Five Powers Agree to Respect Central Asian Nuclear-Free Zone

None

A specialist in 2011 stands near degrading equipment housings at the closed Semipalatinsk nuclear weapons testing site in Kazakhstan. The world's five recognized nuclear powers on Tuesday announced they had agreed to respect a treaty that prohibits the presence of any atomic arms in Central Asia.
National Journal
Rachel Oswald
See more stories about...
Rachel Oswald
April 30, 2014, 8:55 a.m.

The world’s five nuc­le­ar powers an­nounced on Tues­day they had agreed to nev­er use their atom­ic arms against five Cent­ral Asi­an coun­tries.

“They com­mit not to at­tack them with nuc­le­ar weapons or to threaten them with nuc­le­ar weapons and also re­spect the oth­er [treaty] pro­vi­sions” ban­ning the de­ploy­ment or test­ing of atom­ic arms in Cent­ral Asia, said non­pro­lif­er­a­tion ex­pert Gaukhar Mukhatzhan­ova, who is at­tend­ing the Pre­par­at­ory Com­mit­tee meet­ing in New York City where the an­nounce­ment was made by the five powers.

The Cent­ral Asia Nuc­le­ar Weapon Free Zone com­mits its sig­nat­or­ies — Kaza­kh­stan, Kyrgyz­stan, Tajikistan, Turk­menistan and Uzbek­istan — to re­frain from de­vel­op­ing, ac­quir­ing or pos­sess­ing nuc­le­ar weapons. The treaty entered in­to force in 2009 without the world’s form­ally re­cog­nized nuc­le­ar-armed coun­tries — China, France, Rus­sia, the United King­dom and the United States — agree­ing to abide by its lim­its.

Un­der the forth­com­ing pro­tocol, the nuc­le­ar powers also af­firm that they also would keep these weapons out of the covered zone. The five powers pre­vi­ously signed sim­il­ar pro­to­cols prom­ising to re­spect the stric­tures of oth­er nuc­le­ar weapon-free zones that cov­er Africa, Lat­in Amer­ica and the Carib­bean and the South Pa­cific.

It took five years of “in­tens­ive con­sulta­tions” for the five powers to agree to sign a pro­tocol to the Cent­ral Asi­an treaty, ac­cord­ing to Mukhatzhan­ova, a seni­or re­search as­so­ci­ate at the James Mar­tin Cen­ter for Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Stud­ies.

“It’s cer­tainly one of the big­ger news [items] so far” to come out of the Pre­par­at­ory Com­mit­tee meet­ing, Mukhatzhan­ova said in a Tues­day phone in­ter­view. The so-called “Prep­Com” gath­er­ing is be­ing held in ad­vance of next year’s Re­view Con­fer­ence for the Nuc­le­ar Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Treaty.

Peter Jones, dir­ect­or of de­fense and in­ter­na­tion­al se­cur­ity at the Brit­ish For­eign and Com­mon­wealth Of­fice, in a state­ment to the meet­ing said the United King­dom was “de­lighted” to demon­strate its “com­mit­ment to leg­ally bind­ing neg­at­ive se­cur­ity as­sur­ances by sign­ing a pro­tocol” to the treaty.

Mo­scow in its state­ment said it wished to sign the pro­tocol “as soon as pos­sible.” Wash­ing­ton sim­il­arly ex­pressed its an­ti­cip­a­tion for ink­ing the text.

Mukhatzhan­ova said she be­lieved any sign­ing ce­re­mony at the meet­ing would take place in private, with the five powers sub­mit­ting the treaty to their re­spect­ive le­gis­lat­ive bod­ies for rat­i­fic­a­tion at a later date.

An agree­ment by the five powers to sign the pact had been held up for years, due to prob­lems that Lon­don, France and par­tic­u­larly Wash­ing­ton had with some of the ac­cord’s lan­guage, she said. The spe­cif­ic point of con­ten­tion dealt with Art­icle 12, which states that the agree­ment “does not af­fect the rights and ob­lig­a­tions of the parties un­der oth­er [pre-ex­ist­ing] in­ter­na­tion­al treat­ies.”

This word­ing caused the George W. Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion con­cern be­cause four of the five sig­nat­or­ies of the nuc­le­ar-free zone pact — Kaza­kh­stan, Kyrgyz­stan,Tajikistan and Uzbek­istan — at the time were also mem­bers of the Col­lect­ive Se­cur­ity Treaty Or­gan­iz­a­tion with Rus­sia, she said. Uzbek­istan ex­ited the Rus­si­an-led se­cur­ity group in 2012.

The Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion in­ter­preted that to mean Mo­scow could po­ten­tially “in­voke the right” to field nuc­le­ar arms in Cent­ral Asia should the need arise, said Mukhatzhan­ova, who served as an ex­pert in Kaza­kh­stan’s del­eg­a­tion to the 2010 NPT re­view con­fer­ence.

The nuc­le­ar re­search­er said the is­sue had seemed “com­pletely in­tract­able.” However, after Pres­id­ent Obama was elec­ted, there was a “change in the polit­ic­al will” in Wash­ing­ton, and the five per­man­ent mem­ber states of the U.N. Se­cur­ity Coun­cil were able to even­tu­ally work out an agree­ment, she said.

“From what I un­der­stand, the agree­ment is that the five nuc­le­ar powers [will] at­tach in­ter­pret­ive state­ments to their sig­na­tures,” Mukhatzhan­ova said.

Those in­ter­pret­ive state­ments may in­clude some caveats whereby coun­tries would spell out con­di­tions for when they would not con­sider them­selves bound to re­spect the nuc­le­ar-free-zone in Cent­ral Asia, she said.

Cla­ri­fic­a­tion: This story has been up­dated to re­flect Uzbek­istan’s cur­rent status re­gard­ing the Col­lect­ive Se­cur­ity Treaty Or­gan­iz­a­tion.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
20 hours ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×