Can the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty prevent a disaster? — Inside Story

[0:00] Hard-won norms are eroding, and arms control is died. [0:06] A dire warning from the United Nations about the waning influence of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. [0:13] It's being reviewed in the shadow of a tense ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran. [0:18] Will the agreement survive, and is it enough to prevent a nuclear disaster? [0:24] This is Inside Story. [0:25] Hello and welcome to the program. I'm Mohamed Jamjoum. [0:44] The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is the most extensive arms control agreement in the world. [0:50] It has 191 signatories, and is based on a simple principle. [0:54] Countries without nuclear weapons won't acquire them, and those that do will give them up. [1:00] But in recent years, implementation of the treaty has flagged. [1:03] Both experts and diplomats are warning the risk of a nuclear arms race has never been so high. [1:09] So, could a review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty produce stricter measures to eliminate the threat? [1:15] And how much of a danger does the U.S. and Israel's war with Iran pose globally? [1:20] We'll raise these questions with our guests, but first, this report from Dmitry Medvedenko. [1:24] The United Nations is conducting its five-year review of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. [1:33] The timing is crucial. [1:36] It comes against the backdrop of a joint military offensive by the U.S. and Israel against Iran [1:42] to ensure they say it will never have a nuclear weapon. [1:46] The U.S. is a nuclear-armed state, and Israel is widely believed to have a nuclear arsenal. [1:52] The prospects of a new nuclear arms race are looming over us, the scale of which we are yet to fathom. [1:59] The original five nuclear powers are the United States, Russia, the U.K., France, and China. [2:06] They tested atomic weapons before 1967. [2:10] Three years later, the Non-Proliferation Treaty was established based on three principles. [2:15] To prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament, [2:22] and to promote cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. [2:26] Since then, at least three more countries have obtained atomic weapons. [2:31] India, shortly after the treaty was enacted, and Pakistan in the 1990s. [2:37] Neither has signed the treaty. [2:39] North Korea signed in 1985, but withdrew in 2003. [2:45] And Israel maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity. [2:49] It, too, has not signed the treaty. [2:52] Does Israel have nuclear capabilities and nuclear weapons? Yes or no? [2:58] We've always said that we won't be the first to introduce it, so we haven't introduced it. [3:03] But that's not an answer to the question. Do you have them or do you not? [3:06] We never call an annihilation of any country. It's as good an answer as you're going to get. [3:09] Iran signed the NPT, and it's adamant it has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, [3:16] something the treaty guarantees. [3:18] Low enriched uranium is used to generate energy in power plants. [3:22] However, since the United States withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, [3:27] the country has enriched uranium to 60%. [3:30] Far above civilian purposes, but not yet weapons grade. [3:34] And for President Donald Trump, that's a red line. [3:37] And we want no enrichment, but we also want the enriched uranium. [3:43] The treaty holds countries accountable through political pressure rather than binding enforcement. [3:49] But the UN chief says its principles are being ignored. [3:52] Today, a state of collective amnesia has taken hold. [3:58] Nuclear cybers rattle once more. [4:02] Mistrust rules the day. [4:05] Hard-won norms are eroding. [4:08] And arms control is dying. [4:10] Many world leaders are concerned the U.S. and Israel's war against Iran could end up being an incentive for other countries to procure nuclear weapons as a deterrent, [4:22] something the non-proliferation treaty was designed to prevent. [4:26] Dimitri Medvedenko, Al Jazeera, for Insight Story. [4:30] All right, let's go ahead and bring in our guests. [4:36] From Vienna, we're joined by Tarek Raouf. [4:39] He's the former head of verification and security policy coordination at the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. [4:47] Kelsey Davenport is in Bozeman, Montana. [4:49] She's the director for non-proliferation policy at the U.S. Arms Control Association. [4:54] And in Princeton, New Jersey, is Sayed Hossein Mousavian, a former Iranian nuclear negotiator. [4:59] A warm welcome to all of you. [5:00] And thanks so much for joining us today on Inside Story. [5:02] Tarek Raouf, let me start with you today. [5:04] In 2020, you wrote an overview of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as it marked its 50th anniversary. [5:11] You said that the chasm between the nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states had been deepening, [5:17] and that if you took that together with collapsing nuclear arms control architecture, [5:21] the divide has brought the NPT to an inflection point. [5:25] Where, from your vantage point, do things stand now? [5:30] Well, now things are a little bit worse. [5:32] The chasm between the nuclear weapons states