Το Καζακστάν, ομοσπονδοποιημένο στην κρατική δομή της ΕΣΣΔ, χώρα της Κεντρικής Ασίας, υπέφερε επί σαράντα χρόνια (1949-89) από τις πυρηνικές δοκιμές της πάλαι πότε κραταιάς Σοβιετικής Ένωσης. Η τότε Σοβιετική Σοσιαλιστική Δημοκρατία του Καζακστάν φιλοξενούσε, έκουσα άκουσα, στο Σεμιπαλατίνσκ, πεδίο δοκιμών πυρηνικών όπλων της Μόσχας. Το Σεμιπαλατίνσκ βρίσκεται στα βορειονατολικά της αχανούς χώρας: το Καζακστάν έχει έκταση εικοσαπλάσια αυτής της Ελλάδας. Είναι όμως χώρα αραιοκατοικημένη, με πληθυσμό γύρω στα είκοσι εκατομμύρια – διπλάσιο μόνο του αντίστοιχου Ελληνικού. Τα Ρωσικά εξακολουθούν να επικρατούν ως επίσημη γλώσσα (μαζί με τα Καζακστανικά) και γλώσσα συνεννόησης των εθνικών ομάδων της χώρας. Μολαταύτα η χώρα βρίσκεται σε μεταβατικό γλωσσικό στάδιο: το κυριλλικό αλφάβητο σταδιακά εγκαταλείπεται μέχρι την πλήρη κωδικοποίηση και επισημοποίηση της χρήσης του λατινικού. Η Ρωσική μειονότητα εξακολουθεί να αποτελεί το 17 τα εκατό του πληθυσμού.

Στα σαράντα χρόνια της μεταπολεμικής ΕΣΣΔ, το Πόλυγον, όπως το Πεδίο Δοκιμών Semipalatinsk στα βορειοανατολικά της χώρας ήταν γνωστό, γνώρισε 450 πυρηνικές δοκιμές, δηλαδή περίπου μία δοκιμή κάθε μήνα. Ο όγκος και η ένταση των πυρηνικών δοκιμών άφησαν σοβαρά σημάδια στη χώρα: σοβαρή περιβαλλοντική και ως εκ τούτου ανθρωπιστική καταστροφή. Για σκοπούς σύγκρισης αναφέρουμε ότι περισσότερες από 2.000 πυρηνικές δοκιμές έχουν πραγματοποιηθεί παγκοσμίως τα τελευταία 80 χρόνια. Αν και οι εκρήξεις ήταν στιγμιαίες, οι επιπτώσεις τους – στην ανθρώπινη ζωή, στο περιβάλλον και στη γεωπολιτική σταθερότητα – εξακολουθούν να επηρεάζουν γενιές. Οι δοκιμές αυτές συχνά πραγματοποιούνταν σε απομονωμένες περιοχές, όμως οι επιπτώσεις τους είναι κάθε άλλο παρά περιορισμένες.

Έχοντας πληρώσει βαρύ τίμημα στην ανθρωπο-περιβαλλοντική καταστροφή, μετά την ανεξαρτησία η Αστάνα οικιοθελώς αποποιήθηκε του πυρηνικού οπλοστασίου της χώρας – το τέταρτο μεγαλύτερο στον κόσμο – και έκλεισε το Πόλυγον.

Κατά τα τελευταία χρόνια η Αστάνα επιδεικνύει ηγετικό ρόλο στην προώθηση της απόσυρσης των πυρηνικών όπλων. Το 2023 προήδρευσε της Επιτροπής Αφοπλισμού του ΟΗΕ συντονίζοντας τον διάλογο για την αντιμετώπιση αναδυούμενων απειλών.

Αναμφισβήτητα, το τρέχον έτος αποτελεί χρονικό ορόσημο. Εν μέσω σοβαρών γεωπολιτικών αναταράξεων – μεσούντων των πολέμων στην Ουκρανία και στην Μέση Ανατολή – λαμβάνει χώραν εντός του μηνός στη Νέα Υόρκη η Διάσκεψη Αναθεώρησης της Συνθήκης Μη Διάδοσης των Πυρηνικών Όπλων (Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference 27 Απρίλη – 22 Μάη 2026).

