http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Iran-says-probe-needed-to-verify-US-warhead-claims/614952/

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Iran-says-probe-needed-to-verify-US-warhead-claims/614952/

An Indian Perception on NPT

An Indian Perception on NPT
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
___________________________________________________________

NPT, a blemished Treaty:

It is an open secret even amongst the ardent defenders of NPT that they will have to concede the Treaty as an imperfect one. While three nuclear powers—the U.S., the U.K. and the U.S.S.R.—are parties to it, France and China are not.

The Treaty which was opened for signature on 01 July,1968 got signed on the day by U.S, U.K and erstwhile Soviet Union. It came into force while U.S ratified it on 05 March, 1970. China and France acceded to it in 1992.Brazil became a State party to it in 1997.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, intended to restrain the spread of nuclear armaments with the sole idea of eliminating them altogether has fundamentally failed while the four key nuclear nations – India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea were not parties to it. The first three have never been signatories. N. Korea had withdrawn from it in 2003.

The Treaty consists of provisions aimed at limiting the spread of nuclear weapons’ technology. The signatories to the Treaty are agreed not to transfer nuclear weapons or technology to any other state. Further these countries have agreed that they would not receive, develop or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. They are not only agreed to submit safeguards against proliferations established by IAEA but also to co-operate in the development of peaceful nuclear technology. They have to continue negotiations for ending the arms race and limit the spread of technology. The time limit for the Treaty was fixed for 25 years, to be reviewed in every 5 years. Later on all signatories decided by consensus extend the Treaty indefinitely at the Review Conference in New York on 11th May, 1995.

The main force behind the NPT was the concern for safety while many nations became nuclear powers. The cold war situation worsened while many nuclear players condensed security for all, intensifying the risk of nuclear catastrophe at many corners of the world. In 1958, the NPT initiative was launched by Frank Aiken, Irish Minister for External Affairs. When submitted for signature in 1968 Finland signed the Treaty. By 1992 all five nuclear powers –U.S.A, U.K, France, China and U.S.S.R had signed. The Treaty was renewed in 1995.Certain NPT signatories gave up nuclear programs. Though South Africa initiated a nuclear program evidently with the help of Israel in 1970 and even ventured a test in the Atlantic Ocean in 1979, it renounced the whole program upon signing the NPT in 1991 and set an example to destroy the stock of nuclear arsenal. After the disintegration of Soviet Union, many of its former Republics either destroyed or transferred to Russia, all of their weapons which were inherited from the Union.

While the global initiative for NPT was getting momentum, NATO entered secret agreements, of course with the knowledge of Soviet Union which helped America in providing weapons to be deployed by, and stored in other NATO countries. There were arguments against this as an act of proliferation violating Articles of the Treaty. U.S.A came out with counter arguments stating that the transfer was never intended and will not become a breach of NPT. There existed conspiracies by the nuclear-nations right from the very formation of the Treaty. India would have attained nuclear capability solely due to the unquestionable self-defense motives, but later on kept a firm grip on using nuclear technology for wide-ranging peaceful purposes, mainly to combat the energy crisis. Still India is being plagued by new conspiracies from the propagandists of Non-Proliferation movement.

As far as India is concerned, NPT creates only a club of ‘nuclear haves’ and ‘nuclear have-nots’ as it limits legal possession of weapons only by countries that developed nuclear arsenal upon testing prior to 1967.So far the Treaty could not explain the ethical reasons for maintaining such a distinction. This proves that NPT is flawed and the powerful nations at the helms of affairs should find a way out to facilitate for an acceptable solution to prompt countries like India to sign the Treaty. Even by opting out of NPT, due to a clean track record, India could get NSG waiver with the support of U.S.A. This may be a break-through in the renewed Indo-U.S relations. This will no way justify Obama to thrust on non-proliferation issues to tame the emerging regional power- India. Nor this exemption will ever compel India to sign the Treaty as expected by any antagonist nuclear nations.

Can India become part of NPT?

