[Institute for National Security Studies-Tel Aviv University] Emily B. Landau - When Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller noted that "universal adherence to the NPT itself - including by India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea - also remains a fundamental objective of the United States," the immediate context of the statement underscores that it does not in itself indicate a break with past positions. The timing of the speech was determined by the NPT Preparatory Committee session she attended, and within this context it is standard U.S. practice to express support for the NPT, including the hope that all states eventually join. However, placing states on equal footing in the nuclear realm, per their NPT commitments, and downplaying the important differences among them is a theme that could have problematic implications for Israel down the road, and is in and of itself flawed. The cases of Iran and North Korea drive home that when states have a strong incentive to proliferate, even if they have joined an international treaty that prohibits this, some will nevertheless ignore commitments and work to achieve a nuclear capability. These states are noteworthy for having cheated on their past commitments; moreover, they are seeking nuclear weapons not only for their security value but to wield influence over other states, if not to directly threaten their security and existence. Indeed, the primary concern in these cases is not the weapons per se, rather the threat that these states pose to other states in their region and beyond.
2009-05-15 06:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive