Does the NPT need universal compliance in order to be effective?Yes, in a treaty such as the NPT, I believe it is underminded when certain nations don't join up. It seems logical to me that if my enemy doesn't want to play by the rules everyone else does, why should I? Without universality how do you expect compliance?
QUOTE
The nuclear weapon states have also failed to make the NPT universal and improve compliance mechanisms. The perceived credibility and effectiveness of the NPT is a measure of the strength of the entire nonproliferation regime and rests on the treaty being applied universally. Non-nuclear weapon states have questioned the wisdom of adhering to the NPT when India, Pakistan, and Israel all operate outside the treaty and leave the regime incomplete.
Noncompliance and illegal nuclear weapon programs are the most serious problems for the nonproliferation regime. The nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran are examples of how nations may abuse rights granted them under the NPT. If not effectively addressed, their violations will undermine the viability and integrity of the treaty and cause states to contemplate other means of preserving order and security in an increasingly dangerous world.
The issues of universality and compliance are closely related. Only a universal, action-oriented nonproliferation regime will command the respect of the world community and best address the noncompliance question.
Bulletin of the Atomic ScientistsAgain, yes. I'm not trying to get Iran or N. Korea off the hook here at all, they violated a treaty and should be punished. It seems to me though, if the goal truly is "non-poliferation" and not "keep nukes away from our enemy" then it would make more sense to condemn those who already have them (India, Pakistan, and Israel) and those who are about to have them (North Korea) just as much if not more than those who aspire to them (Iran).
The US has given special treatment to Israel concerning it's program even when it violates its own policy this does nothing but undermind the treaty and is viewed as hypocrisy by countries coming under fire such as Iran.
QUOTE
The U.S. continues to encourage the creation of a regional environment that allows for broader acceptance by all Middle East states of nonproliferation and disarmament norms and international standards. Key to these norms is universal adherence to the NPT. U.S. law and policy continue to prohibit the supply of significant nuclear items to non-nuclear weapon states, as defined in the NPT, that do not accept IAEA safeguards on all their nuclear activities.
citeQUOTE
Above all a heavy water reactor and an installation for processing irradiated fuel are being used to produce nuclear material of weapons purity. They are not under IAEA safeguards, although Israel is a member of this international organization.
Tel Aviv acknowledged that it had illegally imported critrons, an important element in creating contemporary models of nuclear weapons, from the United States in the early 1980's
citeI believe so. Non-adherence by Israel already caused problems at the NPT Review and Extension Conference in 1995.
QUOTE
At the NPT Review and Extension Conference in 1995, member nations expressed concern about the nuclear situation in the Middle East. Egypt opposed the indefinite extension of the treaty on the grounds that, as long as key states (primarily Israel) remained outside the treaty, the regime was "incapable of safeguarding Egypt."
Lebanon and Libya also voted against the Extension due to Israel's non-adherence.
And as I mentioned in the other thread, I believe one of the reasons Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons is as a counter balance to Israel. To me, it seems that we should've put pressure on Israel a long time ago to be open and up front about its nuclear program instead of our policy of "don't ask, don't tell."
QUOTE
Iran may have four motivations of nuclear development: 1.) to have a deterrent to Iraqi conventional forces and weapons of mass destruction, 2.) to have a measure of lessening American influences to the West Asia,
3.) to have a countermeasure against Israeli conventional forces and nuclear forces, and 4.) to have a symbol of an Asian great power.
citeWithout pressuring Israel, I don't believe we have any hope of a Middle East free of WMDs.
QUOTE
"The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy", Seymour M. Hersch wrote in September 1992:
"The nuclear threshold States and there are as many 40 other nations that could go nuclear in the next generation are watching America's treatment of Israel with interest. If there is no significant effort in the coming years to resolve the nuclear issue in the Middle East, Washington will have seriously diminished its ability to limit the emergence of independent nuclear powers. The result will be a post-cold war peace populated by an ever growing number of nations anxiously arming themselves with nuclear weapons as they grimly take the measure of one another."