NPT in Crisis
© Valdai Discussion Club
On March 10, the Valdai Club held an expert discussion dedicated to the 52nd anniversary of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), tiled NPT in the 21st Century: Is the World on the Eve of a Nuclear War? The discussion was moderated by Andrey Sushentsov, Programme Director of the Valdai Club.
Anton Khlopkov, director of the Centre for Energy and Security, pointed out that the original main goal of the NPT was to prevent the emergence of new nuclear states - and in this regard, the effectiveness of the treaty turned out to be very high. Despite its considerable age, the treaty fulfils the task and helps to resolve crises in the nuclear sphere. However, in recent years there have been trends towards the selective fulfilment of obligations under the non-proliferation regime, as many US actions showed. Moreover, there is also a tendency towards selective usage, turning the NPT into a mechanism for serving the geopolitical goals of some states.
Robert Legvold, Marshall D. Shulman Professor Emeritus at Columbia University, and Director of the Euro-Atlantic Security Initiative, noted that the role of the NPT in preventing war is not so simple. It prevents an increase in the number of nuclear powers, but its role in bilateral relations between the two leading nuclear powers, Russia and the United States, is far from unambiguous. In a certain sense, it was originally aimed at ensuring the nuclear security of the United States from the USSR - and in this capacity it gave rise to a kind of asymmetry. At the moment, bilateral nuclear relations between Russia and the United States are noticeably deteriorating, and it is on their state that the effectiveness of the NPT will depend.
Igor Vishnevetsky, Deputy Director of the Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control at the Russian Foreign Ministry, stressed the importance of the treaty, saying that at a time when the entire arms control system is under enormous pressure and many agreements are being eroded, the NPT "still stands as it stood", and there are no attempts to question its significance. He also pointed out the need to prevent a nuclear war, which would inevitably bring about the end of human civilisation, adding that nuclear disarmament should go hand in hand with general and complete disarmament and these tracks should not be separated. “Now many processes are frozen, and this is a cause for concern. Strategic stability and a non-politicised dialogue are needed,” the diplomat believes.
Rakesh Sood, Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, and Permanent Representative of India to the UN Conference on Disarmament (2013-2014), polemically pointed out the NPT's disconnection from political and technical realities. “The treaty is going through a midlife crisis, and it is not known whether it survives this crisis,” he admitted. According to Sood, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was created in a completely different reality, and states should understand its limitations and look for ways to overcome them through constructive dialogue.
Anton Khlopkov, director of the Centre for Energy and Security, pointed out that the original main goal of the NPT was to prevent the emergence of new nuclear states - and in this regard, the effectiveness of the treaty turned out to be very high. Despite its considerable age, the treaty fulfils the task and helps to resolve crises in the nuclear sphere. However, in recent years there have been trends towards the selective fulfilment of obligations under the non-proliferation regime, as many US actions showed. Moreover, there is also a tendency towards selective usage, turning the NPT into a mechanism for serving the geopolitical goals of some states.
Robert Legvold, Marshall D. Shulman Professor Emeritus at Columbia University, and Director of the Euro-Atlantic Security Initiative, noted that the role of the NPT in preventing war is not so simple. It prevents an increase in the number of nuclear powers, but its role in bilateral relations between the two leading nuclear powers, Russia and the United States, is far from unambiguous. In a certain sense, it was originally aimed at ensuring the nuclear security of the United States from the USSR - and in this capacity it gave rise to a kind of asymmetry. At the moment, bilateral nuclear relations between Russia and the United States are noticeably deteriorating, and it is on their state that the effectiveness of the NPT will depend.
Igor Vishnevetsky, Deputy Director of the Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control at the Russian Foreign Ministry, stressed the importance of the treaty, saying that at a time when the entire arms control system is under enormous pressure and many agreements are being eroded, the NPT "still stands as it stood", and there are no attempts to question its significance. He also pointed out the need to prevent a nuclear war, which would inevitably bring about the end of human civilisation, adding that nuclear disarmament should go hand in hand with general and complete disarmament and these tracks should not be separated. “Now many processes are frozen, and this is a cause for concern. Strategic stability and a non-politicised dialogue are needed,” the diplomat believes.
Rakesh Sood, Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, and Permanent Representative of India to the UN Conference on Disarmament (2013-2014), polemically pointed out the NPT's disconnection from political and technical realities. “The treaty is going through a midlife crisis, and it is not known whether it survives this crisis,” he admitted. According to Sood, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was created in a completely different reality, and states should understand its limitations and look for ways to overcome them through constructive dialogue.
Egypt and BRICS: Priorities for Engagement
24.04.2024
What’s Perpetual Peace Got to Do with RUBIO?
23.04.2024
