Other
Spanish
ID: <
10670/1.ki3mnt>
Abstract
Following a historical review of the role of nuclear arms in the post-war collective security framework, a comparative analysis will be made of the positions adopted by the US, the European Union and Latin America (with particular emphasis on Brazil) during the May 2010 Review Conference of the NTP. Their differing perspectives and priorities will be examined as concerns the central issue of these negotiations. Nuclear non-proliferation or disarmament �which is the critical factor in avoiding a nuclear catastrophe? Having as a backdrop the profound structural changes that the international order is undergoing, the article argues that the end of the Cold War and of the logic of �mutually assured destruction� that it gave rise to, the search for sustainable energy sources in the wake of climate change and the budgetary constraints resulting from the 2008 financial crisis, are redefining the terms of this debate. The article puts forward the thesis that the recent cases of nuclear proliferation (North Korea and Iran most notably) are not the outcome of the imagined inadequacies of the NTP monitoring and oversight mechanisms. The true answer lies in convincing the US, the European Union and the other nuclear powers to take responsibility for their commitments under the NTP and begin moving towards nuclear disarmament. To this end, the best way forward is for more Nuclear Arms Free Zones to be enacted, on the Latin American model. Given the present controversy surrounding the Iran sanctions regime and the May 2010 Teheran Accord, the setting up of a NAFZ in the Middle East would help to overcome the false dilemma between non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. Success in stabilizing what is undoubtedly the most strategically volatile region in the world would most certainly offer a model and inspiration for similar developments on a global scale.