Nuclear bombs have hardly been out of the headlines this month. There was the Bush administration’s repeated claim on 9 May 2002 that the ‘axis of evil’ states (which now include Syria, Libya and Cuba as well as Iran, Iraq and North Korea) are desperate to develop nuclear weapons. There was America and Russia’s agreement in mid-May 2002 to ‘cut their nuclear arsenals’, helping to ‘clear the way for new relations’ between the former Cold War enemies. ‘This…will liquidate the legacy of the Cold War’, declared President Bush. And now there is the stand-off between nuclear powers India and Pakistan, leading to panic among political leaders and commentators that there could be a nuclear conflict in South Asia.

One thread ran through each of these news stories and the ensuing debates: that Western nations can be trusted to have nuclear weapons and to sensibly get rid of a few of them if and when they please – but third world states must be stopped from building, attempting to build or even thinking about building nuclear bombs. And those third world states that already have nuclear capability must be reined in and given a stern talking to at every opportunity. It is becoming increasingly clear: the world is split along a nuclear divide, between the supposedly civilized West and the allegedly barbaric rest.

Consider the different ways in which different nuclear powers are discussed. When India and Pakistan indulge in war talk or threaten to launch attacks, the headlines always scream ‘Nuclear states close to the edge’ or ‘Nuclear-armed powers on the verge of war’ or ‘could this spell nuclear apocalypse?’ Why aren’t there similar headlines when the really powerful nuclear players like America, Britain or France launch wars everywhere from Iraq to Kosovo and from Somalia to Afghanistan? The implication is obvious – Western nations can be trusted to hold back from dropping The Bomb, but India, Pakistan and every other tinpot state ‘over there’ cannot.

Can anyone spot the irony? Of course. The only state ever to have used The Bomb on human beings is the USA. Indeed, the USA specifically selected two cities with large numbers of civilians and A-bombed them at times of the day that would guarantee maximum destruction. Since 1945, America has held on to its nuclear arsenal, continues to detonate nuclear bombs for practice, threatened to reduce North Korea to a ‘charcoal briquette’ in 1994, and to this day defends its nuclear weapons program. ‘I view our nuclear arsenal as a deterrent’, said Bush in March 2002. ‘And the President must have all options available to make that deterrent have meaning.’

So how does the USA get away with lecturing other states about the use and abuse of nuclear weapons? With a little help from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This treaty has been signed by 180 nations since it came into force in 1970, with the stated aim of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, and is supported by CND and many other anti-war campaigns. The problem is, the NPT creates the nuclear divide between the West and the third world that allows America, Britain and other NATO nations to dictate to everyone else.

Article 1 of the NPT says: ‘Each nuclear-weapon state party to the treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or        

other nuclear explosive devices…and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.’ Here, in the opening article, the emphasis is entirely on keeping nuclear secrets away from ‘non-nuclear weapon states’. It might seem odd that a treaty which aims to ‘end the nuclear arms race’ should immediately focus on keeping nuclear weapons away from certain states, rather than focusing on those states that already have them and how they might get rid of them. But that is what the NPT is about: not so much putting an end to nuclear capability, but determining who can have it and who can’t.

Article 2 of the NPT says: ‘Each non-nuclear-weapon state undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices…not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons…and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.’ Again, the treaty turns its attention to those who don’t even have nuclear arms – and does everything it can to ensure they never will.

Then comes the killer clause in Article 3 ‘Each non-nuclear-weapon state undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency…for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.’ In plain English, this means that the non-nuclear states agree to be inspected to ensure they aren’t breaking the rules. Inspected by whom? The nuclear states, which have the most influence in the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The opening and central articles of the NPT are concerned only with keeping nuclear capability away from non-nuclear states, and with creating a world in which nuclear states can inspect non-nuclear states to make sure they aren’t developing nuclear weapons. It is only in Article 6 that the treaty finally raises the issue of nuclear states getting rid of some of their nuclear weapons – and in contrast to the diktats laid out to non-nuclear states in Articles 1, 2 and 3, this article is entirely non-committal: ‘Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament….’

The NPT is not concerned with getting rid of nuclear weapons, but with codifying the divide between the ‘nuclear haves’ and the ‘nuclear have nots’ – between those states that are seen as trustworthy and civilized enough to own The Bomb and those that are seen as too untrustworthy and suspicious to be allowed anywhere near The Bomb. It is this divide that allows a nuclear power like America to threaten non-nuclear power North Korea with ‘annihilation’ if it ‘even thinks about’ developing nuclear weapons. It is this divide that allows the nuclear powers of the West to demand that non-nuclear powers like Iraq open up their countries to intrusive inspections. And it is this divide that makes the following a legitimate question: why shouldn’t third world states have nuclear bombs?