Η Συνθήκη Μη Διάδοσης (ΣΜΔ) τέθηκε σε ισχύ το 1970. Μέχρι και σήμερα αποτελεί τον ακρογωνιαίο λίθο στο παγκόσμιο νομικό καθεστώς μη εξάπλωσης των πυρηνικών. Έχουν προσχωρήσει σε αυτή 191 κράτη συμπεριλαμβανομένων της Κύπρου, της Ελλάδας και της Τουρκίας και των πέντε αναγνωρισμένων πυρηνικών δυνάμεων (Βρετανίας, Γαλλίας, Κίνας, ΗΠΑ και Ρωσίας). Τέσσερεις μη αναγνωριμένες πυρηνικές δυνάμεις δεν συμμετέχουν στην ΣΜΔ: Ισραήλ, Ινδία, Πακιστάν και Βόρεια Κορέα. Η τελευταία αποσύρθηκε απο την συνθήκη το 2003. Δεν συμμετέχει επίσης το Νότιο Σουδάν.

Πρέπει να τονισθεί ότι η ΣΜΔ βασίζεται σε τρεις ίσης σημασίας πυλώνες:

1. Πρόληψη της διάδοσης των πυρηνικών όπλων και της συναφούς τεχνολογίας.
2. Προώθηση της συνεργασίας στην ειρηνική χρήση της πυρηνικής ενέργειας.
3. Επίτευξη παγκόσμιου πυρηνικού αφοπλισμού.

Στα πενήντα πέντε χρόνια της ισχύος της συνθήκης NPT τα αποτελέσματα είναι δυστυχώς απογοητευτικά: όχι μόνο οι πέντε αναγνωρισμένες πυρηνικές δυνάμεις δεν έλαβαν μέτρα για τον αφοπλισμό τους αλλά ο αριθμός των πυρηνικών δυνάμεων σχεδόν διπλασιάστηκε – σήμερα είναι εννιά.

Από πλευράς ισχύος έχουμε εκτιμήσεις για το 2024 που δείχνουν περίπου 12.500 ενεργά πυρηνικά όπλα παγκοσμίως, εκ των οποίων περίπου 3.700 είναι σε επιχειρησιακή ετοιμότητα. Στην πρωτοπορία της κούρσας των πυρηνικών εξοπλισμών βρίσκεται η Ρωσική Ομοσπονδία  με 5.900 πυρηνικά στην φαρέτρα της ακολουθούμενη από τις ΗΠΑ με περίπου 5.200. Τα υπόλοιπα επτά πυρηνικά κράτη έχουν μικρότερα οπολοστάσια με εκτιμώμενο αριθμό πυρηνικών κεφαλών ως εξής: Κίνα 500, Γαλλία 290, Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο 225, Πακιστάν 170–190, Ινδία 160–170, Ισραήλ 80–90, Βόρεια Κορέα 40–70.

Με μια αύξηση της τάξης του 11 τα εκατό σε σχέση με το 2023, οι εννιά πυρηνικές δυνάμεις υπολογίζεται ότι το 2024 δαπάνησαν 100 δις δολλάρια για το πυρηνικό τους οπλοστάσιο. Η εξοπλιστική αυτή δαπάνη είναι υπετριπλάσια του Κυπριακού ΑΕΠ ($30 δις). Η βραβευμένη με Νόμπελ Ειρήνης διεθνής ΜΚΟ ICAN σημειώνει ότι τα 42 δις από τα 100 δις επωφελήθηκαν συμβαλλόμενες μεγάλες ιδιωτικές εταιρείες στα πλαίσια των πυρηνικών εξοπλιστικών προγραμμάτων.

Τον περασμένο μήνα, το Καζακστάν προήδρευσε της Τρίτης Συνεδρίας των Κρατών Μερών της Συνθήκης Απαγόρευσης των Πυρηνικών Όπλων. Την ίδια στιγμή, εν τη σοφία του, ο ΥΠΕΞ Κωνσταντίνος Κόμπος απαντώντας σε κοινοβουλευτική ερώτηση του ηγέτη των Κυπρίων Πρασίνων υπέδειξε ότι η λιλιπούτεια Κύπρος θα παραμείνει εκτός της ως άνω σύμβασης στο παρόν στάδιο. Καθόν χρόνο η ανησυχία του Κυπριακού πληθυσμού για την (κατά)χρήση των Βρετανικών Βάσεων από σειρά πυρηνικών δυνάμεων σίγουρα δεν μειώνεται.

Ενώ η Κύπρος σέρνεται από τις βουλές των πυρηνικών δυνάμεων, η Αστάνα πρωτοστατεί αν όχι στην εξάλειψη η οποία όντως φαίνεται χείμερα, στον δραστικό περιορισμό της πυρηνικής απειλής σε ένα μεταβαλλόμενο κόσμο ο οποίος γίνεται όλο και πιο επικίνδυνος με την έξαρση των περιφερειακών συγκρούσεων οι οποίες αποκτούν όλοένα και περισσότερο παγκόσμιο χαρακτήρα.

