Summary

The global nuclear order appears increasingly tense, primarily because many states feel that the structure and distribution of benefits is unjust. Among the states that will determine how the nuclear order will adapt, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, and Pakistan are particularly important.

These states occupy an uncomfortable middle ground in the order. Each possesses advanced nuclear technology, and three of them hold nuclear weapons. Unlike other states that seek to fundamentally change the existing system, these states would like to improve their standing in the order even though they remain deeply uneasy with its perceived lack of fairness.

The Current Nuclear Order

Criticism of the existing order tends to focus on the lack of progress toward disarmament by countries possessing nuclear weapons. Critics reject incremental arms control measures as an indicator of progress. Many states also disparage growing constraints on access to peaceful nuclear technology, which they believe will impede their economic development.

The existing order primarily benefits states that developed nuclear technology earliest and wrote most of the rules governing international nuclear affairs. The evolution of the order will likely be driven by middle-ground states that have developed advanced nuclear technology and actively participate in nuclear governance decisionmaking, but whose interests are not completely served by the existing system.

Thus far, middle-ground states have preferred working within the system to overturning it. Nuclear regimes provide sufficient elasticity for these states to pursue their interests within existing limitations.

Perspectives From the Middle Ground

Middle-ground states share more interests than are apparent. Despite obvious differences, including the possession of nuclear weapons by some, middle-ground states share concerns about fairness, access to peaceful nuclear technology, and the growing salience of nuclear weapons in U.S. and Russian security policies.

Regional interests trump global norms. Regional security dynamics and relationships tend to influence these states’ nuclear policies more than global norms and a desire to change the order.

Nuclear weapons have declining currency. Despite the rising salience of nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia, middle-ground states tend to consider the possession of advanced nuclear technology and membership in export control groups to be more legitimate symbols of status in the order.

Nuclear policy capacity is underdeveloped. Expert communities in middle-ground states are generally small and diffuse, which hampers their effectiveness in seeking to influence the evolution of the order. Civil society groups and governments in these states could prioritize the development of stronger technical, policy, and legal expertise on nuclear issues.

Introduction

Toby Dalton, Togzhan Kassenova, Lauryn Williams

Tensions in the global nuclear order are rising. The sources of tension are many, including profound disagreement among states about disarmament and nonproliferation priorities, regional insecurity that both contributes to proliferation concerns and enhances the salience of nuclear deterrence, disenchantment about the lack of progress toward disarmament, and questions about integrating the nuclear outlier states into the order. The 2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference was symptomatic of these tensions. The conference failed to reach a consensus outcome, leading one nongovernmental observer to charge that it was an “accurate reflection of the profound inadequacies and disagreements permeating the global nuclear disarmament regime” and a “necessary shock to an ailing system.”1

Most contemporary disagreements about nuclear governance stem from the broader struggle for power in the international system as well as the extent to which states view the rules governing international nuclear affairs as just. This policy subsystem is referred to as the nuclear order—broadly defined as an arrangement of states and institutions in the international system based on beliefs about the relationship between nuclear technology and international political power. The existing order, built since the 1950s in and around the United Nations (UN), gives special preference to the early developers of nuclear technology. The dominant global powers at the time—principally the United States and the Soviet Union—succeeded both in developing nuclear weapons and in negotiating a treaty (the NPT) that legitimized, though conditionally, their possession of those weapons. Ultimately, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States were designated nuclear-weapon states by the treaty, while all of the other countries were classified as non-nuclear-weapon states. The institutionalization of unequal access to nuclear technology, and particularly the possession of nuclear weapons to perpetuate international political power, has contributed to an order that many states consider unjust—albeit one that has remained mostly stable and free of rampant proliferation.

Argentina, Brazil, China, India, and Pakistan are five states that in different ways occupy an uncomfortable middle ground in the nuclear order.

Many actors have tried to reenvision the nuclear order. These efforts are playing out in various venues, including at the United Nations; at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); at the UN Conference on Disarmament; at Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conferences; and in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a multilateral export control regime. Not surprisingly, the narratives that are most dominant are those put forward by the groups challenging the status quo and by the architects of the existing order and other states whose interests are served by it.

International nuclear discourse tends to pay less heed to the perspectives of states that occupy an uncomfortable middle ground. These are states who for numerous and varied reasons find the current system discriminatory and unjust and seek to reform it, while at the same time they often try to improve their position in the order in ways that perpetuate the status quo. Given this tension in views, middle-ground states provide an interesting prism through which to assess the nuclear order and the trajectory of efforts to change it.

Argentina, Brazil, China, India, and Pakistan are five states that in different ways occupy this uncomfortable middle ground. Generalizing from any group of states, including this one, is an analytical challenge, but the comparative perspectives that emerge are informative nonetheless. This introductory chapter contextualizes common themes in the nuclear discourse in each of these middle-ground states and their implications for the evolution of the nuclear order.2

As viewed from these middle-ground states, two broad evolutionary forces might produce change in the existing nuclear order. The first is the diffusion of advanced technology, both nuclear and non-nuclear. Many states today operate complex nuclear research and energy programs, including sensitive fuel-cycle facilities capable of producing enriched uranium or plutonium. Even more possess high-technology industries. Both nuclear and high-technology advancements are viewed as symbols of and contributors to economic growth and development, regardless of their actual correlation with these objectives. Increased availability and supply of these technologies creates the capability for ever more states to build nuclear weapons if they choose to do so. At the same time, states demanding these technologies confront rules for managing trade in dual-use technologies that they perceive as hindering development. The second force comes from states (or groupings of states) that are considered to be rising or emerging powers. These states had little power to shape the regimes governing the development of nuclear technology and the nuclear trade regimes as they were being constructed. Many perceive that the current order does not serve their interests. Today, these states’ rising international power permits them to seek to adapt the regimes in ways that better suit their own interests.

To date, the regimes that comprise the nuclear order have sufficiently tolerated these forces and allowed most states in the middle ground to temper their revisionism, even if they are outspoken in their criticism. For the most part, the order has remained stable because these states have preferred the current, if at times unjust, system to the potential insecurity they would confront if the rules were challenged violently or even overturned. This indicates that these states’ rhetoric in international forums and their actual behavior are diverging, with their actions tending to reinforce the status quo. Thus, these pressures in the nuclear order may be overstated to the extent that most states continue to uphold the rules even as they challenge them.

This suggests that greater attention should be given to the behavior of members rather than the rules of membership in particular institutions. Participation by non-nuclear-weapon states in groups that more actively challenge the regimes—such as the Humanitarian Initiative, which opposes the possession of nuclear weapons on the grounds that their use would have widespread and indiscriminate consequences for civilian populations—will be an important bellwether. If these countries’ involvement in such groups is accompanied by concrete actions, such as purposeful flouting of rules and standard practices, it will indicate that they no longer see the existing order as a provider of sufficiently just outcomes.

Rising Salience of Nuclear Weapons

One common theme across middle-ground states pertains to perceptions of the salience of nuclear weapons and the politics of the dominant states in the nuclear order. Recent events in Syria and Ukraine suggest that Moscow is reinvigorating its reliance on nuclear weapons and deterrence, while U.S. efforts to reverse this trend are primarily inhibited by security commitments to European allies, as well as Japan and South Korea, all of which enjoy protection under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. And though the United States and Russia have reduced their arsenals by more than 80 percent since the Cold War,3 non-nuclear states see the current focus by China, Russia, and the United States on arsenal modernization as an indication that they plan to sustain possession for decades to come.

This, in turn, reinforces perceptions among non-nuclear-weapon states that nuclear-weapon states are ultimately more interested in pursuing arms control or management measures than in eliminating their stockpiles. Indeed, the United States plans to spend nearly $1 trillion on these efforts over the next few decades, while Russia in 2015 announced the planned addition of new long-range missiles to its arsenal.4 Only years removed from the sweeping rhetoric of U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2009 Prague speech regarding nuclear disarmament and the negotiation of the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between Russia and the United States, this trend constitutes a reversal of momentum, as efforts like the Global Zero movement had previously inspired belief that progress on disarmament was possible.

Non-nuclear-weapon states perceive that nuclear-weapon states are ultimately more interested in pursuing arms control or management measures than in eliminating their stockpiles.

Notably, three of these middle-ground states—China, India, and Pakistan—possess nuclear weapons. China occupies an interesting, perhaps transitional, position in the nuclear order insofar as its policies still tend to align with groups that espouse revisionist agendas; yet, it also clearly self-identifies with nuclear-weapon states, benefits from this status, and is taking steps to bolster its position in the order and its own nuclear forces. In this regard, Chinese security policy focuses more on managing rivalry and potential confrontation with the United States than on the global politics of nuclear weapons. Both India and Pakistan, too, confront a tension between the long-standing dynamics that drive their mutual security competition (nuclear weapons included) and each state’s desire to legitimize its position in the nuclear order as a responsible possessor of nuclear weapons. For these states, this tends to result in diplomacy toward the regimes that is wrapped in a veneer of global politics while mostly aimed narrowly at serving national interests.

Whether or not states with nuclear weapons take steps to decrease their salience, the global diffusion of power means that nuclear weapons in 2016 have less currency than previously assumed. Advanced nuclear energy capability and membership in multilateral export control groups and multilateral governance bodies, such as the NSG and the IAEA Board of Governors, are important symbols of status and thus extremely desirable for many middle-ground states. While certainly concerned about global nuclear trends, these states are more motivated by the potential to enhance their own position in the governance institutions that make up the nuclear order than by working toward a more just and fair nuclear order.

Demise of Arms Control

There is also growing uncertainty among middle-ground states regarding the value of arms control, both as a means to manage and mitigate potential conflict and as part of the disarmament process. Indeed, the perception that the salience of nuclear weapons has increased helps lead revisionist groups to reject the idea that arms control and transparency measures are necessary to make the nuclear order more just. Previously, including as recently as the 2010 NPT Review Conference, groups seeking to change the order exhibited a greater willingness to accept arms control as a measure of progress. But the perceived lack of concrete action by the nuclear-weapon states to fulfill commitments made in the 1995, 2000, and 2010 NPT Review Conferences, and more broadly to uphold their NPT Article VI commitment to enact “effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date,” has led more states to challenge the relationship between arms control and disarmament.5 States possessing nuclear weapons are unlikely to receive much credit for small transparency and confidence-building measures in the absence of more fundamental actions demonstrating a strong commitment to devaluing nuclear weapons as a step toward disarmament.

At the same time, arms control and mutual restraint mechanisms have lost currency as tools for managing the potential for conflict among both big powers and regional rivals. For example, to date, China has rejected efforts by the United States and Russia to enter into formal arms control discussions, even though China engages in several unofficial dialogues with both states on these issues. In South Asia, there is little apparent prospect of transparency or restraint as a strategy to curb the regional security competition between Pakistan and India. This is even more alarming given that both states’ possession of nuclear weapons may have heightened the risk of subconventional violence that could escalate in ways that test deterrence stability, even as relative parity in nuclear weapons appears to have lowered the risk of major war. Finally, the explosive growth of capabilities to conduct offensive cyberwarfare among state and nonstate actors raises new concerns about conflict arising from attacks on critical infrastructure, including those related to nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Certainly, the absence of any normative or institutional framework governing the use of these capabilities poses new risks at a time when building international consensus on restraint is already increasingly difficult.

Political Economy of Nuclear Technology

Perhaps the strongest point of convergence for the middle-ground states is a shared concern about access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and the freedom to share it with others, a right guaranteed by the NPT. Indeed, for all of the diplomatic effort and rhetoric that many of these states tend to expend on nuclear weapons, disarmament, and the lack of progress by the nuclear-weapon states in implementing NPT Article VI, their priority is preserving the right to peaceful nuclear technology. Particularly for developing countries, exercising this right is seen as critical to their economic growth and advancement.

Argentina, Brazil, China, India, and Pakistan all possess advanced nuclear technology as of 2016, but to varying degrees all faced efforts by other states or regimes to deny or withhold such technology in the past. Thus, voicing concerns about technology denial and discrimination may be a remnant of their own experiences, or it may stem from a sense of responsibility for conveying the views of developing nations in general. In this, perceptions about the discriminatory nature of the nuclear order may in fact be secondary to fears that states in possession of coveted nuclear technology are using nonproliferation policies as a means to deny access to developing countries—despite the lack of available, systematic evidence that the NSG or similar regimes are actively doing so.

Such criticism and concerns notwithstanding, states in the middle ground also desire a seat at the table in the regimes governing nuclear technology trade, namely the NSG. For them, and for regime outliers, membership in these institutions would give them a voice in future rulemaking.

