for energy and weapons, as well as conventional military weapons.

The reduction of regional security tensions also helps, which is generally the product of lengthy diplomatic negotiations.

Domestic developments, such as greater democratic transparency, also make it harder to hide secret weapons programs from international view.

What happened in Argentina and Brazil?

In the 1970s and 1980s, the military governments of Brazil and Argentina developed nuclear enrichment programs capable of mastering all phases of nuclear energy production, including those with potential military applications.

How close did they come to building nuclear weapons?

That remains a matter of debate. They both certainly had the capacity.

Brazil has its own uranium deposits and manufactures missiles and aircraft capable of carrying nuclear weapons. If Brazil had intended to develop a nuclear capability, analysts say it could have become completely self-sufficient in a matter of a few years.

What persuaded Brazil and Argentina to abandon their weapons programs?

All three factors mentioned above were at play.

“This was something they decided they weren’t going to do anymore. It was a top-down decision,” says Sharon Squassoni, a former U.S. arms control negotiator.

There was a big democratic change as both countries were emerging from decades of military rule. The civilian governments ordered the weapons programs shut down.

It was largely “self-enlightenment,” confirms Jose Goldemberg, Brazil’s former minister of science and technology in the early 1990s.

“The president asked me, 'How much better off will Brazil be with nuclear weapons?’” Goldemberg said. “I told him, 'As far I know we’ll be worse off. We’ll even have the U.S. and USSR pointing some of their missiles in our direction.’”

U.S. economic restrictions on the sale of sensitive technology were also an issue for the government at the time, he added.

The state oil company, Petrobras, and the Brazilian national space program had difficulty obtaining large computers from the United States due to concerns they had a “dual use” for enriching uranium for Brazil’s nuclear fuel cycle.

Goldemberg said he had to travel to Washington specifically to explain Brazil’s purpose for wanting to purchase the computer technology.

Restricting access to U.S. markets is one of the most effective tools of the nonproliferation regimen, said Graham Allison, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, and a former U.S. assistant secretary of defense under President Bill Clinton.

“The state that agrees to forgo nuclear weapons gets access to international support, including the U.S.,” he said. That includes access to funding by international institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, where the United States wields enormous influence.

During the Carter administration U.S. officials also intervened with West Germany to halt the shipment of Siemens equipment to Brazil, which Washington feared could be destined for its nuclear weapons program.
 
What steps has each country taken to meet international nonproliferation accords?

In December 1991, Brazil and Argentina signed a nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Authority in Vienna. A joint system for on-site inspections and inventory accounting is monitored by the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials.

Both countries have now signed the nonproliferation treaty.

How successful has the Argentine-Brazilian agreement been?

“It’s been one of the verifiance successes for the nonproliferation system,” says Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, a nuclear expert at the University of Nebraska. “Both countries’ nuclear materials and technology are now geared to peaceful methods.”

What lessons are there for Iran and North Korea?

“Iran is mistaken if they think nuclear weapons are necessary to make you a great power,” Goldemberg said. Brazil’s weapons program was “really a distraction” from the country’s enormous social problems. “It was a relief to get rid of it,” he said.

Some Bush administration critics say the United States has not sufficiently explored all diplomatic avenues. But others say rogue nations such as North Korea are tough to deal with.

“The president is spot-on. They have played this correctly,” said Jerry Paul, former deputy administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration. “There are countries and leaders who have peaceful intent. As to rogue nations with nonpeaceful intent, we do the best we can with diplomacy, but we also have the additional line of defense with pro-active measures to prevent their acquisition of technology and materials.”

Besides North Korea and Iran, what are the future challenges to nonproliferation?

On Monday, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Authority, told a nuclear non-proliferation conference that as many as 30 nations “in a very short time” could have technology that would let them someday produce nuclear weapons. Those countries may be “hedging their bets” by developing civilian energy programs that could quickly be converted into arms programs, he said.
Driving those aspirations are high oil prices and increased evidence of global warming, as well as regional rivalries.

David Adams can be reached at dadams@sptimes.com or (305)361-6393. Read his alternative fuels blog at blogs.tampabay.com/energy/

[Last modified October 21, 2006, 08:16:34]