and the non-nuclear weapons states has deepened. [5:38] Now, for the first time in the history of the non-proliferation treaty, [5:41] there is no existing nuclear arms control or arms control agreement between Russia and the United States. [5:49] The last one, New START, expired on the 5th of February. [5:53] Both of these countries can put more nuclear warheads on their existing ballistic missiles and bombers without having to make new ones. [6:03] Russia de-ratified the nuclear test ban treaty last year. [6:08] And recently, the United States accused China of carrying out secret small-yield nuclear tests. [6:15] And the U.S. threatened that it, too, could join Russia and China in resuming some form of nuclear testing. [6:23] So, the atmosphere for the review conference, which started yesterday in New York, is very charged. [6:29] And already yesterday, unfortunately, the states began to fight with each other. [6:34] So, Tarek, certainly, as of now, you're not optimistic about where things stand. [6:40] I want to ask you, though, looking backwards a bit, how effective has the treaty been until now? [6:46] How much did the treaty help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons since its inception in 1970? [6:54] Well, the general consensus is that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of the global regime for nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. [7:02] The spread of nuclear weapons has been contained to only nine countries. [7:07] At one time, President Kennedy was concerned that by the end of the decade of the 1960s, that there could be 15 or 20 countries with nuclear weapons. [7:17] The non-proliferation treaty, in a sense, recognizes China, France, United Kingdom, Russia, and United States as nuclear weapon states. [7:26] But it does not recognize North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, and India as nuclear weapon states. [7:32] We refer to them as nuclear armed states because they're outside the global regime, much to their chagrin. [7:40] These countries are constantly now criticizing the non-proliferation treaty. [7:44] And then the recent attacks on Iran's safeguarded nuclear facilities. [7:50] In June of last year, by the United States, a permanent member of the Security Council, a depository of the non-proliferation treaty, [7:58] and Israel, the only country in the Middle East with unchecked nuclear weapon program, attacking safeguarded facilities. [8:06] This attack was happened on the 12th of June. [8:09] The IAEA last verified. [8:12] Natanz and Fordow on the 10th and 11th of June. [8:16] So these attacks were a kick in the teeth of the International Atomic Energy Agency's verification system. [8:22] And now all this talk about Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon is basically nonsense. [8:28] As the IAEA already said in its report of 31 May last year, that Iran does not have a structured nuclear weapon acquisition program. [8:37] So these fissures will come and be a big problem now in New York as the review conference drags on for the next four weeks. [8:44] KELSEY DAVENPORT, I want to ask you about some of the alarm that's being raised by U.N. officials, [8:50] specifically U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres. [8:54] At the U.N. General Assembly, he addressed those who had gathered to start the review process of the non-proliferation treaty. [9:01] He said the cornerstone of efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons has been eroding. [9:05] He said the commitments had been unfulfilled and the trust and credibility were wearing thin. [9:09] We need, he said, to breathe life into the treaty once more. [9:12] From your perspective, how can that be done? [9:18] Well, I think one of the defining debates about this NPT review conference is how to measure success. [9:25] What does supporting the treaty and strengthening the treaty throughout the review conference actually mean? [9:32] There are a number of states going into this review conference that say it is critical that the state's parties adopt a consensus final document [9:40] that reaffirms support for the treaty, but also articulates some specific actions that advance the treaty, [9:47] that advance concerns about the slowed progress on arms control and disarmament, that strengthen non-proliferation, [9:55] that make clear that states that do not have nuclear weapons can still access nuclear energy. [10:01] But in today's geopolitical environment, agreement on specific actions is going to be quite challenging. [10:09] So other states believe that a successful review conference is one that simply reaffirms support for the treaty, [10:16] that passes a basic final document, but that's risky as well. [10:22] It risks papering over some of these serious issues that can undermine overall support going forward. [10:29] So I think the chair of the review conference, Ambassador Viet, has a very challenging four weeks ahead of him [10:36] as he tries to navigate these different understandings about what a successful treaty review conference will look like [10:43] and tries to find compromise between those who are seeking specific actions to strengthen the treaty [10:49] and those who worry that going down that route is only going to break consensus [10:54] and lead to another treaty review conference, the third in a row, ending without the adoption