Perhaps the strongest point of convergence for the middle-ground states is a shared concern about access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Concerns about nuclear rulemaking processes help explain the mixed reactions to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. While states in the middle ground generally celebrate the deal as a victory for nonproliferation diplomacy, many (China as one of the negotiators of the Iran deal being an exception) also worry that provisions in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) may be used in a new effort to restrict peaceful nuclear rights. From this perspective, whether Iran developed nuclear weapons or not was critical insofar as it demonstrated that the regime could prevent proliferation, but more worrisome was the narrative that Iran did not have the right to pursue uranium enrichment. Thus, prior to the negotiations, Brazil and others considered the U.S.-led UN Security Council resolutions that imposed sanctions on Iran because of its nuclear program to be an abuse of multilateral institutions. Even so, only UN Security Council Resolution 1929 of 2010 was ever opposed by Brazil and Turkey, and this came shortly after the major powers did not support the two states’ joint attempt to negotiate an alternative solution with Iran. After the JCPOA, this concern manifests as a fear that technology holders and rulemakerswill seek to further constrain the freedom provided by NPT Article IV to pursue peaceful nuclear technology with autonomy. Thus, for middle-ground states, discussions of strengthening the regime by building on precedents from the JCPOA can sound like yet another effort to restrict access to advanced nuclear technology for states that do not currently possess it.

Though the right to nuclear technology is in the first instance a matter of political economy for these middle-ground states, there is a second, underlying issue: whether flexibility in the regime facilitates or prevents proliferation. Architects of the nuclear order in the West speak of closing loopholes that permit states to develop nuclear-weapon programs using the cover of peaceful nuclear energy endeavors. But others suggest that this elasticity, which allows states to develop advanced nuclear fuel cycles and thus a latent nuclear-weapon capability, is critical to keeping states that otherwise might develop nuclear weapons inside the regime. Ultimately, retaining elasticity in the regime may be critical to sustaining a broader sense of justice.

Incorporating Outliers

India and Pakistan never joined the NPT, while Argentina, Brazil, and China were latecomers. As a result, none is in any sense an architect of the current nuclear order.

Interestingly, in considering whether and how to accommodate outsiders, these latecomers tend to be less bound by strict interpretations of the existing rules for membership, even though they espouse universal adherence. It appears there is more openness among this group to debating the incorporation of outliers and less concern about the potentially negative effects on the order. For them, the greater issue is the potential for the creation of new exceptions or categories of states rather than the reinforcement of the importance of existing nonproliferation commitments and responsible standards of behavior.

The perspectives of India and Pakistan on their potential paths to joining the mainstream nuclear order are quite different and affect how each country perceives its relationship to the nuclear order as a whole. India believes it should be accepted on the merit of its nonproliferation record, its advanced nuclear energy program, and its growing global role. The only desirable path is an exceptional one; Indian leaders harbor the belief that any effort to create universal or comprehensive criteria will fail, for the circumstances and histories of each of the outliers are too different. Pakistan, however, considers the NSG waiver granted to India in 2008 to engage in civil nuclear trade a discriminatory policy and thus argues for a nondiscriminatory approach to membership. The Indian exception was destabilizing to the region and the nuclear order, Pakistanis argue.

The challenge to states considering how to incorporate India and Pakistan is that neither of the outsiders seems willing to take actions that would align its policies, commitments, and practices with other states currently in the mainstream. As the aftermath of the 2008 U.S.-India civil nuclear deal and the NSG exception for India makes clear, the important question to consider is whether the prospect of inclusion is in itself sufficient to incentivize behavior that reinforces norms and commitments central to the nuclear order.

Assessing Priorities

Nuclear policy communities in the middle-ground states tend to be small and diffuse. As Argentine and Brazilian analysts have separately noted, their governments expend little energy on foreign affairs, much less on nuclear policy. Though nuclear experts in these countries and others may be vocal, without high-level attention their policy impact is often very constrained. When government officials do become involved, it is foreign affairs ministries and security institutions in particular that shape the nuclear policy discourse. This, in turn, limits the potential for civil society to play a significant role in assisting governments to prioritize among myriad issues, analyze developments and trends, and develop pragmatic policy approaches. The authors of the essays in this report—all of whom are scholars or analysts by profession—underscore the value of increasing the intellectual capacity of the public to engage governments on nuclear issues.

The sense of growing tension in the nuclear order mostly derives from debates and disputes in global forums, such as in NPT Review Conferences or at the IAEA. Though most of the essays highlight these global challenges, the prioritization of issues and policy recommendations often focus on solutions at the regional or national level. Certainly, as the essays elucidate, some recommendations are targeted at the global level, including encouraging states with nuclear weapons to adopt no-first-use policies and to ban destabilizing practices such as deploying multiple warheads per missile. But, it is also clear that these global recommendations are unlikely to be successful unless and until tensions between regional powers are reduced. In Asia, for example, a trilateral dialogue among China, India, and Pakistan might address instabilities that are driving the increasing salience of nuclear weapons. Brazil and Argentina are already bound by a bilateral nuclear confidence-building framework, yet a path forward likely lies in strengthening their mutual commitment to it.

Despite these challenges, many of the essays are cautiously optimistic that with time and coordinated efforts by governments and civil society, nuclear regimes may begin to evolve in ways that better accommodate the diverse interests of the states they represent.

Notes

1 Cesar Jaramillo, “NPT Review Conference: No Outcome Document Better Than a Weak One,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, June 3, 2015, http://thebulletin.org/npt-review-conference-no-outcome-document-better-weak-one8366.

2 In June 2015, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in partnership with the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs convened a workshop with the objective of drawing out comparative perspectives of Argentina, Brazil, China, India, and Pakistan. This report is based on that discussion, which focused on three questions: What are the most significant challenges facing the nuclear order? What are or should be the priorities of each country? And what actions should be recommended to policymakers?

3 “Nuclear Notebook: Nuclear Arsenals of the World,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2016, http://thebulletin.org/nuclear-notebook-multimedia; and Donna Miles, “U.S. Declassifies Nuclear Stockpile Details to Promote Transparency,” American Forces Press Service, accessed at United States Department of Defense, May 3, 2010, http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59004.

4 “U.S. Nuclear Modernization Programs,” Arms Control Association, December 2015, https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernization; and Adam Withnall, “Vladimir Putin Announces Russia Will Add More Than 40 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles to Nuclear Arsenal in 2015,” Independent, June 16, 2015, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-putin-announces-russia-will-add-40-new-ballistic-missiles-to-nuclear-arsenal-in-2015-10323304.html.

5 “Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT),” accessed at United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPTtext.shtml.

ARGENTINA

Argentina in a Changing Nuclear Order: An Appraisal

Federico Merke

For much of its modern history, Argentina has alternatively punched under and over its weight and has struggled to attain a balance between domestic and international responsibilities, on the one hand, and between its Western and Latin American identities, on the other hand. Argentine foreign policy has typically been an instrument of domestic politics, in which rhetorical gestures on the international scene have sometimes yielded short-term domestic gains. The Argentine National Congress has historically played a rather marginal role in foreign policy, and this has reinforced the autonomy of the presidency in designing and executing it. Moreover, an ever more fragmented and denationalized party system has only increased the parochial view of the Argentine political elite. As a result, foreign policy in Argentina has remained almost solely in the domain of the executive and has been fairly dependent on the ideas and preferences of the president and the president’s inner circle of trusted advisers. This may explain in part why Argentina’s foreign policy may be seen as somewhat erratic or inconsistent across administrations.

And yet, Argentina’s history with nuclear affairs has been much more stable than the overall trajectory of its foreign policy. Yes, there have been changes since the 1980s, when the country returned to democracy, but overall, Argentina has developed a bottom-up, consensus-based, incremental approach to the nuclear order. In this light, Argentina’s nuclear preferences have evolved from unilateral postures in the 1970s and 1980s toward bilateral and multilateral commitments from the 1990s onward.

Even before Argentina became the first Latin American country to use nuclear energy when its first commercial nuclear power reactor went online in 1974, it defended the right to nuclear development for peaceful purposes. During the 1960s, Argentina took a critical stand against the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and depicted it as the “disarmament of the disarmed,” in the words of José María Ruda, then the Argentine ambassador to the United Nations.1 Between the 1960s and the 1980s, its nuclear program included unsafeguarded nuclear facilities for uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing, yet Argentina never made the political decision to develop nuclear weapons.

Argentina’s nuclear preferences have evolved to focus on lines of dialogue, confidence building, and incremental engagement with the global nuclear order.

With the return of democracy in 1983, military programs were firmly placed under civilian control. In the 1980s, a rapprochement with Brazil took place, and in 1991, a bilateral framework, the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABACC), was established to further nuclear cooperation. That same year, Argentina signed the Quadripartite Agreement with the ABACC, Brazil, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the application of nuclear safeguards. The ABACC framework transformed the nature of Brazil-Argentina relations. In 1993, Argentina joined two multilateral export control regimes—the Australia Group and the Missile Technology Control Regime. A year later, Argentina joined the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a multilateral export control regime, and acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon state in 1995. The next year, Argentina became a founding participating state of the Wassenaar Arrangement, a multilateral export control regime focusing on arms and dual-use technology. In sum, Argentina’s nuclear preferences have evolved to focus on lines of dialogue, confidence building, and incremental engagement with the global nuclear order.

A number of reasons may explain Argentina’s nuclear preferences, but the main rationale so far has been that it sees the benefit of making the existing system work. In the 1990s, Argentina adhered to most of the multilateral nuclear arrangements to signal its overture to the West in general and to the United States in particular. As a result, Argentina abandoned its most controversial projects, including the Condor missile program. This, of course, alienated domestic actors (such as the armed forces and nuclear research agencies) with vested interests in the nuclear sector who voiced nationalist concerns. Ultimately, however, a neoliberal ideology trumped technology.

From 2003 onward—for a number of reasons, including the 2004 energy crisis—Argentina witnessed its own version of a nuclear renaissance and embarked on a number of ambitious programs to upgrade its nuclear profile. This renaissance has taken place mainly through domestic and international institutions and has been subject to bilateral and multilateral safeguards that Argentina accepts as legitimate standards for upholding the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Simply put, Argentina downloaded the software (that is, global regulations) in the 1990s, only to move forward with the hardware (that is, nuclear technology) ten years later. Indeed, Argentina is part of various multilateral arrangements and coalitions of the willing—for example, the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism—which would hardly seem to be attractive venues for domestic constituencies prone to anti-imperial maneuvers of sorts. Yet, Argentina has realized that it pays to engage with these multilateral instruments as they serve the dual purposes of reducing uncertainty about Argentina’s nuclear preferences and ensuring swift access to resources in order to improve its nuclear standing. Said another way, technology has trumped ideology.

Ensuring the Right to Peaceful Nuclear Technology

Argentina’s priority is to make the regime work to ensure that all recognized non-nuclear-weapon states maintain the right to develop peaceful nuclear programs. Argentina is committed to ensuring a level playing field wherein each NPT member has the right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Argentina understands that nuclear technology has a role to play in national development and therefore aims to strengthen its position as a nuclear supplier of know-how, technology, and materials. Thus, Argentina opposes the internationalization of the nuclear fuel cycle as it would deepen the technological divide that already exists among the haves and have-nots of the NPT regime.2

Reducing the Salience of Nuclear Weapons

Argentina supports a reduced role for nuclear weapons in national security strategies and is fully committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament. Argentina’s nuclear program is firmly oriented toward research and development; it has an entirely civilian outlook and is controlled by a strong, independent nuclear regulatory agency. The scale of its program is rather small, with only three operating nuclear reactors and a share in electricity production of only about 10 percent.3 In 2010, Argentina reactivated its gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plant at Pilcaniyeu and started to develop an indigenous technology based on laser enrichment, which is in the proof-of-concept phase as of 2016.4 In 2015, then Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner announced that the country was enriching uranium, albeit in small quantities.5

Moreover, Argentina has exported nuclear reactors, radioactive substances (radioisotopes), and nuclear laboratories to a number of countries, including Algeria, Australia, Brazil, Egypt, and Peru. It is also an exporter of the molybdenum-99 radioisotope, widely used in nuclear medicine, and it is the third-largest supplier of the cobalt-60 radioisotope, a radiation source for medical radiotherapy, industrial radiography, and medical equipment sterilization.6 Thus, the main focus of Argentina’s nuclear program is not nuclear deterrence or power ambitions but energy, research, and development.

Avoiding Raising Proliferation Concerns

Even taking into account its limitations of scale and investment, Argentina aims to find its niche in the global nuclear marketplace. In this respect, the main challenge for Argentina is to work toward a nonproliferation regime that allows the country to continue its nuclear program without causing proliferation, safety, or security concerns. This challenge has at least five dimensions.

Argentina believes that the Additional Protocol imposes further nonproliferation burdens on non-nuclearweapon states and establishes an even more unequal nuclear nonproliferation regime.

