Dr Nader Entessar, professor of political science had an exclusive interview with Khabar Fori about IAEA
TEHRAN – (KNA) : Professor Nader Entessar from South Alabama University had an interview with Khabar Fori. He published his ideas about nuclear treaty (IAEA). He thinks IAEA does not have all the technical and legal provisions.
Dr. Nader Entessar is Professor and Chair in Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice in University of South Alabama. We had an exclusive interview with him about nuclear treaty.
Following is the text of the interview:
Q: Why despite strong emphasis on nuclear disarmament, this treaty was adopted so late? And why in UN general assembly which is not mandatory?
A: The initial proposals for the current version of a nuclear-weapons-ban treaty date back to 2010 and to the aftermath of the review conference on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that year. As is normally the case, drafting a major multilateral treaty is an arduous task that takes years. After several rounds of intergovernmental conferences, the UN General Assembly in 2015 established a working group to draft concrete measures to deal with a variety of legal provisions and technical issues that could be addressed by international experts. In October 2016, the First Committee of the UN General Assembly reviewed the recommendations of the aforementioned working group and adopted a resolution that was voted upon by the entire General Assembly of the UN in December of that year. The UN General Assembly's involvement from the outset explains why the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was handled at by body. In fact, multilateral treaties of this nature normally originate in the workings of the UN General Assembly.
Q: Will this adoption have customary effects and results? Can it lead to the disarmament of nuclear powers?
A: This treaty was not intended to have all the customary provisions that a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention would have had. Therefore, this treaty does not have all the technical and/or legal provisions that would lead to the eliminations of nuclear weapons. This treaty was envisioned as the first step towards future negotiations that would discuss how to prohibit nuclear weapons and ultimately move towards the total elimination of them. This treaty, however, sends an unambiguous political commitment by some 122 countries that voted for it that achieving a nuclear-weapons-free world is a goal supported by the vast majority of UN members. This may prove to be an illusory goal because none of the nuclear weapons states participated in the negotiations and the voting process. In addition, with the exception of the Netherlands, which voted against this treaty, all other NATO members did not participate in the voting process and the Netherlands cast a negative vote.
Q: Supporter of this treaty believe that the adoption of it in UN will put pressure on nuclear powers to eliminate their nuclear weapons. What can be possible pressures from UN on these nuclear powers?
A: Supporters of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons have argued that this treaty has strongly stigmatized nuclear weapons and thus will serve as a catalyst to finally move towards adopting further measures to eliminate nuclear weapons. The supporters of this treaty do not see the treaty as an end but as a first strong step towards achieving a nuclear-weapons-free world.
Q: One of the goals of IAEA is nuclear disarmament, but nuclear powers are not interested in it and they are just after nuclear nonproliferation. Why has IAEA never been after nuclear disarmament?
A: The IAEA is an international agency, and like all international agencies, its effectiveness depends on what its member states allow it to do. Unfortunately, the IAEA has been heavily controlled by major powers, especially the nuclear ones, As long as this practice prevails, the IAEA will remain incapable of undertaking any meaningful measures towards one of its major mandates, namely nuclear disarmament.