of a consensus final document. [11:03] Kelsey, if I could just follow up with you on some of your thoughts. [11:05] You're talking about how complicated the terrain is in order to make this a success [11:09] and what you believe should comprise some of the discussion and negotiation going forward. [11:14] Going into this process, what's the primary role of the review conference? [11:19] Where do they see it at day one? Is it simply to look at countries as they are meeting their commitments under the NPT [11:25] and figuring out a path forward? Or is that too limited a definition for what the conference is supposed to be, [11:31] at least at the get-go? [11:35] I think it's too limiting to say that the primary objective should be looking at individual state actions [11:41] and the steps that need to be taken to strengthen the NPT. [11:45] We also need to see the regime as a whole. [11:48] You know, as Tariq mentioned, the NPT really is the cornerstone of global nonproliferation and disarmament efforts. [11:57] And if we look across the different pillars, support for disarmament, support for nonproliferation, [12:03] support for access to peaceful nuclear technology, support across all three of these pillars is eroding. [12:10] And I think it's also important at this NPT review conference for states to fundamentally confront [12:19] what an erosion of confidence, an erosion of trust, an erosion of belief in the NPT would mean for the international system. [12:28] What does the future look like if states no longer perceive the NPT as providing security benefits? [12:35] What does the future look like if states that do not have nuclear weapons determine that the NPT no longer provides [12:44] a path forward on disarmament, that they then perceive themselves that they need nuclear weapons [12:49] in order to push back against coercion and aggression from the nuclear weapons states? [12:55] So I think fundamentally looking at the big picture, questioning what a world looks like where confidence in the NPT, [13:03] where implementation of the NPT continues to erode, is also a key factor for the next four weeks that states need to grapple with. [13:12] Sayed Hossein Mousavian, I want to ask you where you stand on things in the big picture here. [13:16] Do you believe that the treaty's enforcement principles are consistent across the board? [13:21] Is the credibility of the treaty on the line right now? [13:25] I really don't believe there is no realistic credibility for non-proliferation treaty. [13:36] First of all, the fact is that all nuclear weapon states, member of NPT, they have been committed since the creation of NPT, [13:46] they have been committed to nuclear disarmament, and they have not done it. [13:50] This is a clear failure or violation. [13:53] Second, you have seen that even they are modernizing and competing to modernization of the nuclear weapon system. [14:07] Therefore, this is another violation of NPT. [14:11] Third, you can see that they have strategic relations with those countries with nuclear weapon, [14:20] and not member of NPT, like Israel, like Pakistan, like India. [14:26] And fourth, you can see a very clear double standard about member states to use peaceful nuclear technology, [14:36] the coercion pressures on Iran, and compared to the other countries which they can peacefully enjoy the nuclear technology. [14:47] And then we have a clear double standard about the rights of member states. [14:55] Countries like Brazil, Argentina, Japan, Germany, Netherlands, they are non-nuclear weapon states. [15:05] They have enrichment, and the U.S. have been insisting for zero enrichment in Iran. [15:11] And then we see the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, on Iranian nuclear facilities, [15:22] while Iran is a member of NPT. [15:25] Its nuclear program was and is under safeguard agreement. [15:31] Nevertheless, two nuclear weapon states, they have attacked Iran illegally, [15:35] a clear violation of the United Nations Charter, and more, I think, problem is when the IAEA and the United Nations Security Council, [15:51] none of them condemned the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facility. [15:58] It was, I mean, completely, again, another violation of IAEA rules and regulations and United Nations rules and regulations. [16:09] That's why I really don't believe any more the NPT can have or has any more credibility as a realistic, [16:21] non-proliferation, comprehensive agreement internationally to be implemented without any discrimination, [16:32] and not to be used as a political instrument to put pressures and cohesions against countries like Iran. [16:42] So, Ayyat Hussain, how much of a danger do you believe the U.S.'s war and Israel's war against Iran? [16:49] How much of a threat does that pose globally right now? [16:52] See, when I'm coming to the Iranian situation, believe it or not, [17:01] Iranian decision-makers now, they are convinced that an NPT, being a member of NPT, has become an existential threat for them. [17:10] Because the U.S.