First, Argentina, along with Brazil, is still reluctant to sign the Additional Protocol, which provides the IAEA with greater authority to, among other things, verify the absence of undeclared nuclear activities and facilities. Argentina believes that the protocol imposes further nonproliferation burdens on non-nuclear-weapon states even as the P5 states (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) continue to possess nuclear arsenals. For Argentina, therefore, the Additional Protocol establishes an even more unequal nuclear nonproliferation regime. Further, the requirement to adopt the protocol draws a thin line between nonproliferation and development restrictions. The Nuclear Suppliers Group provides a good example. In 2011, 46 members of the NSG amended the group’s guidelines for exports of sensitive items to mandate members to require the Additional Protocol in recipient states. Argentina and Brazil opposed this mandate and argued that their bilateral safeguards under the ABACC regime could be construed as being equal to the protocol. As a result, in June 2011, the NSG approved revised guidelines for the export of sensitive nuclear technologies and recognized the Quadripartite Agreement as an alternative to the Additional Protocol.7

Second, safety has become a more salient issue in the Argentine nuclear sector, and there are signs that this will be a hot topic of discussion in years to come. Indeed, some serious safety problems in Belgium, Japan, and South Korea, among other countries, have led to concerns about the safety of nuclear power stations around the world. These concerns have been, and will continue to be, quite visible in Germany, Switzerland, and other countries with active environmentalist nongovernmental organizations and strong Green parties that influence public opinion on nuclear energy. European divisions over nuclear power have therefore deepened since the 2011 Fukushima disaster, and there is growing polarization about what can be done to continue to ensure safety in nuclear power plants. Argentina is worried about the extreme position presented by Germany and Switzerland (where the governments consider no level of radiation exposure to be safe). In other words, hypersafety will become a contested topic in Argentine diplomacy.8

Third, while Argentina’s concerns rest more on the economic end of the threat spectrum, proliferation continues to be a challenge that must be addressed. In this sense, Argentina supports the recent P5+1 (plus Germany) nuclear agreement with Iran.9 Although it is far from perfect, it was achieved through diplomatic—and not military—means and Iran’s right to develop nuclear energy was preserved, something that is important to Argentina from a normative perspective.

Fourth, it is probable that security is the least problematic issue for Argentina. South America is mostly a zone of interstate peace. At the domestic level, there are no fierce ethnic, religious, or subnational challenges that may pose security threats. Moreover, transnational terrorism is mostly absent in the region. Yes, there have always been suspicions regarding the presence of organized crime and terrorist groups such as Hezbollah in South America’s triple border, where Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay meet on the Paraná River, but these threats remain marginal.

Fifth, the bilateral relationship with Brazil needs further dialogue and creative thought. The two countries have taken divergent paths in their respective nuclear diplomacies. Brazil appears to be more reticent to join the various nonproliferation-related groups such as the Wassenaar Arrangement or the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. In Brasília, there are more domestic voices critical of the NPT than in the mid-2000s, and the probability of Brazil signing the Additional Protocol remains quite low. Argentina seems to have taken a more pragmatic approach. Mauricio Macri, who assumed office as the Argentine president in December 2015, will have to decide whether the country is ready to take the next step and sign the Additional Protocol—with or without Brazil.

Maintaining the Global Status Quo

Argentina’s priorities are more domestically than internationally focused. In 2009, the government issued the Nuclear Activity Law, which declared the country’s nuclear industry a matter of national interest. In 2014, Argentina completed its third nuclear power reactor, Atucha II, which in June of that year reached its first criticality. The government’s goal is for nuclear power to grow and reach a share of 15 to 18 percent in the country’s energy mix.10 In 2012, Argentina agreed with the China National Nuclear Corporation to build a fourth nuclear plant, a pressurized heavy-water reactor that would be financed by China. This agreement includes the transfer of fuel fabrication and other technologies. In 2014, Argentina and China signed another agreement for a fifth nuclear plant, the ACP1000, based on a light-water design using enriched uranium. In April 2015, Argentina and Russia signed a framework for cooperation on the construction of a sixth nuclear power plant with Russian financing. Lastly, Argentina has stepped into the business of building small modular reactors with the aim of providing a flexible, cost-effective energy alternative in hard-to-reach locations. The indigenous design, CAREM (Argentine Power Station of Modular Elements), is a simplified pressurized-water reactor intended to provide an electrical output of 100 megawatts or less. The fuel is uranium oxide with uranium-235 enriched to 3.4 percent.11

Argentina is willing to engage in the global discussion and to commit to the adoption of high standards related to safeguards, security, and safety.

For all these domestic priorities, maintaining the global status quo is central to ensuring that Argentina meets its rather ambitious domestic targets. In this sense, a clear priority so far has been, and will continue to be, full engagement in the ongoing discussions taking place in the various nuclear clubs. To do this, the country has relied heavily on U.S. initiatives in furthering information-sharing mechanisms and joint training exercises. Take the Proliferation Security Initiative, established in 2003, which seeks to improve multilateral interdiction efforts and, as of early 2016, is supported by more than 100 countries. Argentina has not been a passive partner in this initiative but has played an important role through its participation in the Operational Experts Group, which comprises 21 states working to ensure the initiative’s effectiveness.

Moreover, in 2006, a group of countries established the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, a partnership of more than 80 states committed to strengthening global and national capabilities to prevent, detect, and respond to nuclear terrorism. As of 2016, Argentina—which joined in 2010—along with Chile, Mexico, and Panama are the only Latin American countries to participate in this initiative. Argentina also became a full participant in the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation in 2011, one year after its establishment. Also that year, Argentina ratified the 2005 Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. In November 2012, Argentina and the IAEA organized a regional workshop on the physical protection of nuclear material. The same year, Argentina held a regional workshop on protection against sabotage of nuclear facilities. Moreover, in the framework provided by the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, Argentina and Chile organized an exercise to respond to and mitigate terrorist acts. Argentina has also incorporated nuclear security in courses on nuclear and radiation safety in its training centers for nuclear technicians. On August 27, 2014, the Argentine National Congress approved the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. And in June 2015, Argentina assumed the chair of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

This nuclear diplomacy makes one thing clear: Argentina is willing to engage in the global discussion and to commit to the adoption of high standards related to safeguards, security, and safety. Yes, Argentinians have not put pressure on their leaders to sign the Additional Protocol, and the country is unhappy with ever more demanding nonproliferation measures given the absence of serious discussion on nuclear disarmament among the P5. Yet on these issues, as with so much else, Argentina plays the constructive and responsible role of the loyal opposition.

Recommendations

Since the 1980s, Brazil has always been Argentina’s partner in determining how to face the two countries’ challenges in their relationship to the nuclear order. And yet, the rationale for continuing to view Brazil in this way is not as clear in 2016.

Argentina needs Brazil as much as Brazil needs Argentina, but the dialogue and cooperation in 2016 is not what it was just a few years before. Between 2014 and 2015, ABACC survived solely on Argentine financial installments, as Brazil did not contribute its share until June 2015. It is true that this was not because of anti-ABACC sentiment in Brasília but mainly due to an economic recession that resulted in severe budget cuts. Yet even so, the situation was not a good sign for and did not give a good impression of the effectiveness of the bilateral safeguards regime.

