Henry Kissinger played a slightly indirect but highly influential part in setting the pace for the Nuclear Suppliers Group in the mid-1970s, prompted both by genuine concern about nuclear proliferation and an interest in keeping U.S. authorities from interfering with free trade in the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and from pressuring other countries into the anti-nuclear bandwagon. Like so many things in life there seemed to be at least two sides to every issue – perhaps more. But Kissinger’s role in negotiating the terms of the Nuclear Suppliers Group with North Korea, South Korea and Japan highlights a crucial point. Did he play the role because he thought it was in America’s best interests or did he play it because he thought it would help his career?
The first point to consider is who influenced the establishment of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The three countries were North Korea, South Korea and Japan and all had nuclear weapons capabilities prior to the onset of talks with the US at the Group of Eight meeting in The Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, Switzerland in November agreement. All these countries had nuclear weapons programs, some with advanced warheads, missiles or delivery systems and all were determined to continue these programs once negotiations with the US began. Given that the objective of the NPT was to prevent the production or deployment of nuclear weapons around the globe, there was very little that the US could do to stop them short of declaring war. However, given the proliferation of illicit weapons (such as nuclear arms and biological weapons) across the globe the US was forced to negotiate hard for the release of aid to Pakistan to buy Chinese-made nuclear weapons.
It is clear from the secret history that the US wanted to induce the release of funds and assistance to Pakistan to procure nuclear weapons technology from China but not to mention the transfers of nuclear technology between other countries. The MTC memo also indicates that the US did not want the MTC to include a reference to a new global ban on the proliferation of nuclear weapons or a ban on the transfer of nuclear technology to non-state actors. The MTC did not include any mention of a no fly zone over Pakistan. The fact that the MTC was never approved by the US Senate, never received an initial vote of confidence by the American people or the international community and was never put into effect should be sufficient evidence that both the government and its allies do not see the MTC as a viable alternative to stopping proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The second topic is why the MTC was never allowed to include a ban on the transfer of nuclear technology between countries. Apparently, this was not acceptable to the US and it would have required a drastic change in the US-India relationship which we were not prepared to risk. The MTC did not mention anything about a no fly zone over Pakistan and was never included in the negotiations for a comprehensive Middle East peace process or in a proposal to the UN to set up a global dialogue on nuclear proliferation. The MTC was designed to provide incentives for the countries that do not become a nuclear threshold and offers no protection to those that do. Negotiators from Pakistan and India met in Islamabad and discussed the MTC proposal but they were unable to come to an agreement.
We know that the MTC was never implemented because Indian nuclear engineers were provided with unpolished funds by the United States. The only thing that was achieved was that Indian nuclear engineers were provided with financial backup to continue to enrich Uranium for nuclear weapons production. The money that the Indians got from the United States was used to buy Chinese heavy water. The IAEA is looking into these activities right now but India claims that it was already in the pipeline before the MTC was proposed. Whatever the case, this is another problem for India in terms of non-use of nuclear power. The nuclear power sector in India will have to rely on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.
The MTC guidelines were supposed to apply to all suppliers of nuclear fuel but that was not how it worked out. It appears that the suppliers decided that the best way to get an exemption from the MTC was to form a lobby group that would spend time meeting with foreign ministers and US lawmakers. There are some nuclear export policy issues here because the Nuclear Suppliers Group makes it very hard to get any sort of cooperation from the six countries that make up the NPT. The six countries want to be sure that their supply of nuclear fuel will be approved every time. This makes getting the MTC exemptions difficult.
A group called International Nuclear Supply and Trading Association was formed to work on the issue of MTC exemptions. It was obvious from the beginning that the purpose of this group was to lobby for more exemption requests from the six countries to the MTC. The association has already succeeded in getting three nations to agree to a freeze on new nuclear fuel cycle requests. This is a step forward but not enough because the IAEA needs to find out why these nations aren’t complying with the freeze and then start to put sanctions on them.
The United States is one of the major suppliers of nuclear materials and technology to the world but the Nuclear Suppliers Group is trying to block us from using our natural resources for peaceful purposes. The use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is one of the keys to ensuring that the world’s nuclear weapons don’t end up in the wrong hands. If the suppliers can be convinced that there is a peaceful use for nuclear energy the problem of proliferation will be solved.