Written by Srikari 10B

We propose to dissolve the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in its current form. The NPT is an international treaty which runs with the objective of promoting peace with nuclear energy, by annihilating nuclear weapons and demotivating the rise of nuclear weapon technology. This treaty, in brief, comprises of three pillars which are non-proliferation, disarmament and denuclearization and the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

My first argument, is broken into three major parts.
One, how the treaty has put countries on unfair tracks, thus proving the five nuclear superpowers superior to the countries which have signed the treaty and abide by the conditions and also the countries which are non-signatories.
Second, how this is a discriminatory policy that has acted as a restriction and again placed an unfair barrier for countries from entering the nuclear suppliers' group and progressing in the field of nuclear development.
Third, how the security of other countries is threatened and is at risk and also the motives of the nuclear superpowers which may defame the purpose of the treaty itself.

Moving on to my constructive, considering my first point. The NPT has succeeded in the creation of an unfair monopoly among the five nuclear superpowers namely USA, UK, Russia, France, and China where they stand superior to other countries in terms of the potential and scope for nuclear energy and weapon development. We argue that a random time frame as in this case, the year 1970, where these were the five countries which were the ones to have possessed and tested nuclear weapons cannot be used as the grounds, thus giving them the power to exercise arbitrary and discriminatory powers over other countries. On what fairgrounds are the other countries refraining from acquiring nuclear capabilities. It is absolutely unfair to declare these five superpowers as the permanent signatories due to the baseless time frame and to give these countries the power to demand every other country to denuclearize and disarm themselves for the sake of maintaining peace in this field. Naturally, it puts them on a discriminatory battlefield where countries with arms fight with the countries that don't have the right to keep arms but denuclearize themselves. Putting them on the same track is like giving them no scope to prove nuclear superiority even though the potential exists, for the treaty is in high favour of the monopoly.

On the other hand, our opponent may question this by saying that putting these five powers at a higher level is beneficial as opposed to giving this nuclear power to an irresponsible and harmful state like North Korea or for that matter any other country that might misuse nuclear power. In other words, if the opposition argues by saying that the NPT will prevent nations from misusing nuclear weapons and weapon technology on the rest of the world. The response to this would be to clarify this using two additional supportive arguments.
Firstly, there is no guarantee that the nation will in the first place sign the treaty, because there is no fear of a sanction, as sanctions have been proved ineffective in the past and Secondly, we must note, as the treaty states that, these countries only have the power to order countries to disarm and denuclearize themselves, but there is no one to check on the nuclear stockpile that countries produce. So either way, there is no way the nuclear arms can be eradicated entirely in the nuclear world and promote peace with nuclear energy.

The second dimension, to clarify the argument is that there is no guarantee that all the countries that don't sign the NPT necessarily have ill intentions and might misuse power. Also, in the same way that they suspect even the major nuclear powers have misused their power in the past where the US bombed Hiroshima and, France and UK had colonized Asian and African countries, therefore, either way, the NPT in its current form hasn't put the power in the hands of the right people, for anyone could misuse it.

Moving onto my second main argument, the prominent conditions specified in the NPT, state that before a country can enter the nuclear suppliers group which is a platform for nuclear energy development, manufacturing, research, technology etc, it first has to sign the NPT. The Nuclear Suppliers' group adheres to the motive of preventing proliferation which runs on similar lines as the treaty itself as this is once again the monopoly’s doing. This acts as an unfair barrier and restriction for a country like India which possesses a great potential in terms of their nuclear resources, production, supply, exports and imports. This prevents them from building contacts and relations which are necessary for establishing themselves in the nuclear world. These countries even though have scope to progress in terms of nuclear societal advancement cannot progress or step up due to the restrictions put up by NPT. This is a huge disadvantage and can halt the progress of an economy where the advancement and progression in nuclear energy could have been a contributing factor. These uneven conditions deprive many countries of their own rights, such as taking forward their strength and proving there superiority in that particular field, as in this case, their nuclear capabilities.

Our third main argument also contains two integral parts
One, the monopoly uses the countries as their resources, manufacturers and producers of nuclear energy for they are the members of the NPT and the NSG. These countries who have signed the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty are only promised very minimal and obvious benefits such as worldwide acceptance, the right to safeguard the state's interests and being active members of the NSG. The treaty clearly states nowhere that the countries which have signed up will acquire protection from external nuclear weapon sources or any other threats. In fact, there is major threat to those countries who have signed up because they themselves have their lives at stake, for they are disarmed and denuclearized and have no way to protect themselves from the five nuclear powers or the monopoly itself in the future, in case it is driven by strong intentions to utilize nuclear weapons in the future for destruction. As stated earlier, there is nobody in this whole treaty which supervises the nuclear arsenal or stockpile. This applies for the monopoly as well because there is again no guarantee that they will not misuse their powers in the future. Since their efforts are high in the field of nuclear development and it has also gained all the powers, the monopoly can deny and approve of anything that is on their side and favours them, such as the conditions and objectives which China recently, rejected and decided to not abide by.

If such a step is taken in the future, this will defame the purpose of the treaty itself and prove to be defective as the current form itself has many drawbacks.
Concluding, here are my three primary arguments.
1. How the creation of the monopoly has aided in the exercise of arbitrary power
2. How the NPT prevents countries from signing into to the nuclear supplier's group
3. How the NPT in its current form proves to be defective by granting the monopoly more privileges and leaving the majority countries unprotected, where the states are at stake.

Thus, the NPT in its current form proves to be a defective and destructive policy which might worsen conditions in the future by giving rise to an arbitrary rule exercised by an autocracy in nuclear arms and weapons. Hence, we believe it should be dissolved. Proud to propose!

 

Author Details:
I am Srikari from 10B. I enjoy Social Sciences, mainly Political Science and Anthropology. I enjoy singing and learning new languages. For the motion “THW dissolve NPT in its current form,” I was on the proposition, and this is an eight-minute speech, presenting my views while inculcating strategy and style from ISDS and The Manthan Debate Club.