How can anyone expect India with so much of threats from across the boundaries to sign NPT while two neighbors China and Pakistan have stockpiles of nuclear weapons? Unfortunately due to host of geographical and political reasons, of course known to the world, India is entangled into host of adverse situations wherein not even a peace-loving simple villager will assent for his nation to be a signatory as a ‘non nuclear weapons state’ in NPT. Any Treaty will be acceptable only when a signatory nation feels like a beneficiary and served the purpose of a common interest. Unquestionably India cannot afford to deprive of its security.

India is one of the countries opted to have the ‘No-first-use’ policy, pledging for not using nuclear weapons unless attacked by an enemy country by nuclear weapons. Though not signed NPT or CTBT, India has already declared a unilateral moratorium on testing nuclear weapons which is appreciated by a large majority of countries around the globe.

Probably, at present the nuclear war-head numbers may be comparatively less from the Cold War period. Still an estimated potentially destructive 23,000 war heads in existence and many times powerful than the ones that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. When the nuclear armed states have stock piles of weapons which can be launched within minutes, how will they put forth serious proactive steps to the common commitment for a nuclear weapon-free world?

Hiroshima, being the world’s first city to endure with an atomic bombing had the privilege to be the venue for the meeting of the International Panel on nuclear proliferation and disarmament in October, 2009. The ICNND was co-chaired by former Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi and Former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans. It was important for the city in Japan, the nuclear victim to become a venue to advocate for a world without nuclear weapons as commented by Kawaguchi after meetings with Yasuo Fukuda,Prime Minister of Japan.

The International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND),a joint initiative of Japan and Australia, looks forward to contribute to the current global effort mainly for creating a new impetus to review the threat of nuclear weapons and its’ complete elimination. The nuclear threat demands serious attention together with that of new threats like global recession and prospects of pandemic, climate change etc. Nuclear weapons will always be a big risk to the whole world as at any time there is a chance that either any state or even non-state actors can misuse it intentionally or accidently.

The NPD Panel had understood the very heartening initiatives of India that demonstrably strengthen the Indian Stand and it will never go unnoticed while reviewing the issue of non-proliferation.

The Final Report of the commission was released in January, 2010 on the hope of building a consensus in the run-up to a Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in May, 2010.

In fact, the commission decided to back off from its initially intended arms reduction goal due to objections for many members. The Panel targeted reducing the number of nuclear warheads in the world from more than 20,000 at present to 1,000 or even fewer by 2025 and to prompt every nuclear State to commit to a no-first-use doctrine.

The Three-Phase action agenda consists of short, medium and long terms covering periods to 2012, 2025 and beyond 2025 to achieve its key recommendations. The commission members agreed to declare by 2012 that the sole purpose of the retained arsenals will be to deter others from using such weapons against them or their allies! It is evident from this that the big-shot nuclear countries are not having any ideas in the near future to deviate from their despotic attitudes or to gracefully obliterate stockpiles of arms hanging atop the world.

It is to be noted that the Canberra Commission , in its report released in 1996 launched by the Australian government had already called for nuclear powers-U.K, U.S.A, France, Russia and China to initiate actions to halt nuclear testing and adopt no-first-use doctrine but without a specific timetable. The latest Commission in its report envisaged the road map for the ultimate goal of a world free of nuclear weapons as advocated by U.S President Barack Obama in the U.N. Security Council!

By 2012, the commission is set out to bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) into force to conclude negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) so as to reach an agreement on equitable sharing of the cost burden of disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The CTBT will ban all nuclear tests and upon finalizing FMCT, production of fissile materials for weapons or devises will be totally prohibited.

Beyond 2025 nuclear states will be pushed toward the total abolition of nuclear arms, but again without any time limit for the same as the so called long term agenda is included just to motivate other states currently out of NPT coverage. Certainly the report is expected to incorporate steps to non-proliferation measures against Israel, Pakistan and India. It is implied that the Conference in May 2010 will look beyond the time and grapple with the critical issue of the commitment of only those countries who have not yet joined the NPT and those who walked away from it or whose decision still remains uncertain.
There are criticisms against the NSG exception granted to India allowing global nuclear trade and fuel commerce. ICNND Commission declared that it will weaken the NPT! Further it wants to impose the condition of signing CTBT on India!

