Opinion - Editorials   

Guarding against nuclear terrorism

The International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism that entered into force recently is the clearest recognition by the United Nations of the qualitatively distinct nature of the threat posed by nuclear weapons, as distinguished from conventional arms. Nuclear arms are weapons of mass destruction and their existence represents the gravest threat to global security and stability in the post-cold-war context. The scale of their destructive potential and the perceived addition to military might and deterrent effect explain both the monopoly that nuclear weapons states insist on retaining and the ever-growing quest for their acquisition by other states. It is clear too that it will be difficult for states to retain total control over nuclear material and weapons, and it may be just a question of time before terrorist groups and individuals lay their hands on them. The latest convention regards the unlawful possession of radioactive material and explosive devices for the purpose of causing death, bodily injury, destruction of property and the environment as criminal offences. Of immense significance is the provision requiring states-parties to the treaty to make such action extraditable under national law, and not treat them as political offences.

The first global instrument against terrorism to be adopted since 9/11, this convention complements the two others dealing with terrorist financing and bombings. A compelling factor behind it was the scale and magnitude of the destruction that WMDs can inflict on unspecified targets and the state of terror they can create. This concern is heightened by the fact that China is the lone country among the P-5 that has committed itself to a policy of no-first-strike against a nuclear weapon state and a no-nuclear-attack against countries that have no nuclear weapons and in nuclear-free zones. The current iniquitous nuclear dispensation is clearly a hindrance to substantive progress on non-proliferation, and even more so on universal disarmament. Pragmatically, the state’s armed forces have been excluded from the purview of the convention. First, countries cannot do without them in a situation where the global landscape is dotted with conflict-zones. Secondly, even under the current international order, the conduct of armed forces in times of war is subject to humanitarian law. Moreover, given the deep divisions existing on the question among countries, a consensus on the most critical challenge that confronts the international community today may have proved elusive without this exclusion. That is a luxury that humanity could have ill-afforded.

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

Stories in this Section

Neglect of a vital task
Guarding against nuclear terrorism
Nepal: experiencing pangs of transition
Corrections and clarifications
Vidharbha’s one-litre-per-cow package
Why worry about nuclear waste now?
A myth about the uses and abuses of power
A proud moment
Ironical
Distress deaths
Dealing with aged

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu