 |
|
Under a protocol to each NWFZ
treaty, nuclear weapon states are prohibited from using or threatening to use
nuclear weapons against the countries inside the zone. Obtaining a security
guarantee that they will not to be attacked by nuclear weapon states with a
nuclear weapon is a major benefit for NWFZ member states. From the beginning of
NPT negotiations, security assurances have been discussed between nuclear weapon
states and non-nuclear weapon states. However, the NPT does not provide such
security guarantees. The desire by the NNWS not to be threatened by nuclear
weapons did, however, lead to the inclusion of a disarmament component in the
treaty, namely Article VI.
There are two kinds of security assurances:
positive security assurances and negative security assurances. Positive security
assurances were adopted by the UN Security Council as
Resolution 255 in 1968. This resolution recognized that the
Security Council "would have to act immediately to provide assistance, in
accordance with their obligations under the United Nations Charter," to a state
victim of an act of nuclear weapons aggression or object of a threat of such
aggression. Although this commitment was welcomed by the NNWS, the non-aligned
states expressed the need during the negotiations of the NPT for a legally
binding commitment by NWS not to use nuclear weapons against NNWS. These
commitments are referred to as
"negative security assurances."
All nuclear weapon states have made several formal pledges
not to threaten to use or use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states
parties to the NPT. However, with the exception of China, the pledges
were all qualified. The United States, for example, has reserved the
right to use nuclear weapons against a NPT NNWS if that state attacks the United States or its
allies in concert with or in alliance with a nuclear weapon state. UN Security
Council
Resolution 984, adopted in 1995, formally
acknowledged the commitments of the NWS on negative security assurances, but did
not address the demand by NNWS for legally binding assurances.
With
regard to negative security assurances protocols to the existing NWFZ, nuclear
weapon states have not signed or ratified some protocols. Protocol I to the
Pelindaba Treaty, prohibiting NWS from using or threatening to use a nuclear
explosive device against member states to the treaty, has been signed by all the
NWS. However, the United States and Russia have not ratified it yet. After
signing the protocol in April 1996, a U.S. official stated that signing the
protocol "will not limit options available to the United States in
response to an attack by a treaty party using weapons of mass
destruction." By making this statement, the United States indicated that
it would reserve the right to use a nuclear weapon in response to WMD attacks by member
states of the NWFZ. Statements by Russia and other NWS, with the exception of
China, also indicate the possibility of using nuclear weapons in response to WMD
attack.
|
|