Gareth Evan, the Co-Chairman in the two day regional summit at New Delhi while urging global partners for a safer place by dismantling nuclear weapons asserted that India, Pakistan and Israel who are out of NPT have a vital role to play in the global effort to stream proliferations. In his opinion, if India and Pakistan indicate at least signing NPT, and if U.S and China were to ratify (not going to happen as the whole world knows) the CTBT and then the other countries would follow suit.

The other ICNND Co- Chairman Yoriko Kawaguchi expressed concern that the non-state actors or terrorists might get hold of nuclear material and misuse in the form of bombs. She had a valid reason to speculate that either Taliban or various terror outfits in Pakistan attain nuclear capabilities and try their hands to threaten the world?

Unfortunately, Pakistan never intensified actions against certain terrorist groups as the intelligence agencies even see them as their ‘future strategic assets’ against India! Recently there were news reports on the collaboration of the terror network in Afghanistan with local insurgent groups in the Pakistan- Afghan boarder and housing training camps which are grown conveniently smaller and more mobile. Reports on these camps captured news headlines in recent months as the U.S investigation Officers probed the accused New York terror suspect Najibullah Zazi. The Afghan expatriate reportedly flew to Pakistan in the year 2008 and camped at Peshawar in the North-West frontier where he underwent training on weapons and explosives.

Recently, the terror-episode of plotters David Headley and Tahawwur Hussain Rana who were in Pakistan and India in various cities on different occasions at a time when there were a series of terror attacks at both countries, revealed more terror-conspiracies. All nuclear installations in India are put on high alert after the investigations which proved that the David Headley purportedly visited places with close proximity to some of these highly vulnerable locations.

India has no avowed desire for parity with China in respect of nuclear capabilities and will not think of counter-weighing the neighbor. No nuclear or non-nuclear nation will suspect the integrity of India as they know that India always gives a thrust for positive negotiation and disintegration of any pressure even at the verge of a war and is desirous of peace in the region. At the same time few may find it hard to believe this reality while provoked by certain conspirator forces to imagine that India nurses an ostensible aspiration for nuclear weapons’ Capability to show off regional superiority or just to maintain the bargaining power!

The ICNND Regional Meeting at New Delhi in October, 2009 had discussed on the NPT pursuing nuclear disarmament preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and the simultaneous usage of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, mainly for growing energy demands. The regional security dynamics were also analyzed in the context of scope for CBMs (confidence building measures).Since there prevailed mounting tensions in certain international boarders and in the absence of progress in resolving the same, the big question will still remains unanswered…… how can the nuclear arsenals could be contained? It is very comprehensible that there are regional challenges to be primarily addressed to create conducive state of affairs to move forward the nuclear non-proliferation. The global effort must be synchronized for addressing these regional challenges!

NPT through the eyes of U.S and E.U:

U.S.A and European Union had jointly reiterated their commitment to preserve and strengthen the authority and integrity of NPT in the summit held at Washington on 3rd November, 2009. The task of U.S.A and E.U was to apply pressure on India and other non-signatories, to assent for joining the NPT as ‘non-nuclear weapons states’. The summit endorsed consent for the initiatives for new protocols and comprehensive nuclear safeguards prescribed by IAEA. It also advised Iran to interact with U.S.A, U.K, Russia, China, France, Germany (5 +1) to move forward the dialogue commenced at Geneva on 1st October, 2009. The summit welcomed the commitment of U.S.A and Russia towards a new agreement to replace the outmoded START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty)! The big question then was that …….Can U.S.A and Russia come together and reduce their nuclear arsenals dramatically and drive the implementation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)? If U.S takes the initiative to declare the no-first–use doctrine, will other NATO members follow suit? Why America still reluctant, off-track and plainly callous on the subject?

