12.07.2015 Views

Nuclear Reset - Program on Strategic Stability Evaluation (POSSE)

Nuclear Reset - Program on Strategic Stability Evaluation (POSSE)

Nuclear Reset - Program on Strategic Stability Evaluation (POSSE)

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

396<str<strong>on</strong>g>Nuclear</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Reset</str<strong>on</strong>g>: Arms Reducti<strong>on</strong> and N<strong>on</strong>proliferati<strong>on</strong>early as 1993 when it had withdrawn from the NPT, also failedto sign it. A poorly planned Clint<strong>on</strong> administrati<strong>on</strong> attempt to ratifythe Treaty in the Senate in 1999 was defeated. The Treaty was opposednearly unanimously by the Republican majority in the Senateat the time, who criticized not <strong>on</strong>ly the actual test ban, which theysaid was unacceptable from the standpoint of safety and reliabilityof the U.S. nuclear arsenal, but also the CTBT’s internati<strong>on</strong>al verificati<strong>on</strong>regime, which they pr<strong>on</strong>ounced ineffective. When GeorgeBush became president in 2001, his administrati<strong>on</strong> announced that,although the United States would c<strong>on</strong>tinue to observe the moratorium<strong>on</strong> nuclear testing, it did not intend to ratify the CTBTany time in the foreseeable future, and thus it would not participatein Treaty activities in areas that could be required followingentry of the Treaty into force, primarily related to the inspecti<strong>on</strong>comp<strong>on</strong>ent of the CTBT’s verificati<strong>on</strong> regime, which the UnitedStates simply refused to fund by unilaterally withholding paymentof the corresp<strong>on</strong>ding porti<strong>on</strong> of its c<strong>on</strong>tributi<strong>on</strong> to the annual budgetof the CTBTO Preparatory Commissi<strong>on</strong>.These and a number of other negative factors could not but negativelyimpact the efforts of the Preparatory Commissi<strong>on</strong> to create a verificati<strong>on</strong>regime and drag the process out for much l<strong>on</strong>ger than the initiallyanticipated timeframe (3 years). Am<strong>on</strong>g these negative factorsmust be menti<strong>on</strong>ed the worsening situati<strong>on</strong> with respect to NorthKorea, which in 2003 withdrew from the NPT altogether and in 2006c<strong>on</strong>ducted its first nuclear test det<strong>on</strong>ati<strong>on</strong>. Against this backdrop, despiteregularly c<strong>on</strong>vened C<strong>on</strong>ferences <strong>on</strong> Facilitating the Entry intoForce of the CTBT, the process of ratificati<strong>on</strong> of the CTBT by the nati<strong>on</strong>slisted in Annex 2 first slowed, and then essentially halted.The Comprehensive <str<strong>on</strong>g>Nuclear</str<strong>on</strong>g> TestBan Treaty 15 Years OnMore than 15 years have passed since the Comprehensive <str<strong>on</strong>g>Nuclear</str<strong>on</strong>g>Test Ban Treaty was first opened for signature <strong>on</strong> September 24,1996. As of April, 2012, 183 states have signed the Treaty, of which157 have also ratified it. Of the 44 countries that still must ratifythe CTBT in order for it to enter into force, 36 have completedthe procedure for ratificati<strong>on</strong>, including France, Great Britain,Ind<strong>on</strong>esia, and Russia. As of now, the Treaty has not yet been rati-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!