A chara, – As I read the headline "Charlie Flanagan: It is vital we prevent further proliferation of nuclear weapons" (Opinion & Analysis, April 28th) my first thought was "Yes – and we also need to do something about getting rid of the thousands of nuclear weapons that are already out there." So I was pleasantly surprised to find that the bulk of the article by the Minister for Foreign Affairs dealt with the dangers and the horrors of these existing nuclear devices and called for a process to be started "now that will put them beyond use forever".
It is beyond foolishness to allow weapons that if used in even a “limited” exchange “would kill tens of thousands of civilians, the majority of them women and children; cause catastrophic damage to the environment; jeopardise global food production and could lead to famine in many regions of the world”. So well done to Mr Flannagan for taking this message to the United Nations. I hope the world – especially those parts of it that cling to their nuclear weapons – listens. – Is mise,
Rev PATRICK G BURKE,
Castlecomer,
Co Kilkenny.
Sir, – Minister for Foreign Affairs Charles Flanagan makes the point that it is imperative that we prevent further proliferation of nuclear weapons, by nations such as Iran, and welcomes the announcement of an initial agreement with Iran over its nuclear programme. I concur.
However, the Minister fails to mention two of the major challenges in relation to nuclear proliferation.
First, it is a serious setback that Barack Obama has recently given the go-ahead for a trillion dollar programme of modernisation of the US nuclear weapon system, despite promises to the contrary.
Second, that Israel, one of the major nuclear powers in the world, still refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty on nuclear weapons. It would be good if Mr Flanagan raised both of these pressing issues at this year’s non-proliferation of nuclear weapons conference at the United Nations in New York. – Yours, etc,
MICK WALLACE, TD
Wellingtonbridge,
Co Wexford.
Sir, – Charlie Flanagan writes that the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (usually referred to as the NPT) “has been effective in stopping countries that don’t have nuclear arms from developing them”.
It is difficult to justify that statement given that when the NPT came into force in March 1970 only five states – China, France, the UK, the US and the USSR – possessed nuclear weapons but now with the addition of India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan that number has grown to nine.
The Minister is right in saying that the NPT “has not achieved its other major goal, which is the achievement of a world without nuclear weapons” – the five states that possessed nuclear weapons in 1970 (and were allowed to join the NPT without giving them up) have still got them.
Unfortunately, the NPT didn’t set a date for these states to give up their nuclear weapons – it merely requires them “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament”. So, the likelihood of them giving them up is very slight.
Of the other four states that possess nuclear weapons, India, Israel and Pakistan stayed out of the NPT so that they would be free to develop nuclear weapons and North Korea left the NPT in order to do so. They are not bound even by the limited provisions to negotiate about nuclear disarmament. So, the likelihood of them giving them up is nil.
The Minister also writes that “it is vital that we prevent the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, as in Iran”. But Iran never possessed nuclear weapons and, despite more than two decades of trying, no western intelligence agency came close to producing hard evidence that Iran was trying to develop nuclear weapons.
The Minister welcomes “the progress made towards resolving the long-running issue of Iran’s nuclear programme” and so do we.
However, it is worth noting that the issue could have been resolved a decade ago when Iran’s uranium enrichment programme was in its infancy and no centrifuges were enriching uranium in Iran. It wasn’t resolved then because the US and the EU wouldn’t accept that under the NPT Iran has a right to enrich uranium on its own soil. Now, when Iran has 19,000 centrifuges installed, a deal has become possible because the US and the EU have given in to the inevitable and accepted that Iran is not going to abandon its enrichment programme. Hopefully, the deal will be concluded successfully in the next few months. – Yours, etc,
DAVID MORRISON
Research Officer
Peace and
Neutrality Alliance,
Belfast.