The Hindu : 50 years of Atoms for Peace

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Dec 13, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

50 years of Atoms for Peace

By M.R. Srinivasan

It is an opportune moment for the U.S. to remind itself of Eisenhower's call and search seriously for ways and means to achieve a nuclear weapon free world.

IN DECEMBER 1953, President Eisenhower of the United States announced the "Atoms for Peace" programme. The U.S. had ended World War II in 1945 after dropping two atomic bombs (nowadays more correctly called nuclear weapons) on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. A number of leading scientists who had helped develop the bomb had serious reservations about using it against civilian targets. President Harry Truman authorised the use against Japan on the logic that the war would be concluded sooner by the surrender of Japan and thus result in saving more lives. In 1949, the Soviet Union too developed a nuclear weapon. For a decade or even two the U.S. enjoyed a substantial lead over the USSR in the possession of destructive nuclear capability.

Eisenhower realised the inhuman consequences of using nuclear weapons in a future war. He, therefore, proposed in December 1953, the "Atoms for Peace" plan to make available to all nations the benefits of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. It was evident even in 1953 that nuclear energy could be used for producing electric power and that it offered great benefits in treating a range of diseases and in industry and agriculture.

In the mood generated by the Atoms for Peace Plan, India built two research reactors, Apsara with cooperation from the U.K. and Cirus with cooperation from Canada. India received help from the U.S. and Canada in building the first two atomic (more strictly nuclear) power stations, at Tarapur and in Rajasthan. During this period, nuclear research reactors and nuclear power units were exported from the U.S., the USSR, the U.K. and Canada to a number of countries.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S., the USSR and the U.K. had been working on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and it entered into force in 1968. The treaty divided the world into two camps, one consisting of the U.S., Russia, France, Britain and China possessing nuclear weapons and the other of the large number of countries not possessing them. To be treated as a nuclear weapons power under the NPT, a country should have conducted a nuclear test before January 1, 1967. From the time the treaty was negotiated, India held that it was discriminatory because it required countries not possessing nuclear weapons to give up their sovereign right to develop the weapons without any binding obligation on the nuclear weapon states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. India, Pakistan and Israel have not joined the NPT even now. The non-nuclear weapon states have complained about the slow pace of nuclear disarmament at the five-yearly NPT review conferences but the five nuclear weapon powers continue to proffer unconvincing reasons for maintaining their nuclear weaponry.

The International Atomic Energy Agency was set up in Vienna as a part of the U.N. system in 1957. It was mandated to perform two tasks — to assist countries in harnessing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and to carry out inspections to ensure that any assistance a country received from another was used exclusively for peaceful purposes and not diverted to developing any nuclear weapon. India has been a member of the Board of Governors of the IAEA from its inception. Many developing countries feel the IAEA is more concerned with inspection activities and is less active in promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

As a result of the growth of anti-nuclear sentiment in the advanced countries in the past 25 years, these countries feel the IAEA should not be over-enthusiastic to promote civilian nuclear power development. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was an expectation that nuclear power would grow rapidly in the world. For the past two decades or more, nuclear electricity accounts for only 17 per cent of global electricity production. This may well go down in the next few years as the developed countries have virtually capped production. Among other countries, only South Korea, India, China and Taiwan have continued to build nuclear power units. Many developing countries deficient in energy could use nuclear power to propel their economies if the technology and investment capital were available. Concerns on global warming should favour a revival of nuclear power in the advanced countries. The Bush administration has announced its resolve to revive nuclear power in the U.S.; it may however take a few years before nuclear power plant building recommences.

During the last 50 years, the world has witnessed a frightening build-up of nuclear arsenals by the U.S. and the USSR. There have been several rounds of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks between these two countries. With the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia has declared that it does not look upon the U.S. as an enemy. In recent times, the U.S. and Russia have agreed to bring down their nuclear weapons to the range of 2,200 to 2,700, though no time frame has been fixed. There does not appear to be any commitment to return the weapon grade material irreversibly into the civilian domain. China, last of the five nuclear weapon powers, continues to build its nuclear and missile capabilities. The U.K. and France have effectively frozen their nuclear weapon programmes except for safety checks, refurbishing, and some research and development. These three countries hold the view that reduction of their arsenals could be considered only after the U.S. and Russia reduce their arsenals substantially. India, Pakistan and the undeclared nuclear state, Israel, have modest numbers of nuclear weapons and can be expected to dismantle them only after the five nuclear weapon powers have significantly disarmed.

India has voluntarily announced a moratorium on further tests and a "no-first-use" policy. Among the nuclear weapon states, the USSR had announced a no-first-use policy, but Russia in recent years has resiled from that position. China also had announced a no-first-use policy after it became a nuclear weapon power. In recent times, it has amended that position by saying the restraint would not operate in disputes connected with Taiwan. Pakistan has openly rejected the policy on the ground that India's conventional military superiority is substantial and that it can deter India only with nuclear weapons. This has made it necessary for India to acquire a second strike capability after surviving a pre-emptive strike from Pakistan, with all the attendant additional expenditure. The U.S. has never in the past accepted a no-first-use restraint. In fact, under the present administration, it has taken the position that it can act pre-emptively against any state acting against its interests anywhere in the world, as it did in Iraq. It has also asserted that it reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear weapon state if the latter threatened the U.S. or its interests with chemical or biological weapons. This is indeed an unfortunate retrogression from the U.S. undermining time-honoured restraints on the use of nuclear weapons.

In 1988, India proposed to the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament a time-bound programme of elimination of all nuclear weapons from the world. While the time-table then suggested may have been unrealistic, the approach was a workable one. The then USSR welcomed the proposal but the U.S. rejected it outright.

Fifty years after Eisenhower gave the "Atoms for Peace" call, where does the world stand? Nuclear energy use in medicine, industry and agriculture is universally accepted though people at large would not like to be reminded that they are "nuclear" in origin. Nuclear power has reached a plateau with limited growth in some developing countries and prospects of a decline in the advanced countries. Indeed the best young men and women around the world are no more lining up to join the nuclear establishments.

In the decades following World War II, there was greater urge towards a nuclear weapon free world, with great statesmen, scientists and philosophers championing it. In recent years, there has been weariness to talk about universal nuclear disarmament. Sadly many of the actions of the sole superpower, the U.S, of late, have removed the earlier restraints on the use of nuclear weapons. Terrorist activities around the world have also been used to justify the lowering of the thresholds on the use of nuclear weapons. The U.S. has embarked on development of new nuclear weapons such as deep penetration bunker busters. It is also planning on locating nuclear weapons on space platforms. Recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the U.S. can achieve its global agenda using its sophisticated and formidable conventional military prowess.

It is therefore an opportune moment for the U.S. to remind itself of Eisenhower's call for "Atoms for Peace" and search seriously for ways to achieve quickly a nuclear weapon free world. It is indeed possible for the nuclear genie to be put back into the bottle, if the U.S and other nuclear weapon states so desire.

(The writer is a former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion