The Breach

China is about to break important international rules designed to prevent nuclear proliferation. Can Beijing be stopped?

BY MARK HIBBS | JUNE 4, 2010

In the coming weeks, China is expected to announce that it intends to export two nuclear-power reactors to Pakistan. The move would breach international protocol about the trade of nuclear equipment and material. Once the deal is officially confirmed, the spotlight won't be on either Beijing or Islamabad; it will be on Washington, which concluded a watershed nuclear agreement with India in 2008. That deal is the precedent that has opened the door for China -- creating an awkward test for a U.S. administration greatly concerned about the risks of nuclear proliferation.

China's announcement will overstep the guidelines of the 46-country Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which bar nuclear commerce between Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) members like China and nonmember states like Pakistan. It will leave U.S. President Barack Obama with two options: He can either oppose the transaction and request that China leave the NSG, or grudgingly accept the Chinese exports. As of last week, when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Chinese leaders in Beijing for the three-day U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the United States was strongly leaning toward the latter.

If the White House does choose to grin and bear the China-Pakistan deal, it will have compelling reasons for doing so. The United States has a lot on its plate with China right now. It wants Chinese help on U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran, a greater Chinese effort to rein in North Korea, and a significant revaluation of China's currency vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar. But more importantly, the United States made its own NSG rule-suspending nuclear deal with India in 2008. Beijing could have blocked the NSG exemption for India, but accommodated the pressure of the United States and its allies on this issue. Now, the bill is coming due as Islamabad demands equal treatment. It would be reasonable for China to expect reciprocity from the United States in the NSG, given that it was Washington that started changing the rules.

Indeed, since joining the group in 2004, China has played according to the NSG's voluntary rules, despite a long tradition of nuclear collaboration with Pakistan. Upon joining, Beijing informed the group of its existing civil nuclear agreement with Pakistan, which Beijing said committed China to build the Chashma-2 power reactor now scheduled to be finished next year. Since 2004, Pakistan has enlisted China to supply it with two additional power reactors, Chashma-3 and -4. Beijing hasn't obliged, but now that U.S., French, Japanese, and Russian firms are poised to sell nuclear equipment to India, China is finally prepared to press the issue.

A number of NPT countries are watching all this with alarm. At last month's NPT Review Conference, they referred to the U.S.-India deal as a dangerous precedent. States that export nuclear equipment, they worried, would feel emboldened to brush aside rules meant to reward NPT membership with nuclear-trade privileges. The U.S.-India deal is also still lamented as a missed opportunity; had India agreed to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty as a condition of the NSG exemption, for example, it would have taken a major step to de-escalate nuclear competition in South Asia. (It also would have blunted much of the resentment the deal and exemption touched off among many of the NPT's nonnuclear-weapon states.)

Instead, here's where we are now: China is prepared to take advantage of the opening created by the United States and India to move forward on its nuclear deal with Pakistan. Because the NSG guidelines are voluntary and not legally binding, critical group members cannot prevent the transaction. Still, China knows that it faces international criticism if it goes through with the export to Pakistan, so the timing of its announcement is crucial. China chose not to formally announce its plans before the NPT Review Conference closed last month. Instead, the matter might be raised during an annual NSG plenary meeting to be held in New Zealand in late June.

If that happens and China looks set to move forward with the trade, all is not lost. Rather than remaining formally silent or issuing a paper démarche expressing regret about China's move, the United States could call upon China and Pakistan to provide a significant nonproliferation benefit as part of the transaction -- of the sort the U.S.-India deal failed to include. For example, both countries could together open the road to negotiation of a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, which would halt production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons worldwide. Right now, Pakistan is blocking negotiations at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, citing the U.S.-India deal and the NSG exemption for India. Many NSG states think that China -- the only one of the NPT's five nuclear-weapons states never to have declared a moratorium on producing fissile material for nuclear weapons -- stands behind Pakistan in holding up the negotiations.

FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

 

Mark Hibbs is a senior associate in the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

MISHMAEL

12:42 PM ET

June 5, 2010

Nukes

Though it might be completely politically incorrect to speculate, nuclear energy and weapons would probably be the safest if confined to a few select countries. The NPT is indeed a joke of sorts because its only real reason is to pacify those countries who are not powerful enough to get nukes. Perhaps one day everyone can just recognize that certain countries should keep their nukes, and the other ones would just have to get by without them.

 

KOXINGA

6:19 PM ET

June 5, 2010

"That deal is the precedent that has opened the door for China"

Finally China is recognizing that the US has been making up the rules and that they are powerful enough now to play by the same rules. What other precedents has the United States set that China can now follow?

How about invading and occupying other sovereign states for decades?

Or basing tens of thousands of soldiers and sailors in neighboring countries (who are themselves 'sovereign states'- but don't try and get rid of the tens of thousands of troops based in your country, or you might be forced to resign)...?

 

NORBOOSE

2:23 PM ET

June 6, 2010

The US didnt make the rules...

..God did, or to explain it better, the fundamental way reality functions made the rules. Do not pretend you can take some moral high ground in this. Countries have goals, and if they actually want to acheive them, they function within the realm of reality. The US acts the way it does because it thinks it has to in order to acheive its goals. China does the same. America does bad things, but for all its flaws, its goals include a world in which people are free. Are its actions often corrupted by special interests? Of course! Are its people often dumb enough to vote for fools? Hell yes! However, the Chinese ultimate goals are pure simple nationalism and for the CPC to stay in power. Yeah, the US did dumbass things as sole superpower, I will bet good money that, if in the same position, a country like China would have done far worse.

Im going to try thinking like you
1. China does bad things, but thats OK since the US did them first
2. The US did bad things, but thats because it had to fill the vacuum left by the late colonial empires (Mainly Britain), and they did bad things first
3. The late colonial empires did bad things, but they had to to compete with the Spanish and Portugese empires which did them first
4. The Spanish and Portugese did bad things, but they were forced to because they had to circumvent the Ottoman Empire, which did them first
5. The Ottomans did bad things, but they had to win against the Byzantines, which did them first
6. The Byzantines did bad things, but they had to to survive the nomad raiders, who did them first
7. The nomads had to stave off the Romans
8.The Romans had to defeat Carthage
AND IT GOES ON....

There are a lot of places where I could have branched differently, but this was OK. So thats the Chinese ideology. "The US did bad things, so we can!" No goal for freedom, no goal for equality, just justification? If the US becomes irrelevent in the far future, China's been sole superpower for a while, made some bad chgoices. Suddenly, a fascist Wherever starts to challenge it. So Wherever can do whatever it wants, because it will be China's fault, or the US's, or Carthage's? Your view of the world is deeply flawed.

 

NORBOOSE

2:42 PM ET

June 6, 2010

I was too pissed off by your self-righteousness to stop

Oh yeah, I just realized, China started a war with Vietnam in 1979. It started a war with India in, I believe it was 1967. It propped up Cambodia, a madman regime. It props up North Korea, another madman regime. It has exploitative resource extraction center in the third world. It props up the Sudan genocide. It kills 8000 of its own people per year. Thats greatly improved from its Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. I wont mention Tianamen, because China still says it didnt happen. I dont have time to elaborate. Yeah, Im sick of this. The more I think about it, the more ludicrous it seems that China is good. I cant even get all my thoughts out, there are so damn many. For their capabilities, China has a much worse record than the US. All in all, I respect the Chinese as rivals, and they are a lot better than the Nazis or Soviets, but do not pretend China's some innocent baby country coming to bring justice.

 

SURESH SHETH

2:02 PM ET

June 6, 2010

US non-proliferation talk is a joke

Mark Hibbs is raising a moot question since China has NOT been stopped until now in proliferating nuclear equipment and weapon technology.

US has ignored China’s supply of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology to North Korea and Pakistan until now. Afterall North Koreans are NOT geniuses who can invent nuclear triggers and ballistic missiles. Neither North Korea nor Pakistan would have dared to exchange Pakistan’s uranium enrichment technology for North Korea’s Chinese ballistic missile technology if China would have strongly objected since China is an indispensable ally of both.

American ‘Non-proliferation Ayatollahs’ roar like lions when talking about proliferation by Iran and North Korea, but squeak like mice when it comes to proliferation by China. The Americans have long known that China has provided Pakistan with nuclear weapons designs, fissile material and enrichment equipment, but have deliberately turned a blind eye to China’s activities. Over the past decade, China has provided Pakistan with plutonium reactors and reprocessing technology to enable Pakistan to make lighter warheads for fitment on Chinese supplied ballistic and cruise missiles.

Successive US Administrations have ignored this. Moreover, despite recent revelations about AQ Khan, the Obama Administration continues to maintain that Pakistan’s proliferation activities were carried out solely by a rogue “AQ Khan Network”, thus absolving the Pakistani Army establishment which was the prime culprit, of its culpability. If President Ronald Reagan overlooked Pakistani proliferation in the 1980s to keep Gen Zia-ul-Haq pleased, Mr Obama evidently wants to keep Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani in good humor. The Obama Administration remains tongue-tied on issues of the Pakistani Army’s role in nuclear proliferation.

Recently concluded NPT conference totally ignored China’s central damning role in proliferating nuclear weapons technology in the first place.

Let us NOT forget that China made this world lot more dangerous by proliferating its nuclear weapon technology to Pakistan and North Korea. Let us NOT forget that Pakistan in turn proliferated Chinese nuclear weapon technology to Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Neither China nor Pakistan have been held accountable for making this world whole lot more ‘unsafe’ by proliferating nuclear weapon technology. That free pass given to China and Pakistan have turned all this US talk about reining in nuclear proliferation in to a joke.

 

ARJUNA

12:32 AM ET

June 7, 2010

Re: The Breach

US has ignored China’s supply of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology to North Korea and Pakistan until now. Afterall North Koreans are NOT geniuses who can invent nuclear triggers and current political news ballistic missiles. Neither North Korea nor Pakistan would have dared to exchange Pakistan’s uranium enrichment technology for North Korea’s Chinese ballistic missile technology if China would have strongly objected since China is an indispensable ally of both.

 

TING-SHIANG LEE

11:53 AM ET

June 7, 2010

Lead by example of powers

Both US and China should lead by examples of powers, by setting examples as to how powers are put in good and just use for peaceful purposes, but not the other way around, i.e. not to lead by powers of examples, which set examples by powers for those and others to fear.

That's the guiding principle if ever a G2 or G3 is to be worked out in the foreseeable future, which doesn't seem to be impossible.

 

ELI

11:41 PM ET

June 10, 2010

The Breach

As mentioned "China's announcement will overstep the guidelines of the 46-country Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which bar nuclear commerce between Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) members like China and nonmember states like Pakistan. It will leave U.S. President Barack Obama with two options: He can either oppose the transaction and request that China leave the NSG, or world top news stories grudgingly accept the Chinese exports. As of last week, when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Chinese leaders in Beijing for the three-day U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, the United States was strongly leaning toward the latter."

 

MCLARK1970

11:22 PM ET

June 20, 2010

Not a great idea

China should be careful because it is important to stand with the world community. There is too much trouble these days for Iran and China to be dealing with each other this way. I was considering in China but I think with the tensions the way they are it probably would be a bad idea if anything went wrong. If one was to start a preschool they would definitely need to check with the local licensing office in Beijing.

 

MCLARK1970

11:27 PM ET

June 20, 2010

Not the best idea

China should be careful because it is important to stand with the world community. There is too much trouble these days for Iran and China to be dealing with each other this way. I was considering starting a preschool in China but I think with the tensions the way they are it probably would be a bad idea if anything went wrong. If one was to start a preschool they would definitely need to check with the local licensing office in Beijing.