Argentina must deal with the shaky bilateral arrangement, and thus much of its nuclear diplomacy will surely depend on how it establishes a new equilibrium with Brazil. A renewed framework with Brazil should expand the cooperation basket by linking nuclear energy with other scientific and technological dimensions, such as space, research, and medicine. And without a doubt, signing the Additional Protocol without Brazil would be a mistake that would be difficult for Argentina to overcome.

At the global level, Argentina has seen that it is in its national interest to make the nuclear regime work on its behalf. If this observation is sound, then Argentina should continue working under the umbrella of the nuclear nonproliferation regime; it should continue working with the P5—all of the countries, not just the Western nuclear-weapon states—as opposed to against or for them. The Argentine government should also continue its policy of ensuring that nuclear technology plays a role in the country’s national development. This means balancing Argentina’s national responsibilities geared toward development with its international responsibilities oriented toward increasing trust and dialogue among NPT members. These two sets of responsibilities, of course, will not always be in harmony as the reluctance to sign the Additional Protocol makes clear. Yet for Argentina, the challenge will be to strike the right balance between the two and, in doing so, to find a way to carve its own niche in the nuclear order.

The author wants to thank Julián Gadano for his insightful comments and Carolina Zaccato for her research assistance.

Notes

1 Sara Z. Kutchesfahani, Politics and the Bomb: The Role of Experts in the Creation of Cooperative Nuclear Non-Proliferation Agreements (London: Routledge, 2013), 43, https://books.google.com/books?id=kcOwAAAAQBAJ&dq=disarmament+of+the+disarmed+Jos%C3%A9+Mar%C3%ADa+Ruda.

2 For a more elaborate position, see “Multilateral Nuclear Fuel Cycle Arrangements” (working paper submitted by Argentina at the NPT Review Conference, May 11, 2005), http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/proliferation/fuel-cycle/un_N0534132.pdf.

3 “Argentina,” Nuclear Threat Initiative, updated August 2015, http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/argentina/.

4 Daniel Santoro, “La Argentina volvió a enriquecer uranio después de 32 años” [Argentina enriches uranium again after 32 years], Clarín, November 30, 2015, http://www.clarin.com/politica/cristina-nuclear-pilcaniyeu_0_1477052831.html.

5 Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, “Address by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner at the Atucha II ‘President Nestor Kirchner’ Nuclear Power Plant,” February 18, 2015, accessed at Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, https://www.mrecic.gov.ar/userfiles/18-02-15%20Central%20Atucha%20II%5B1%5D_TR_Eng.pdf.

6 Julio De Vido, “Discurso Julio de Vido [Statement by Julio de Vido]” (statement to the 58th IAEA General Conference, September 22–26, 2014), accessed at International Atomic Energy Agency, https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/argentina_sp.pdf.

7 “Grupo de Supridores Nucleares” [Nuclear Suppliers Group], press release no. 237, Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, June 24, 2011, http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2652:grupo-de-supridores-nucleares&catid=42&lang=pt-BR&Itemid=280.

8 Switzerland made its way to convene a diplomatic conference to amend the Convention on Nuclear Safety. The conference was held on February 9, 2015, at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria. For more information on the Swiss proposal, see “Switzerland Is Lobbying to Introduce Stricter Safety Provisions for Nuclear Power Plants Throughout the World,” Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate, October 3, 2014, http://www.ensi.ch/en/2014/10/03/switzerland-is-lobbying-to-introduce-stricter-safety-provisions-for-nuclear-power-plants-throughout-the-world/.

9 “El Gobierno argentino expresa su satisfacción por el acuerdo sobre el programa nuclear iraní” [Argentine government welcomes the Iran nuclear deal], Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, July 14, 2015, https://www.mrecic.gov.ar/el-gobierno-argentino-expresa-su-satisfaccion-por-el-acuerdo-sobre-el-programa-nuclear-irani.

10 Rafael Grossi, “Intervencion del gobernador y representante permanente de le Republica Argentina, Emb Rafael Mariano Grossi” (statement at the 57th IAEA General Conference, September 16–20, 2013), accessed at International Atomic Energy Agency, https://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC57/Statements/argentina_sp.pdf.

11 “Proyecto CAREM” [Project CAREM], Argentine National Atomic Energy Commission, www.cnea.gov.ar/carem.

National Development and Argentina’s Nuclear Policy

Eduardo Diez

Dating back to the birth of the nuclear nonproliferation regime in 1968, the debate surrounding the rights and responsibilities of nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states has remained constant. Today, this unresolved debate is again at the forefront of the challenges the regime faces. Thus, finding the right balance between these states’ rights and their responsibilities—which are essentially two sides of the same coin—may ultimately determine the future of the global nuclear order.

The central questions in this debate are the following: Which aspects of different peaceful nuclear programs should be developed, and how? How and when should nuclear powers fulfill their commitment to disarmament?

Argentina’s national position is that the three key pillars of the nonproliferation regime—nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation, and the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes—should be pursued in a balanced manner. If one of these pillars is upheld to the detriment of the other two, then the entire regime may falter. In this way, Argentina’s position is not self-serving, but rather it defends the grand bargain upon which this regime is based while also seeking a stronger and more durable nuclear order.

Advancing Peaceful Nuclear Development

Argentina’s initial rejection of the nonproliferation regime, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) itself, was rooted in the conviction that the institutions comprising it—including the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a multilateral export control regime—were created to function as cartels that restricted access to peaceful nuclear technology for states not considered friends of the nuclear haves. Argentina and other countries also considered certain treaties, such as the NPT, to be discriminatory due to the enshrined differentiation between categories of countries, namely states with nuclear arms and states without them.

However, the end of the Cold War, and the decreased threat of nuclear conflict that came with it, initially engendered high expectations surrounding the possibility of achieving the twin objectives of disarmament and nuclear development. This new atmosphere permitted the permanent extension of the NPT in 1995 and thus the consolidation of the nuclear nonproliferation regime with the participation of many more members, including Argentina. This was also possible due to the strengthening of four systemic conditions that scholars, such as Robert Jervis in 1982, considered necessary for the formation and maintenance of a security regime: the great powers must want to establish it; the actors must believe that others share the value they place on mutual security and cooperation; all major actors must accept the status quo; and war and the individualistic pursuit of security must be seen as costly.1

The end of the Cold War initially engendered high expectations surrounding the possibility of achieving the twin objectives of disarmament and nuclear development.