*Ο Δρ Γιώργος Λεβέντης, Διευθυντής του International Security Forum Κύπρου, συμμετέχει στο Ευρωπαϊκό Δίκτυο Ειδημόνων για την Μη Διάδοση των Όπλων Μαζικής Καταστροφής.

But what is the purpose of this multilateral treaty? The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as its full title suggests, aims at limiting the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. The UN Secretary-General António Guterres, said on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the NPT’s opening for signature, 24 May 2018 in Geneva:

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is an essential pillar of international peace and security, and the heart of the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. Its unique status is based on its near universal membership, legally-binding obligations on disarmament, verifiable non-proliferation safeguards regime, and commitment to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Thus the NPT is the essential pillar of the frail international disarmament regime. The Treaty not only demands from the signatories not to proliferate Nuclear Weapons but it also urges the Nuclear-Weapon States (NWS) to take effective measures to disarm themselves from their lethal arsenal. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.

The NPT is a unique treaty in the universal body of international law: it represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the Nuclear-Weapon States.

While the list of the parties to the NPT opened for signatures July 1^st, 1968, the Treaty actually entered into force two years later in 1970. The provision for review conferences every five years (article VIII, paragraph 3) meant that on the fiftieth anniversary of the NPT’s entry into force, in 2020, we should have had the Tenth Review Conference. The Review Conference is going to take place before the end of summer in 2021 as explained above.

Why is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons so important? Simply because its membership coincides almost entirely with the UNO membership, that is to say 191 participating states including the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, which are all NWS. Consequently, the NPT is the most widely adhered to multilateral disarmament agreement. However, the second most populous country in the world, India, has not been admitted to the NPT as it has acquired nuclear weapons after the Treaty’s entry into force. India became a NWS in 1974.

Neighbouring Iran is a party to the NPT since 1970 but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement, and the status of its nuclear programme remains to this day in dispute, especially after the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a hard negotiated compromise between Iran on the one hand and the rest of the world. In the US Department of State view, however, ‘the JCPOA is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document. The JCPOA reflects political commitments between Iran, the P5+1, and the EU’. [The P5+1 include the five permanent members of the UN Security Council: US, Russia, China UK and France plus Germany]. This is what Julia Frifield, the US Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, opined in 2015. Subsequently, Donald Trump pulled out from the Iran nuclear deal. Nevertheless, president-elect Joe Biden undertook to restore it.

In all frankness, the NPT in its fifty years of life, failed to deliver the goals for which it was established i.e. to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and further to disarm the Nuclear Weapon States. Be that as it may, and in the absence of any other legally binding multilateral agreement, the NPT continues to be ‘the heart of the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime’.

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) formed in 1996, with the aim of limiting nuclear weapons tests, chronicles the first Chinese nuclear test as follows:

On 16 October 1964, the People’s Republic of China conducted its first nuclear test, making it the fifth nuclear-armed state after the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and France. China had initiated its nuclear weapons programme in the mid-1950s, after the Korean war. At the outset, its efforts were backed by substantial Soviet assistance, including advisors and technical equipment. Research on nuclear weapon design began at the Institute of Physics and Atomic Energy in Beijing, and a uranium enrichment plant was constructed in Lanzhou to produce weapon-grade uranium.

With the cooling of Sino-Soviet relations in the late 1950s, the Soviet Union withdrew all assistance. In June 1959, Nikita Khrushchev decided to refuse the provision of a prototype bomb to the Chinese. This rupture prompted China to embark on its own nuclear testing project, code-named 59-6 after the month in which it was initiated.

Operation 59-6 was carried out at the Lop Nur test site in the Gobi desert of Xinjiang province, Western China, close to the ancient Silk Route. An implosion-type device was mounted from the top of a steel tower, producing a yield of 22 kilotons. It was the first of a total of 45 Chinese nuclear tests, all of which were conducted at Lop Nur. Twenty three of these tests were atmospheric and 22 underground, the yields ranging from 1 kiloton to 4 megatons. On 17 June 1967, just three years after operation 59-6 – faster than other nuclear weapon possessors – China detonated its first hydrogen bomb.

The effects of China’s nuclear testing on human health, animals and the environment are largely unexplored due to the lack of publically available official data. The Xinjiang region is the largest Chinese administrative division and home to 20 million people of different ethnic backgrounds.  A study carried out by the Japanese physicist Professor Jun Takada suggests that peak levels of radioactivity from China’s large-yield tests exceeded that of the 1986 Chernobyl reactor accident and seriously affected local populations.