CTBT is adopted by General Assembly of United Nations and 150 countries have been ratified the same. The Treaty will come into force only when all 44 countries mentioned in the Annex II ratify it. Of these only 32 countries have signed and ratified, 9 countries which includes China, Egypt, Iran, Indonesia, Israel and U.S have signed but not ratified. Three countries – India, Pakistan and North Korea are still not signed it. The CTBT calls for a total ban on nuclear tests.

Nuclear weapons states conducted more than 20000 tests during the past 5 – 6 decades and now they have a stockpile of over 30,000 weapons! India wants them to first disarm these weapons and demand for cessation of tests by the late runners in the so called nuclear-race. India precisely objects the discriminatory Treaty and is quite affirm not to sign the same.

Sometimes, Obama who is celebrating as a champion of peace with the Nobel adornment may be keen that U.S ratifies CTBT, but it will be unattainable for him to muster two-thirds majority in the U.S Senate! How can he justify any expectation on India to signing up NPT and CTBT? Can U.S revamping these tainted Treaties to the satisfaction all nations? US-EU formation should explore the prospects for a refurbished NPT and CTBT to dispel the consternation of non-signatory countries.

The demanding need of India to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council is being declined in anticipation of signing these Treaties? U.S never signally for a any good news in during the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit at Washington on 21st November,2009 though many U.S experts for South Asia urged President Obama to seize the opportunity. The Indian born Ashley J. Tellis, Senior Associate in the Carnegie Endowment even opinioned then that Obama’s positive announcement on this matter will elevate him at par with his predecessor George W.Bush who proclaimed the landmark civil nuclear deal with India during Prime Minister Manamohan Singh’s previous State visit to U.S in 2005.


India voted in favour of the German sponsored resolution at the IAEA on referring the Iran’s nuclear programme yet again to the U.N Security Council. Of course India only joined with other 24 nations including U.S while voting for the resolution the nuclear watch-dog IAEA that censures Tehran’s ventures at Qom. India with lot of apprehension cautioned against the resolution becoming the basis of a renewed punitive approach for fresh sanctions. IAEA meeting in Vienna expressed serious concern on the potential military aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme. The resolution and the resulting vote of the IAEA’s decision making body comprising 35 nations became a historical event on the global nuclear scenario.


The world knows that even though India has not signed NPT, it had secured its nuclear deal with U.S and also concluded parallel agreements with Russia and France. Yet, India voted against Tehran at the same forum on Friday 27th November,2009 along with the votes of Russia and China, which had abstained in 2006 while assisting Iran against Western diplomatic moves aimed to stun the perceived Iranian moves at deviously building a nuclear weapon.


While opting out of NPT, India has behaved with restraint on the issue of proliferation. For the past 60 years, it has campaigned against the idea of the nuclear weapon itself and has advocated annihilated stock-piles of bombs possessed by nuclear nations in a phased manner. Iran, on the other hand, has given signal for its mission to develop atomic weapons, although it denies this. India has certain apprehension and maintains reservations on Iran’s weapon programme.


Certainly India cannot prefer additional weapons’ powers in its neighborhood than already enough it has. India is very much discomfited by the A.Q. Khan disclosures that the former Pakistan nuclear establishment chief had business links with Iran. Further there is a global concern that Iran due to its geographical location and its presence in the Gulf region as a member of OPEC, may use its nuclear power and possession of bombs for its influence in the region. Even it will lead to acquisition of nuclear weapons by some Arab nations which are prone to use it obstinately. Nuclear weapons of mass destruction will de-stabilize the oil-rich Gulf region, with a negative impact on Asia’s, particularly India’s long-term energy supplies.


U- Turn by IRAN:


India voted in favour of the German sponsored resolution at the IAEA on referring the Iran’s nuclear programme yet again to the U.N Security Council. Of course India only joined with other 24 nations including U.S while voting for the resolution the nuclear watch-dog IAEA that censures Tehran’s ventures at Qom. India with lot of apprehension cautioned against the resolution becoming the basis of a renewed punitive approach for fresh sanctions. IAEA meeting in Vienna expressed serious concern on the potential military aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme. The resolution and the resulting vote of the IAEA’s decision making body comprising 35 nations became a historical event on the global nuclear scenario.


