PaulyWolly, I challenge to you. > 영어토론방

• 목록

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 구글+ 공유
• 

Debate Motion : This house would abolish the nuclear non-proliferation treaty(NPT).
(Cite from : 2007 YBM Si-sa World Schools Debating Championships - Grand Final : Singapore vs Scotland)
In 1968 the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty promised the world disarmament of nuclear powers - an end to nuclear proliferation and safe nuclear energy for all. 39 years on, the US, Russia, and the UK continue to increase their lethal power of their nukes, dangerous dictators like Kim Jong Il threaten the lives of millions with illegal nuclear technology, while Iran's nuclear energy reactors are fast becoming factories for weapons of mass destruction. Ladies and Gentlemen, the NPT has failed us all, and it's time to put an end to it.
Before I move on to my case, allow me first to define a few key terms in today's motion. What exactly are we talking about when we refer to the NPT? It is an international treaty signed the first of July 1968 with 3 main pillars: 1st, to promote disarmament of existing nuclear stockpiles, and lastly to facilitate the use of peaceful civilian nuclear technology.
The NPT is a victim of 3 operational inadequacies. 1st, it is non-specific meaning there exists no clear and tangible targets for us to follow - it is merely an aspirational treaty with idealistic goals - for example it compels countries to act "in faith." Second, it is non-universal. Countries accede to the treaty voluntarily and there exists an opt-out clause which countries can choose to activate to wriggle out of being bound to these international aspirations. And lastly, it is non-enforceable because there exists no punitive mechanisms if a country fails to comply with the clauses of the NPT. What do you mean by abolish? Abolish means "to formally repeal a practice." However, it is practically impossible to actually abolish treaties under international treaty law. Therefore, in the spirit of this debate what I am saying is that the abolishment of NPT refers to it being subsumed or superseded by new treaties or new international understanding. Allow me first to clarify that abolishing the NPT is not a miracle drug. But I believe that the abolition will further the 3 pillars of the NPT. This house would abolish the Nuclear NPT because on each of the 3 pillars of non-proliferation, of disarmament, of the spirit of peaceful civilian use of nuclear technology - it has A, failed, B, been counter productive to the fulfillment of these aims, and C, impeded the progress of future provisions of better distributions. Therefore, if you want keep the NPT - you must prove that the NPT as it stands today is successful and forward looking enough in today's paradigm. In the 1st round, I'll be talking to you about the 1st 2 pillars of the NPT. They are firstly non-proliferation, and secondly that of the spread of the use of civilian nuclear technology. And in my 2nd round, I will talk to you about the other - the 3rd of pillar of the NPT - which is that of disarmament.
So, moving on to the 1st point of substantive argument this - which is that of non-proliferation. Everyone, I believe that the pillar of non-proliferation has failed. Since the inception of the NPT, many countries continue to flagrantly disregard the aspirations of the treaty - opting to embark on their own nuclear weapons programs. Some prime examples of countries include : North Korea, Libya, India, and Pakistan. There are 3 reasons behind the failure of the NPT and these reasons also make it counter productive to the fulfillment of this aim of nuclear non-proliferation. 1st reason, states of concern are not in this treaty. The precise countries that we want ensuring that they are committed to a policy of non - proliferation are offered an opt-out clause. This has led to North Korea silently producing nuclear weapons and then opting out, precluding them from the promise of nuclear non-proliferation. And this is something that we cannot conscience. The 2nd reason, I see that I see that there are no checks on countries which have not signed which have meaning countries like Israel could acquire nuclear weapons legitimately without need for declaration or managed inspection. And the 3rd reason, there is a fatal contradiction in the aims of the NPT. They champion non-proliferation on 1 hand and on the other they aim to stretch civilian nuclear technology - failing to recognize - that these technologies are dual-use in nature. Which means that it is very easy to convert civilian nuclear technology to military nuclear weapons. For example, the international network of engineers and scientists against proliferation reports that what is suitable for what is suitable for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy can also create the foundation of maleficent uses. This means that the same grade of plutonium can be used for both civilian and military uses. This means light water reactors can be used for power generation or with the slightly higher uranium enrichment content can be used to make nuclear bombs. Understanding that with or without the NPT we cannot enforce the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, the best way to tackle this is through international pressure and international engagement. The success evident in Libya with diplomatic pressure led to Libya's cessation of its nuclear weapons program. The existence of the NPT makes it very difficult for international engagement to take place. Why? Because the NPT entrenches the hypocrisy of nuclear weapon states. It concretizes the divide between nuclear haves and nuclear have-nots. Preventing proliferation yet setting no requirements at all for nuclear weapon states to fulfill obligations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Therefore, countries without nuclear weapons may feel that the only way to join this privileged nuclear club is to acquire nuclear weapons on their own such as North Korea. And many countries who want nuclear weapons also find this arrogant and refuse to sign the NPT hurting and impeding the progress of the cause of non-proliferation. So we see, because it is useless, we must abolish it.
Onto the 2nd point about civilian technology. The NPT we see lacks the simplicity in the provision of such civilian nuclear technologies to non-nuclear states. The clauses states simply that nuclear weapon states should adopt "general measures" to "help" non-nuclear states with no specifications on how and what type of measures will be adopted. This provides non-nuclear states with no incentive to join the NPT. This has led to the existence of other agreements like the US-India Peaceful Peace Atomic Energy Cooperation Act which provides India's nuclear facilities. Agreements like this, ladies and gentlemen, achieve the same aims of the NPT but does it better. Why? Because we see that more countries, especially states of concern which are most likely to abuse such technologies will sign on to these advisory agreements because these financial agreements are more targeted, are more specific in terms of the goals and time of technological goals that you want to achieve. Therefore, I have shown you that this proves that the NPT has been superseded by bilateral agreements and are redundant in the eyes of the international community. Therefore because the pillars of non-proliferation and secondly the spread of civilian nuclear technology have A, failed, B, are counter-productive under the NPT, and C, impedes progress and provision of future solutions - I say abolish the NPT.