In 2008, China started to pay undisclosed subsidies to personnel involved in nuclear testing. Compensation, however, has not been extended to civilian residents of the Xinjiang area, downwind of the Lop Nur test site.

China conducted its last test on 29 July 1996, only two months prior to signing the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) on 24 September 1996. However, it has yet to ratify the CTBT, a step that is mandatory for the Treaty’s entry into force. Ratifications of seven other nuclear-capable states are also missing: the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Israel, Iran, Pakistan and the United States.

[Source : https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testing-times/16-october-1964-first-chinese-nuclear-test/]

In the context of the nuclear disarmament it is interesting to note that in a few months, not later than April 2021, the NPT Review Conference is due to take place. The 2020 NPT Review Conference has been postponed due to the covid-19 pandemic.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons opened for signature in 1968. the The NPT Treaty entered into force in 1970. Since then, the NPT has been the cornerstone of global nuclear non-proliferation regime. 191 States parties have joined the Treaty, including the five NWS, making the NPT the most widely adhered to, multilateral disarmament agreement.

In a nutshell, there are two legs to the NPT: the first leg pertains to the commitment of the states parties not to proliferate NWs, the second leg asks NWS to take measures in order to decommission their nuclear weapons arsenal. In the past fifty years of the Treaty’s existence emphasis has been solely placed on the non-proliferation provision as NWS have generally failed to report on nuclear disarmament steps.

On October 20 Donald Trump stated that the US decided to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and to start developing weapons prohibited under the treaty. This intention is one of the most dangerous mistakes made by Washington, which has pulled out of a number of international agreements and organisations, including the Anti-Ballistic Missiles (ABM) Treaty.

The termination of the INF Treaty is a most dangerous step that would produce an extremely negative effect on international security and strategic stability. This erroneous US decision may spur a new arms race in several regions of the world. In other words, the situation with the INF Treaty concerns the entire international community.

The United States bracing up to unravel the INF Treaty has launched a massive propaganda campaign claiming that its decision was provoked by Russia’s alleged violations of the said treaty.  It is not the first time when Washington tries to present itself like a victim of treaty violations by other signatories. However, the US constantly violate or drag their feet on the signing of fundamental international agreements. For example, the US ratified the Genocide Convention (1948) only 40 years after its signing. It has not ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The above is only a short list of how they joined and withdrew from international agreements; signed but not ratified; signed, ratified, but not complied with them; or modified agreements in their own way and taste. Below are a few more examples, however the list is by no means comprehensive.

The United States has repeatedly violated principles of the UN Charter. Take for example, Washington’s armed invasion of Grenada in 1983. UN General Assembly Resolution 37/8 described the US action as a gross violation of international law. Three years later, the US launched an assault on Libya. Another three years pass and the US invade Panama (1989). The UN General Assembly condemns both incursions as violations of international law.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) also denounced US violations of the UN Charter. It passed a well-known verdict on Nicaragua vs the US in 1986, stating directly that the United States had violated Nicaragua’s sovereignty and the norms on non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs and non-use of force.

The irresponsible attitude towards the UN Charter on the part of the United States and its allies, reached new proportions in the form of bombing raids against Yugoslavia in 1999 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. [Colin Powel’s erroneous claim on Iraqi WMD]

In March 2011, the US spearheaded NATO’s intervention in Libya. As a result a formerly prosperous country descended into complete disintegration. An illegal interference in the form of illegitimate air strikes and arms supplies to nongovernmental armed groups spurred on the growth of radical sentiments in Syria, which eventually helped the emergence of a global community of militants and terrorists. America’s absolutely ill-conceived, short-sighted and illegal actions in Iraq as well as the region as a whole have in some way or another facilitated the emergence of the Islamic State. The bad consequences of US interference in Libya and Syria are beyond all proportions.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed in 1970 and supported by practically all countries with the exception of Cuba, India, Pakistan and Israel. The treaty outlined a strategic goal, the renunciation of nuclear weapons. Other things aside, the NPT provided for nuclear states pledging not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers. The US claims that it abides with its NPT obligations but the worrisome situation linked to Washington’s failure to comply with some key provisions of the treaty is still there. The United States continues to engage NATO’s European non-nuclear countries in so-called joint nuclear missions. These “missions” include elements of nuclear planning and skill enhancement drills on how to use nuclear weapons, drills involving non-nuclear NATO countries’ carrier aircraft, air crews, air-field infrastructure and ground support services. All of this is a direct violation of NPT articles 1 and 2. In 2002, certain high-ranking US military officers went on record saying that they allowed the use of nuclear munitions against non-nuclear states or terrorists.