India had similarly voted against Iran in September 2005, shocking longstanding NAM allies by not abstaining, as had even Russia and China. In February 2006, the IAEA board had also passed a resolution against Iran. The IAEA’s outgoing Director General Md.El Baradei stated in his report that all efforts to negotiate with Iran to address the international community’s concern over its clandestine enrichment programme had reached a dead-end.


This time the resolution against Iran was backed by all five permanent members the U.N. Security Council. 3 Countries- Cuba, Venezuela and Malaysia voted in favour of Iran while 6 countries-Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, South Africa and Brazil abstained from voting. India voted along with U.S, China and major powers in favour of the resolution sponsored by Germany on referring Iran’s nuclear programmes yet again into the U.N. Security Council. The resolution was endorsed by six world powers - the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany - reflecting a rare measure of unity on Iran.

Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh informed at an interactive session at the Council for Foreign Relations in Washington that he had unambiguously explained on various occasions that India will not support nuclear weapon ambitions of Iran as it is a signatory to the NPT. “As such, it has all the rights that it got with this membership of the NPT, that is use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,” he added.

When Iran did a U-turn on its deal to remove most of its nuclear stockpile to overseas in return for materials for its medical research reactors, China obliged to listen the advice of National Security Advisor of U.S for supporting the IAEA resolution against Iran. After the voting, Russia had urged Iran to react with full seriousness to the signal contained in the resolution and to ensure full co-operation with IAEA.


The President’s announcement of building 10 new uranium enrichment sites were remarked as a ‘political bluff’ by certain western nations. Md.Ahmadinejad rejected this as well as the doubts on Iran expressed by western nations stating that Iran would never be able to make cascades of centrifuge. He was very critical on the comments leveled against Iran by the French Foreign Minister Kouchner rumoring that Iran plays a ‘dangerous game’ with the order to build 10 new sites.


The Iranian President expressed that he suspects that Iran will be put under sanctions or militarily attacked against the opening of nuclear sites. He dispelled any fear on any sanctions and aggressors targeting Iran will regret for actions by the time they lay hands in the trigger.


He dispelled any fear on any sanctions and aggressors targeting Iran will regret for actions by the time they lay hands in the trigger. He confidently boasted that Iran being an important nation in the middle-east with an outstanding status could not be ignored and isolated by any state in the world. Iran with the technical know-how to enrich uranium up to 20% need not resort to get it processed outside the nation. He clarified that the Uranium Exchange Deal planned with Russia and France earlier for exchanging Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) for fuel use in Tehran reactor was just an effort for giving a chance to Powerful Nuclear nations to settle differences! He assured that he will keep open this proposal even now, but make the swap (LEU for fuel) inside the Iranian soil only.


U.S and western allies were rejoiced over the concerted action of IAEA which was often accused of being soft on Iran, U.S officials cautioned that the symbolic resolution was a long way from meaningful sanction from the Security Council. There is still hope on a negotiated deal with Iran before the end of the current year. The proposal to ship Iran’s uranium out of the country for processing into nuclear fuel and then transfer it back for use in medical reactors in Iran is now in jeopardy.


The overwhelming vote at the IAEA proved the unity and strength of the international community against the nuclear adventures of Iran. Robert Gibbs, the U.S Spokesman stated that “Indeed, the fact that 25 countries from all parts of the world cast their votes in favor shows the urgent need for Iran to address the growing international deficit of confidence in its intentions.” It is to be noted that U.S have been convincing Russia and China, the two permanent members of the Security Council most reluctant to imposing sanctions.


In fact North Korea exploited the same tactics to become a nuclear power, throwing out international inspectors and withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty when it ensured that it had a acquired a sufficient deterrent to defend any attack.

