Jump to:


Addressing Non-Proliferation

The United Nations serves as a key international platform from which countries can work together to stem the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. The UN General Assembly, the Security Council, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) all provide venues for countries to share resources and information, create frameworks for addressing breaches of international agreements, and build unified fronts against rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.

In September 2009, President Obama chaired a historic summit-level meeting of the Security Council to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime. The meeting resulted in the unanimous adoption of Resolution 1887, which endorsed stricter export controls and safeguards while establishing stronger provisions to deter withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In 2010, with strong support from the U.S., the board of the IAEA voted to set up a global nuclear fuel bank that aspiring nations can turn to for reactor fuel instead of making it themselves. Deemed a breakthrough in global cooperation, the bank would enable peaceful uses of nuclear energy while reducing the risks of proliferation and catastrophic terrorism.  In addition, in 2010, the Security Council voted overwhelmingly for Resolution 1929, which punished Iran for its continued failure to live up to its obligations; Resolution 1929 puts in place the toughest sanctions the Iranian government has ever faced, and it sends an unmistakable message about the international community’s commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.  

The UN’s Key Non-Proliferation Mechanisms:

  • International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA, which reports to the UN General Assembly and Security Council, monitors nuclear facilities and technology to ensure their peaceful use;
  • Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). The CTBT, ratified by 153 member states, obliges parties not to detonate nuclear weapons or support those that do. The United States has signed but not ratified the CTBT; and
  • Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). All but four countries are parties to the NPT, which commits member states to working toward both non-proliferation and disarmament.

Verifying Worldwide Nuclear Security and Usage: IAEA

The IAEA seeks to prevent, detect, and respond to illicit or non-peaceful use of nuclear material. The IAEA currently inspects nuclear facilities in over 140 nations and provides UN member states with information and a technical reach beyond any of their individual capacities.

In 2003, IAEA helped unmask Libya’s hidden nuclear weapons program. In 2005, the IAEA concluded that Iran had violated its safeguard obligations, alerting the world to an emerging threat that has prompted international sanctions. In October 2005, the IAEA and former Director General Mohamed El Baradei were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts to prevent states from using nuclear energy for military purposes. In 2010, with strong support from the U.S., the board of the IAEA voted to set up a global nuclear fuel bank that aspiring nations can turn to for reactor fuel instead of making it themselves. Deemed a breakthrough in global cooperation, the bank would enable peaceful uses of nuclear energy while reducing the risks of proliferation and catastrophic terrorism.

Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

The CTBT bans nuclear explosions in all environments for military or civilian purposes. The CTBT will only enter into force, however, after the 44 states in Annex II of the treaty ratify it. Nine of these countries have not yet done so, including, most prominently, China and the U.S. (which has, however, signed the treaty).

The NPT, the most comprehensive international agreement on nuclear non-proliferation, is recognized by all but India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea.

Confronting Rogue Regimes

The IAEA must rely on the UN Security Council to enforce their safeguards and obligations under the NPT. The Security Council acts as a platform on which member states can build a unified international response to rogue nations. In the past several years, the Security Council has condemned Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs and imposed strong sanctions against them.

Iran
In 2003, the IAEA found that Iran had failed to report nuclear materials and activities as required of a signatory of the NPT. Iran’s continuous refusal to cooperate with the international community led the Security Council to approve sanctions including curtailing the travel of Iranian officials, freezing their assets, and banning export of nuclear technology and arms.

In June 2010, the Security Council voted overwhelmingly for Resolution 1929, which punished Iran for its continued failure to live up to its obligations; Resolution 1929 puts in place the toughest sanctions the Iranian government has ever faced, and it sends an unmistakable message about the international community’s commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. The sanctions restrict Iran’s nuclear activities, its ballistic missile program, and, for the first time, its conventional military. They put a framework in place to stop Iranian smuggling and crack down on Iranian banks and financial transactions. They target individuals, entities, and institutions – including those associated with the Revolutionary Guard – that have supported Iran’s nuclear program and prospered from its illicit activities.
In praising passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1929, Secretary of Defense Gates said that “one of the many benefits of this resolution is that it will provide a legal platform for individual nations to then take additional actions that go well beyond the resolution itself.” This has in fact happened – the U.S. issued their own sanctions, as did the European Union (Iran's largest trading partner), Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Japan, and South Korea; the overwhelming bulk of Iran’s international trade is with countries other than the U.S., so their withdrawal has had more impact than even 30 years of U.S. sanctions.  

Iran’s development of nuclear weapons has slowed as the sanctions have harmed its economy. During a 2010 hearing in the House of Representatives, Department of State Under Secretary for Political Affairs William Burns noted that multilateral and national sanctions hindered “Iran’s development of a nuclear weapons capability and the means to deliver them, while making it harder for Iran to continue its destabilizing activities in the region.” And former Treasury Department Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey noted that “major companies are announcing that they have curtailed or completely pulled out of business dealings with Iran."

North Korea
North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003 and conducted a series of missile tests in 2006. In response, the UN Security Council passed two resolutions imposing a series of sanctions preventing North Korea from importing or exporting funds or goods that could fuel Pyongyang’s missile programs. After returning to the six-party talks, North Korea agreed to shut down its nuclear facilities in exchange for political incentives from the U.S. and Japan.

In response to North Korea’s nuclear weapons test in 2010, the U.S. secured the unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 1874, which put in place an array of sanctions, including freezing assets, imposing financial sanctions, embargoing arms exports, and instituting an unprecedented framework for inspecting suspect vessels. Since the adoption of Resolution 1874, countries have intercepted and seized tons of contraband cargo, including a large arms shipment uncovered by Thailand in December 2009. These interdictions show that countries are taking seriously their obligations to enforce the new measures.

Next Steps to Non-Proliferation

In December 2010, the U.S. took a major step to stop weapons from getting into the wrong hands by ratifying and signing the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), a definitive next step in the enforcement of the NPT. New START requires the U.S. and Russia to limit significantly their strategic arms over the seven years from the date the treaty entered into force, February 2011. However, it still allows the U.S. sufficient means to defend itself and its allies when necessary.

The U.S. can advance non-proliferation even further by prioritizing Senate passage of the CTBT and pursuing full implementation and enforcement of the NPT. Other countries, such as Russia, look to the U.S., with the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, to take the lead on and fully embrace both of these treaties.