The ongoing Israel-Iran confrontation has raised fears that the former may be tempted to use nuclear weapons against the latter, tempted because Iran is not known to have nuclear weapons by virtue of signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968.
The NPT requires its members to forswear nuclear weapons, although they are allowed to build and operate nuclear plants to generate electricity. Iran says it is doing precisely that, although there are accusations it has sought to clandestinely develop nuclear weapons.
Nothing has been proved but distrust of Iran’s intentions in Western capitals, exacerbated by its use of proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, has deepened to a point where sanctions and more sanctions have been applied.
Israel, on the other hand, never signed the NPT and, according to various sources, may have a nuclear arsenal amounting to 90 warheads. It follows a policy of nuclear ambiguity, which fools nobody.
Here’s the paradox. Iran, by observing the rule book on nuclear weapons, now finds itself at a disadvantage vis a vis Israel. If it walks out of the NPT, it may find itself in an even worse situation.
The NPT’s 190 members include many European states that see themselves as upholders of the international non-proliferation order. These countries are often among the biggest financial contributors to these multilateral agencies, which enables them to call the shots and drive the agenda.
“Voluntary contributions ensure that many western states such as the Scandinavians & Canada punch above their weight,” says Syed Akbaruddin, senior former diplomat and India’s permanent representative to the UN.
“Prior to India signing the nuclear deal, many of the same countries were amongst the most vociferous opponents of providing any nuclear exception.”
The deal was fiercely opposed by these countries and even after it was signed, for many years they opposed India’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Wassenaar Arrangement and other agencies that regulated international nuclear trade.
On the US approach to global norms, Akbaruddin noted that, “Big countries with diverse interests prefer to avoid signing global treaties. It gives them flexibility, enabling them to shape policy with less constraints.”
The US, for instance, has never signed the UN Convention on the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) although it fiercely criticises China for violating the terms of the same treaty.
In time it came up with an alternative to escape the hypocrisy of not abiding by the UNCLOS while expecting others to abide by it. This was the ‘Rules Based Order’.
“It enables the US to cherry pick which norms it wants to abide by and which it can sidestep,” says Akbaruddin.
The US is not a member of the International Criminal Court at The Hague, for the simple reason it deploys troops in conflicts all over the globe. In some instances, they may violate humanitarian norms. As Washington wants to ensure that they are subject to US national jurisdiction and not international jurisdiction, it has kept away from joining the ICC.
India too has kept out on grounds that ICC jurisdiction is invoked only where national criminal law provisions are not being applied, and India does not foresee that it will be ever confronted by such a situation.