Libya was a signatory and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty .Though it was subjected to IAEA nuclear safeguards inspections, it daringly undertook a secret nuclear weapons development program in violation of its NPT obligations, using material and technology provided by the A.Q. Khan proliferation network—including actual nuclear weapons designed allegedly originating in China. Libya resorted to secret negotiations with the United States and the United Kingdom in March 2003 over potentially eliminating its WMD programs. In October 2003, Libya was embarrassed by the interdiction of a shipment of Pakistani-designed centrifuge parts sent from Malaysia, also as part of A. Q. Khan's proliferation ring. In December 2003, Libya announced that it had agreed to eliminate all its WMD ( Weapons Of Mass Destructions) programmes, permitted U.S. and British teams (as well as IAEA inspectors) into the country to assist this process and verify its completion.

The nuclear weapons designs, gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment, and other equipment—including prototypes for improved SCUD ballistic missiles—were removed from Libya by the United States. (Libyan chemical weapons stocks and chemical bombs were also destroyed on site with international verification, with Libya joining the Chemical Weapons Convention.) Libya's noncompliance with its IAEA safeguards was reported to the U.N. Security Council, but with no action taken, as Libya's return to compliance with safeguards and Article II of the NPT was welcomed.

New START?

U.S and Russia arrived at a consensus on annexes to the protocol of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty when Presidents Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev signed in at Prague on 8th April,2010. Thus now a new way is laid for Cold War foes to major nuclear arms cuts, wherein they will be allowed up to 1,550 deployed war heads which will be 30% less than the limit set in 2002. The new START restricts them to 700 air, ground and sub-marine launched intercontinental ballistic missiles that carry war heads. We have to wait and see until the annexes with procedures and technical compliances to implement the new START regime after ratification at both nations’ legislature.

NPT Review Conference,2010:

The NPT Review conference to be held at U.N headquarters in the from 3rd May,2010 onwards. The conference held every five years will be going to be again like a battle between nuclear haves and have- nots. May be the month long conference may go off like the 2005 conference. The main thrust of U.S will be to get the support of many a number of countries agreeing to punishment of nuclear cheaters and adopt adequate safeguards.

The west has sufficient reasons to believe that Iran’s atomic programme is solely aimed for nuclear weapons. Iran’s stalled nuclear fuel offer must be amended so as to ease the tensions with west. It will be one of the serious issues and there was no progress into the subject which was discussed by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Nottaki and Chief of IAEA Yukiya Amano. The months old plan necessitate Iran to ship 1,200 k.g of LEU which is more than enough for a single atom bomb if upgraded by purifying into a high level, to Russia and France so as make fuel for a medical reactor. Most probably Iran had to compromise with the global community or face punitive action.

U.S Nuclear Stockpile:

When the NPT Review conference, 2005 failed, many nations accused Bush administration of shrinking its disarmament obligations. The Obama administration would have taken note of this point while debating the same and gave the discretion to president to reveal the closely guarded secret, the size of U.S nuclear stockpile. This is the way U.S has to rightly enhance credentials when it attempts to shore up the fraying Treaty.

U.S Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be addressing the conference at U.N in New York. The Iranian President Md.Ahmadinejad will be attending the conference and will certainly repeat the demand for more global control over stockpiles of nuclear weapons. He may ultimately hijack the conference mainly to divert attention from Iran’s nuclear programme.

India, Pakistan and Israel have not siged the Treaty. During the recent Nuclear Summit hosted by US President Barack Obama, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had called on all states to join the NPT. "All member states who have not done so should participate in the NPT Treaty. That is an obligation of all member states of the UN," he said.

Ban noted that the conference is a chance to make progress "on disarmament, on compliance with non-proliferation commitments, including the pursuit of a nuclear weapons free-zone in the Middle East; on the peaceful use of nuclear energy". U.S will naturally push India and Pakistan to sign the Treaty. China-Pak deal on nuclear power plants will be matter of concern for U.S. Already US is disappointed that Pakistan is blocking negotiations on the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. It is fine that U.S recognized India’s stand as Ellen Tauscher, Under Secretary of State Arms Control had stated that "We don't believe we weakened the NPT in our peaceful civilian nuclear deal with India”.