-Israel attack and the pretext of the attack was nuclear facilities. [17:18] Being a member of NPT, and they do not have nuclear weapons, there is no doubt since 2003, [17:24] every IAEA report, even up to 2026, has made it clear that there is no evidence of diversion toward weaponization in the Iranian nuclear program. [17:36] Even since 2007, every U.S. intelligence assessment, they have been insisting continuously, [17:56] there is no evidence of diversion toward weaponization and Iranian decision-making to go toward weaponization. [18:04] Nevertheless, the U.S. attacked, accusing Iran of making nuclear bomb in two weeks. [18:11] It is exactly what Israelis, they have been advocating since 1990. [18:17] And now, Iranians, they believe the reason the U.S. has never attacked and will not attack North Korea, [18:26] is because North Korea withdrew from NPT and mastered nuclear bomb. [18:31] Iran, if Iran has mastered nuclear bomb, the U.S. and Israel would never attack Iran. [18:38] And the other reality is that the sanctions and pressures on Iran is more than North Korea. [18:45] I mean, Iran is the most inspected country during the history of non-proliferation. [18:52] 25-30% of the IAEA budget since 2003 has been invested for verification mechanism inspections in Iran. [19:03] Sometimes, some years, even 40% of the IAEA has been invested for Iran. [19:09] The most inspected country, which accepted the nuclear deal, JCPOA, [19:15] as the most comprehensive agreement during the non-proliferation history. [19:21] Implemented three, four years with zero failure, [19:26] were faced by the most comprehensive sanctions ever against any member state of NPT. [19:33] And now, attacked in 2025, when diplomacy was underway, [19:39] when there was significant progress, deal was within the reach. [19:43] Again, in 2026, Iran was attacked while diplomacy was underway, [19:49] and significant progress, deal was within reach. [19:53] And even in Islamabad, as Prime Minister of Pakistan said, [19:58] that they were close to have a final deal, [20:02] and the U.S. left the negotiation table and imposed sea blockade, which is an act of war. [20:10] Therefore, for, I mean, I really don't know, then, and I would say... [20:17] Say it, Hussain. [20:18] I'm sorry to interrupt, but we just need to be conscious of time, [20:21] because we're running out of time. [20:22] I wanted to go back to Tariq Raouf and ask you about another aspect to all this. [20:28] Israel is one of four U.N. member states that's never signed the treaty. [20:32] The others are India, Pakistan, and South Sudan. [20:35] Israel never signed the NPT. [20:37] It maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity. [20:40] It neither denies nor confirms that it has nuclear arsenal, [20:43] even though it's widely believed that they do. [20:45] How much does that complicate things? [20:50] Well, for a long time, there's been a proposal [20:52] advanced originally by Iran in 1974 [20:54] to establish a zone free of nuclear weapons [20:57] in the region of the Middle East, [20:59] and this was broadened in 1990 [21:01] under the Mubarak Initiative of Egypt [21:03] to make it a zone free of weapons of all mass destruction. [21:07] So Israel's undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal [21:12] provides a strong motivation [21:14] for other countries in the region [21:16] to look for their own security, [21:19] and nuclear weapons could be one aspect of it. [21:23] So as Hussain Moussabian was saying, [21:25] Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons, it was bombed. [21:27] Syria didn't have nuclear weapons, it was bombed. [21:30] Libya didn't have nuclear weapons, it was bombed. [21:32] Iran didn't have nuclear weapons, it was bombed. [21:35] Whereas North Korea is not bombed. [21:36] So these current actions are now actually being a driver [21:40] for proliferation rather than being a measure [21:44] for non-proliferation. [21:46] And nobody in the world really wants to talk [21:48] about Israel's nuclear arsenal. [21:51] Who helped Israel get nuclear weapons? [21:53] They've got highly enriched uranium, [21:55] several hundred kilograms from the United States, [21:58] heavy water from Norway, [22:00] plutonium and reprocessing facilities, [22:03] and nuclear warhead design information [22:05] from France and other countries. [22:08] So all of these Western countries [22:09] helped Israel develop its nuclear weapons arsenal [22:13] and now protect it. [22:15] They're protected in the IAEA, [22:16] they're protected in the NPT. [22:19] In the IAEA, I was responsible [22:20] for the Director General's effort [22:22] to have a forum on the Middle East [22:26] as a nuclear weapon-free zone, [22:27] and it was consistently opposed by Israel [22:30] with the support of the United States. [22:32] And in the NPT review conference process in 1995, [22:37] the non-proliferation treaty was made [22:39] of indefinite duration. [22:41] We would not be sitting here today with the NPT [22:44] if it was not extended indefinitely in 1995. [22:47] And one key element of that bargain [22:49] was a nuclear weapon-free and a WMG-free zone [22:53] in the region of the Middle East. [22:55] And again, the United States is the one, [22:57] even under the Obama administration, [22:59] stymied those efforts. [23:01] So unless now we come to attacking, [23:05] not attacking, but, you know, [23:06] capturing Israel's nuclear weapons program [23:08] through a diplomatic process [23:10] of a nuclear weapon-free zone [23:12] in the region of the Middle East, [23:13] we will never get to it [23:14] because there are no military threats left for Israel. [23:18] It is now the unchallenged military hegemon. [23:21] And