In part because of this relatively new global consensus—in addition to internal and external constraints and agreements—Argentina decided to formally commit to the nuclear nonproliferation regime. As of 2016, it is the only Latin American country that has signed or joined all major nonproliferation arrangements prohibiting and controlling the construction of nuclear weapons and missiles.2 Argentina also belongs to most of the related conventions, treaties, and cooperation agreements and initiatives—including the Proliferation Security Initiative—and greatly values United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 1540, which places legal obligations on UN members to enforce nonproliferation measures.

Unfortunately, despite the initial optimism that followed the post–Cold War end of competition between the two main nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, subsequent events have demonstrated that nuclear threats did not end and the nuclear order remains troubled.

Reducing the Role of Nuclear Weapons

Amid perceptions of rising regional threats from China and Russia, the severe deterioration of the U.S.-Russian relationship, as well as the rise of the North Korean military nuclear program and suspicions over Iran’s nuclear activities, various voices in countries ranging from Japan to Saudi Arabia to South Korea have shown interest in developing their own nuclear-deterrent capability. While the governments of Japan, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea remain committed to the NPT, the perception of security provided by nuclear weapons continues to be a central challenge in each of these cases.

Most of the world continues to believe that humanity must avoid falling into nuclear anarchy. This is even more imperative given that the self-restraint that existed during the Cold War, based on mutually assured destruction, cannot exist in the same way today. As the Economist noted,

The new nuclear age is built on shakier foundations. Although there are fewer nuclear weapons than at the height of the cold war . . . the possibility of some of them being used is higher and growing. That increasing possibility feeds the likelihood of more countries choosing the nuclear option, which in turn increases the sense of instability.3

Thus, the challenge remains to avoid a potential cascade of proliferation and to minimize the chances of nuclear-weapon use all while protecting states’ legitimate right to pursue peaceful nuclear development.

In the 1940s, one of the first researchers specializing in conflict studies, Quincy Wright, concluded that the main cause of war was the difficulty involved in organizing the institutions of peace, which has also proven true in disarmament efforts.4 In 2016, most of the international community understands that in the rapid process of globalization, security can only be achieved through a relentless collective effort. But, is it possible to achieve such a consensus, where rights and responsibilities are balanced for all? If so, then how? Will the current scheme remain viable if the regime is expanded to include outsiders?

Export agreements that the United States and China—both members of the NPT and the NSG—signed with India and Pakistan, respectively, have resulted in other members’ growing discomfort.5 The dissenters remain concerned that India and Pakistan may have access to the benefits of nuclear cooperation that are reserved only for NPT non-nuclear-weapon member states, even as they fail to comply with the same obligations. Some may question whether this is a step toward the ultimate goal of disarming these non-NPT states or simply a tacit recognition of the nuclear-weapon capabilities of non-NPT, nuclear-armed states.

Furthermore, noncompliance with some of the nuclear nonproliferation regime’s obligations, including the existence of illegal nuclear programs, challenges the treaty. The cases of North Korea and, previously, Iran illustrate how nations can take advantage of the rights recognized under the NPT in order to develop nonpeaceful, or at least covert, nuclear programs. When these shortcomings are not adequately addressed, the viability and integrity of the regime is at risk, thus encouraging certain states to consider alternative means of preserving order and security in an increasingly threatening world. In particular, the non-nuclear-weapon states will have even more reason to wonder whether and how they are benefiting from the current system, and if they would not be better off without it.6

This debate surrounding the rights and responsibilities of nuclear states has been ongoing, and it was most recently on display at the 2015 NPT Review Conference. Specifically, Article IV of the NPT was designed to preclude any attempts to reinterpret the treaty as inhibiting a country’s right to peaceful nuclear technologies. Without this provision, it is unlikely that the treaty would have received such a high number of signatories or have been extended indefinitely in 1995. Hence, it is important to respect the prevailing balance between rights and responsibilities without letting the latter surpass the former in an unnecessary, unjust, and discriminatory way.

Avoiding an Increasingly Unequal Nuclear Order

Argentina’s concerns about an uneven balance between rights and responsibilities were reflected in its position toward the Iranian nuclear program, as Argentina supported measures taken against Iran and considered the country in noncompliance with its transparency commitments.7 However, from the outset, Argentina also sought to prevent the P5+1 (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States plus Germany) negotiations with Iran from becoming a precedent to restrict others’ rights to peaceful nuclear development. That is to say, Argentina aimed to prevent the existence of specific violations that could be addressed through relevant mechanisms (like the UN Security Council) from being used as a rationale for the adoption of broad measures that would make all states pay for the sins of a few.

Argentina and other countries are uneasy about the shifting focus from disarmament to nuclear nonproliferation.

Argentina and other countries are uneasy about the shifting focus from disarmament to nuclear nonproliferation and worry that their rights to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes could be hindered by these types of initiatives. For example, Argentina believes that the creation of nuclear fuel banks—as well as any proposals to multilateralize the fuel cycle that could hinder access to knowledge, materials, equipment, and facilities for the research and application of nuclear energy for civilian purposes—may contradict Article III of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Statute, which permits the development of “atomic energy for peaceful uses,” and other aspects of the statute.8 In 2009, Argentina voted against creating a reserve of uranium in Siberia, and in 2010, it abstained from a vote to establish an international bank of low-enriched uranium under IAEA control. Argentina abstained from the vote on the low-enriched-uranium-bank proposal instead of voting against it because it believed there should be no requirement for states seeking assistance to forgo peaceful nuclear activities, and because this solution would not replace existing market mechanisms.9

The broader Argentine position regarding the nuclear order is based on a belief that states should have an unrestricted right to the development and use of nuclear technologies (including enrichment and reprocessing), providing they give effective guarantees to the international community of their exclusively peaceful purposes. Accordingly, Argentina and Brazil still consider further nonproliferation measures, such as the Additional Protocol that would provide the IAEA with greater access to the countries’ nuclear sites, as voluntary and nonbinding.

In order to maintain a reasonable balance between nonproliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy, Argentina is working with others to coordinate a common Latin American position through the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States. For example, the members of the community reaffirmed the inalienable right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination in their 2014 and 2015 declarations on nuclear disarmament. And, before and during the 2015 NPT Review Conference, the agency, the community, and Argentina considered disarmament and the right to peaceful nuclear development to be two sides of the same coin.

Additionally, Argentina’s role in the Nuclear Suppliers Group—of which Argentine Ambassador to the IAEA Rafael Grossi is the 2015 to 2016 chair—and in the nonproliferation regime more generally has to date allowed the country to find an equilibrium between defending its own interests while fulfilling obligations to the regime and to Argentina’s main strategic neighbor, Brazil.