There is visible resistance to sanctions by Russia and China and others like Brazil. Thus U.S. will also have to build a case around why it is pressing Iran so hard while Israel, which has nuclear weapons, must also be held responsible for jeoparadising peace in the region.

The confidential United States proposal for new UN sanctions on Iran includes the power to seize Iranian smuggling ships, curbs on investment in the energy sector, a comprehensive arms embargo and a boycott of the Revolutionary Guards.

U.S would have had a series of secret meetings in New York between Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the US, known as the E3+3. US proposals are likely to be sternly diluted by objections from China and Russia, as they enjoy veto-power on the UN Security Council, before they are voted on in the 15-nation council, probably in June,2010.

China has now agreed join discussions on the US proposal for a fourth round of UN sanctions to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Chinese President Hu Jintao told President Obama during the nuclear security summit in Washington Beijing on the same. Information from Diplomats however disclosed that both China and Russia have privately voiced objections to virtually all of the new sanctions being proposed. China had argued that North Korea openly flouted NPT and made bomb and Iran should not be treated as badly as Pyongyang.

The US wants the UN to confer power to seize Iranian ships caught transporting illegal weapons — a power granted over North Korean vessels in a UN sanctions package passed in June,2009.

Beijing objects to a proposed ban on new investments in Iran’s energy sector, fearing that it could hurt the Iranian people and disrupt Iranian energy supplies to China.

Russia opposes a comprehensive arms embargo because it would halt small arms imports into Iran from Russia, which are currently still legal.

Moscow also questions whether the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps can be sanctioned as an entire organisation because some of its activities are legitimate.

UN ambassadors from the six powers have met to continue the negotiations. Diplomats say that a vote is unlikely before June because it could interfere with the five-yearly NPT review conference being held at UN headquarters in May and risk destabilising Lebanon, which holds the Security Council’s rotating presidency next month.

There is speculation amongst experts in U.S that without NPT, the nuclear-armed power would triple within ten years. The nations that are well equipped to make nuclear bombs if they wanted to are believed to be West Germany, Israel, Sweden, India and Japan.

W.Germany may ratify the Treaty despite having a unique problem. Though the global pressure discouraged the nation focusing for atomic power long back in 1955, now some of the political leaders in W.Germany, notably the Finance Minister Franz Joseph Strauss had expressed second thoughts. He had denounced the Treaty in an exaggeration –as a disaster for W.Germany or “a Versailles of cosmic proportions”. The serious German objection, shared by Japan, is that a highly industrialised nation needs nuclear know-how to keep abreast of the competition in the latest technology. While NPT commits nuclear powers to offer peaceful applications of atomic energy to other nations, there will be a fear or hesitation for allowing inspection teams suspecting that there is a chance to copy or steal the technical know-how and loosing the competitive advantage.

There are some interesting developments in New York on Iranian President’s visit to New York. A group of Republican Senators has urged the administration to deny permission to Md.Ahmadinejad arguing that “it will make a mockery of the effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to rouge states and terrorist groups”. They felt that there is such compelling reason for allowing the Iranian president to enter United States. The Senator John Cornyn, the Republican Co-chair of the Senate India Caucus leading the group believes that as the NPT gets under way against the backdrop of U.S intensifying the push for a UNSC resolution to slap sweeping sanctions on Iran, they outlined the classification, designating Iran as a “ state sponsor of International Terrorism”. They have asserted that U.S has the legal authority to ban the Iranian President‘s visit.

The Senators have forgotten that in 2007 Bush administration had allowed the same Iranian President to for attending the U.N General Assembly session. During that visit he even delivered speech at the Columbia University sparking controversies then.

Will the conference of 189 Treaty members lead to disarmament of nuclear weapons while the non- nuclear nations pledge for discontinuing ambitions to make bombs?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~