Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Oil for nukes – mostly a bad idea

Expand Messages
  • Paul
    Oil for nukes – mostly a bad idea Bartering nuclear technology for oil is a path to the spread of nuclear weapons. By Matthew Fuhrmann from the February 29,
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Oil for nukes – mostly a bad idea
      Bartering nuclear technology for oil is a path to the spread of nuclear
      weapons.
      By Matthew Fuhrmann
      from the February 29, 2008 edition

      http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0229/p09s02-coop.html



      French President Nicolas Sarkozy is on a nuclear power selling spree in
      the Middle East.

      He has recently pledged to assist the civilian nuclear programs of three
      oil-producing countries in this conflict-prone region: Saudi Arabia,
      Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. These pledges were preceded by
      signed offers of nuclear aid to Algeria and Libya, two other oil exporters.

      If history is any guide, two things seem probable. First, these nuclear
      power sales are an attempt to ensure a stable oil supply at a time when
      prices are approaching record highs. And second, this oil for nuclear
      technology swap is a deal that France will later regret.

      As part of my research at Harvard University's Kennedy School of
      Government, I recently analyzed more than 2,000 nuclear agreements –
      like the ones France just signed – that countries have concluded since
      1950. The findings confirmed that the common practice of trading nuclear
      technology for steady oil is a bad idea. The short-term gains for the
      nuclear supplier almost always result in adverse long-term repercussions
      – like the spread of nuclear weapons.

      For example, in 1975, France signed an agreement with Iraq authorizing
      the export of a research reactor and highly enriched uranium. According
      to French officials at the time, their aim was to obtain a permanent and
      secure oil supply from a country that provided 20 percent of its oil.

      It worked. But it also had tremendous consequences for international and
      regional security.

      According to intelligence estimates, French assistance could have
      enabled Iraq to build nuclear weapons in a matter of years. Recognizing
      the severity of this threat, especially after Saddam Hussein became
      president, Israel used preemptive strikes to destroy the French-supplied
      reactor in 1981. Perhaps realizing its mistake, France terminated its
      nuclear relationship with Iraq shortly after.

      History is rife with similar stories. The United States assisted Iran's
      civilian nuclear program between 1957 and 1979. This assistance included
      the construction of the Tehran Research Reactor and the supply of
      enriched uranium to fuel it. The US believed that the cooperation would
      persuade Iran to lower the price of oil, particularly in the 1970s when
      prices spiked following the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.

      Of course, Washington regretted offering these exports after Iran
      switched from friend to foe following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. But
      it could not take back what it had already provided.

      Today, the reactor in Tehran is used to provide advanced training to
      Iranian scientists – auspiciously aiding Iran's current nuclear program.
      This program continues to undermine stability in the Middle East and
      could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region.

      Selling nuclear power technology for oil only comes back to take a bite
      out of world security. Nuclear exporters in general must be more
      cautious in choosing their trading partners. The link between the
      peaceful and military uses of the nuclear technology is stronger than
      many people realize. A statistical analysis of this relationship shows
      that countries receiving technology for "peaceful" purposes also
      eventually want nuclear weapons. Because distinguishing between
      "peaceful" and sinister uses of the atom is next to impossible, and
      civilian nuclear agreements ultimately enable proliferation, countries
      must resist the temptation to seek cheap oil to ease economic woes.

      Suppliers should learn from the experience of the former Soviet Union.
      After inadvertently aiding the Chinese nuclear weapons program in the
      1950s, Moscow rarely bartered nuclear technology for short-term
      political or economic gains and kept the most sensitive technologies
      away from even its closest allies. The success of the Soviet experience
      suggests that – with due diligence – the current trend can be reversed.

      We are in the midst of a major nuclear renaissance. Countries in the
      Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and southeast Asia have all
      expressed a desire to begin or revive civilian nuclear programs.
      Bartering nuclear technology for oil is sure to lead to the further
      spread of nuclear weapons.

      Instead of taking dangerous shortcuts to economic enhancement, countries
      such as France must look to more fulfilling solutions.

      An oil-thirsty world is preferable to one full of nuclear bombs.

      • Matthew Fuhrmann is a research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science
      and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He
      is currently writing a book on why countries cooperate in the peaceful
      uses of nuclear energy.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.