therefore, at this review conference, [23:22] I think there should be a redoubled effort [23:25] to push for the establishment of a zone-free [23:28] of nuclear weapons in the region of the Middle East. [23:30] Kelsey Davenport, it looked to me like you were reacting [23:32] to some of what Tariq Raouf was saying. [23:34] It looked like you wanted to jump in, [23:35] so please go ahead. [23:38] Well, I certainly agree with Tariq [23:40] that trying to advance the nuclear weapons-free zone [23:43] in the Middle East would be advantageous, [23:45] that there needs to be a more proactive approach [23:48] to both recognizing Israel's nuclear weapons program, [23:52] but also trying to take steps [23:54] to dismantle it in the long term. [23:56] However, I think we have seen that the zone process [24:00] as part of the NPT has caused considerable controversy, [24:05] has caused the United States to object [24:08] to the adoption of a consensus final document [24:11] at the behest of Israel in 2015. [24:15] And so I wonder if we need to get a little bit more creative [24:17] when we're talking about a regional solution. [24:20] I mean, one option could be to move away [24:23] from the broader conception of the Middle East zone, [24:26] perhaps focus more specifically on Iran and the Gulf states. [24:30] And if you begin that process with a security dialogue [24:33] that addresses some of the broader security concerns [24:37] that have pushed Iran to consider nuclear weapons, [24:41] to leave open the nuclear weapons option, [24:43] that have pushed Saudi Arabia [24:45] to threaten to develop nuclear weapons, [24:48] addressing those drivers could then create the space [24:52] where states feel more confident [24:54] with additional transparency and nuclear limitations. [24:58] So looking at the sub-region first, [25:00] trying to address some of those drivers [25:02] and then moving outward, [25:04] might be a more advantageous way [25:06] to address regional proliferation concerns [25:09] in the Middle East at a time right now [25:12] when I just think it is highly unlikely [25:14] that Israel is going to be willing [25:16] to sit down with states in the region [25:19] and put meaningful steps [25:21] to reduce its nuclear program on the table. [25:26] Say, the same with Savian. [25:26] We just have a couple of minutes left. [25:28] Look, we're at a moment now [25:29] where military spending is hitting record highs each year. [25:32] Nuclear arsenals are growing. [25:34] People are concerned about a nuclear arms race looming. [25:38] What, from your perspective, needs to be done? [25:40] What are concrete steps that can be taken [25:41] to help improve the situation going forward? [25:44] No, I agree with Kelsey. [25:47] A sub-regional can be an idea. [25:49] You have seen during the last 15, 20 years, [25:51] I have been writing in hundreds of articles [25:54] in my book, in my lectures, [25:58] advocating for sub-regional nuclear weapon-free zone, [26:03] WMD-free zone within the Persian Gulf [26:05] in the framework of a new security cooperation structure [26:10] in the Persian Gulf, [26:12] which would go even beyond nuclear WMD-free zone, [26:16] like maritime security, [26:18] like even the current situation in Strait of Hormuz [26:24] could be and can be addressed within such a framework. [26:29] Nevertheless, as Tariq said, [26:33] since 1970, we have UN decision, [26:37] UN resolution, nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East. [26:41] All Middle Eastern countries, [26:43] they are a member of NPT, [26:45] and they are working, they are supporting, [26:48] they are ready to go for implementation of such a resolution. [26:53] There is only one obstacle, [26:55] which is Israel has remained for 50 years [26:59] as the only nuclear weapon state in the Middle East, [27:03] and the US and the world powers, [27:05] they all are supporting, [27:07] because the Israeli strategy is a nuclear monopoly, [27:13] exclusivity of nuclear weapon in the Middle East [27:17] for the broader agenda like Greater Israel. [27:21] That's why as long as we are in this status quo, [27:24] and I should also mention, [27:27] it is not only Iranian nuclear program [27:28] which have been attacked, [27:30] Iraq has been attacked, [27:31] Libya, I mean, Syria, [27:34] every Muslim country has tried to have enrichment [27:37] or heavy water. [27:39] They have been attacked by Israel or the US [27:41] in order to keep the nuclear supremacy [27:45] of Israel in the region. [27:47] As long as this is the strategy, [27:49] we are going to have nothing. [27:51] I'm sorry again to have interrupted you. [27:53] We have run out of time, [27:54] so we're going to have to leave the conversation there. [27:55] Thanks so much to all of our guests, [27:57] Tariq Raouf, Kelsey Davenport, [27:59] and Sayed Hussain Mousavian. [28:01] And thank you two for watching. [28:02] You can see the program again anytime [28:04] by visiting our website, [28:05] that's aljazeera.com, [28:06] and for further discussion, [28:08] go to our Facebook page, [28:09] that's facebook.com forward slash [28:11] AJ Inside Story. [28:12] You can also join the conversation on X. [28:14] Our handle is at AJ Inside Story. [28:17] For now, that's it from me, [28:18] Mohamed Jamjoum, [28:19] and the whole team here. [28:20] AJ's coverage continues in just a moment. [28:23] Stay tuned.