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) has been discussed over a period of four decades and signed in 1996. It bans all nuclear explosions, for both civilian and military purposes, in all environments: underground, ground, water, air and outer space. The Treaty was signed by 44 countries possessing nuclear infrastructure. The US and China signed but failed to ratify the CTBT. For over twenty years, it was not possible to bring this crucial international treaty into effect. Given that the non-treaty countries take their cues from the United States in the matter of joining the CTBT, Washington’s stagnant stance is the main obstacle standing in the way of tuning the Treaty into a valid international legal instrument.

In 1972, the USA and the USSR signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT) that created a mutual assured destruction system. Neither the USSR, nor the USA could attack each other, for a response was sure to destroy the aggressor. Thus, a missile attack automatically became an act of suicide, with the so-called “strategic balance” being established between the two superpowers. This agreement was signed at Washington’s initiative. In 2001, US President George Bush declared that the Americans were unilaterally withdrawing from this agreement. The formal pretext for this step was that the United States wanted to secure itself against missile attacks from so-called “rogue countries” and terrorist groups. Since then, the US efforts to put in place an antimissile system have most adversely affected the international security system, aggravating relations not only in the Euro-Atlantic but also in the Asia Pacific region, emerging as one of the most serious obstacles to further stage-by-stage nuclear disarmament and creating dangerous prerequisites for a resumption of the nuclear armed race.

The next point is the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which prohibits the development, production, transportation, diffusion and use of chemical weapons, as all of us well know. Apart from this, it provides for the creation of a complex and total international surveillance system. The US played a key role in drafting and signing this agreement. However Washington has been doing its best to avoid international inspections rating them as likely to threaten their national security interests. We have been hearing this explanation from Washington for many years. Some other countries have followed in the footsteps of the US.

The next agreement, Biological Weapons Convention, was signed in 1972 and came into force in 1975. It banned the development, production, stockpiling and acquisition of biological agents that could be used as weapons and of biological weapons proper. The Convention included a special protocol that banned the use of even tiny quantities of deadly microorganisms or toxins for research purposes. The US was rather a reluctant participant in efforts to reach an agreement on the Convention, while some senior US officials were in principle against the signing of the protocol as it would likely damage the interests of US microbiological research companies. In July 2001, Washington declared that it would not abide by the protocol until it was amended.

The next document is the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty which extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The aim of the Convention was to reduce industrial atmospheric emissions causing the so-called “greenhouse effect” which in turn is believed to be the main cause of global climate change. The US signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1992. Nevertheless by 2001, the then US administration refused to comply with its provisions, saying that there was no unambiguous proof of the relationship between global warming processes and the amount of gaseous emissions. The Bush administration believed that implementing the Convention put the US industry in a quandary while not helping to fight the “greenhouse effect”. There is no sense to reiterate the information concerning the Paris Agreement. Everybody knows what has happened to it.

Furthermore the US and its allies have repeatedly circumvented the restrictive provisions of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) through the well-known NATO expansion. At the same time, they, in every possible way avoided the renewal of the regime of Conventional Arms Control (CAC) in Europe proposed by Russia in accordance with the new military and political realities on the continent. The most vivid confirmation of this is the US refusal to ratify the Agreement on Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (adapted CFE).

In August 2018, the United States froze cooperation with Russia under the Treaty on Open Skies. Practically, from the very moment of the signing of this document, Washington has been ignoring its requirements to work out special procedures for the aerial observation of its islands and territorial waters. For a long time a significant part of US territory was simply inaccessible for observation: a gross violation of the foundations of the Treaty. Only at the end of 2015 did Washington meet Russia’s requirements. However, the procedures for the Aleutian Islands still provide no possibility for the flight crews to rest there, which may adversely affect flight safety and significantly limit Russia’s ability to observe this part of US territory.

On August 31st, the US authorities demanded the suspension, within forty eight hours, of the work of the Russian Consulate General in San Francisco, the trade mission in Washington and its branch office in New York. Consequently, the Russian government owned buildings were seized. According to many experts of international law of diplomacy, the US actions with respect to Russian diplomatic property are illegal. They violate the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

At the October 3rd briefing, John Bolton, Adviser to the President of the United States on National Security, said the US was withdrawing from the Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which allowed Convention violation disputes to be settled by the UN International Court of Justice in The Hague.

This is a far-from-complete list of examples of how the US treats international law and agreements. Washington, actually, has been treating these documents in a manipulative manner that serves US predominant interests.