Recommendations

Argentina still advocates for advances across the spectrum of nuclear policy: the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty; the resolution of gridlock in the UN Conference on Disarmament and the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty; and the establishment of legally binding negative security guarantees from nuclear-weapon states. It also supports the idea of negotiations aimed at creating a legally binding international instrument banning nuclear weapons. But, it is clear that an initiative of this kind, even with the support of over 150 NPT signatories, will have little impact without the participation of the nuclear-weapon states, as well as those that are under the nuclear umbrella of the United States. Otherwise, this will remain a utopian, quixotic initiative. Hence, it is important to involve all nuclear states in the effort in one form or another.

Aside from the policies and positions that it already supports, Argentina should search for alternative strategies and initiatives in partnership with other states. Because it is not feasible to make any progress toward an initiative on banning nuclear weapons without the participation of the nuclear-weapon states, Argentina should explore projects with China, France, and the United Kingdom to advance the disarmament process, at least modestly, while encouraging Russia and the United States to build new momentum for further arsenal reductions. Regionally, Argentina could exercise leadership on nuclear security at the next Nuclear Security Summit and use this and other high-profile gatherings to present the main concerns of Latin American states. The Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABACC) could also use additional tools to verify the nuclear fuel cycle, and it could embrace other neighboring Latin American countries, making it a truly regional organization.

At the national and bilateral levels, there should be a serious evaluation of the current state of nuclear cooperation with Brazil, as well as Argentina’s position on signing the Additional Protocol. Both states currently reject the protocol and consider it a voluntary, nonbinding agreement that should not be a precondition for nuclear trade. The challenges of improving nuclear cooperation with Brazil and revisiting the Additional Protocol issue came to the forefront at the end of the previous presidential administration of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and the momentum for a new policy appears to have grown under President Mauricio Macri. Among Macri’s key foreign policy advisers are individuals who believe that adopting the Additional Protocol is in Argentina’s national interest. They also recognize that it would be preferable to first reach agreement on this point with Brazil. Signing the Additional Protocol may now be more appealing given that Argentina, in 2016, is more dependent on nuclear markets and exporters than Brazil and desires to appear transparent. Indeed, Argentina has become an important nuclear exporter of certain materials used for medical and research purposes, and in 2015 the country signed agreements with China and Russia to build new nuclear reactors.10 Moreover, signing the Additional Protocol may increase Argentina’s chances of gaining support from other countries for its campaign for Argentine Ambassador Rafael Grossi to become the next director general of the IAEA in 2017.

The necessity of revisiting the bilateral nuclear relationship with Brazil, including both countries’ positions on the Additional Protocol, is being discussed in public and in private, both in and out of government. There are government officials and civil society representatives who recognize the need to explain to Brazil that the two states can have different opinions on this issue without weakening their bilateral cooperation. As was the case in the past, some in the Argentine nuclear sector continue to oppose the Additional Protocol. However, in 2016, this position currently holds less sway in government than before, and it is likely that changes in this policy may take place in the future.

There should be a serious evaluation of the current state of nuclear cooperation with Brazil, as well as Argentina’s position on signing the Additional Protocol.

During the 1995 NPT Review Conference, South African delegates offered an apt comparison between nonproliferation and human rights, arguing that it is unjust for there to be one standard for the rich and another for the poor. In the nuclear policy arena, there cannot be one standard for friends of the United States and China and another for their rivals.11 Instead, the viability of the existing nuclear order depends on whether there can be a set of standard rules and practices that apply to all, not simply exceptions imposed by the major powers, which often disproportionately enforce responsibilities and requirements on others without doing their share. Ultimately, if the nonproliferation regime is to endure, all states must do their part to support the goal of renouncing nuclear weapons while also protecting the mutual right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Notes

1 Robert Jervis, “Security Regimes,” International Organization 36, no. 2 (Spring 1982), 357–78.

2 These include the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Tlatelolco Treaty, the Antarctic Treaty, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Zangger Committee, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, the Partial-Test-Ban Treaty, the Seabed Treaty, and the Missile Technology Control Regime.

3 “The Unkicked Addiction,” Economist, March 7, 2015, http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21645840-despite-optimistic-attempts-rid-world-nuclear-weapons-threat-they-pose-peace.

4 Quincy Wright, A Study of War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942).

5 In the case of Argentina, the government was not enthusiastic about the Indian exception when it was presented by the United States, even more so considering that the Nuclear Suppliers Group was founded in response to the Indian nuclear test of 1974. In the end, Argentina accommodated the Indian exception, in part because of India’s credentials as a responsible nuclear state. Argentina felt this could provide an intermediate solution; Argentina also maintains a long tradition of cooperation with India in the field of peaceful nuclear development. However, the likelihood that Argentina would maintain the same position if a similar agreement with Pakistan or another non-NPT state was raised is certainly lower.

6 John Mecklin, “Disarm and Modernize,” Foreign Policy, March 24, 2015.

7 Argentina did so at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board of Governors level, as well as when it occupied a nonpermanent seat at the United Nations Security Council.

8 “Statute of the IAEA,” International Atomic Energy Agency, https://www.iaea.org/about/statute.

9 Yogesh Joshi, “IAEA and the Nuclear Fuel Bank: Signs of Spring in a Nuclear Winter,” Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, December 7, 2010.

10 “Argentina, Russia Sign Nuclear Reactor and Fuel Deals,” World Nuclear News, April 23, 2015, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Argentina-Russia-sign-nuclear-reactor-and-fuel-deals-23041501.html; and “Argentina and China Sign Two Reactor Construction Agreements,” World Nuclear News, November 16, 2015, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Argentina-and-China-sign-two-reactor-construction-agreements-16111501.html.

11 John Simpson, “The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime: Back to the Future?,” Disarmament Forum 1 (2004).

BRAZIL

Continuity in Brazil’s Nuclear Policy

Mariana Nascimento Plum

Brazilian diplomats have long argued that the best way to maintain peace and world security is through nuclear disarmament. Indeed, Article 21 of the Brazilian constitution states that the country will only engage in nuclear activities for peaceful purposes.1

Brazil was an early participant in international discussions concerning the uses of nuclear technology and voted for the creation of what was then known as the United Nations (UN) Atomic Energy Commission,2 which was established by the first resolution of the UN General Assembly in 1946. Since that time, the ambition to develop indigenous nuclear capabilities has been a central aspect of Brazilian nuclear diplomacy.3 The main priority in Brazilian nuclear policy is ensuring the country’s right to use nuclear energy for peaceful activities.

The Threat Posed by the Continued Existence of Nuclear Weapons

Brazil’s commitment to disarmament dates back to its participation in the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament, a conference organized in 1962 by the United Nations to promote dialogue between the United States and the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.4 During the third meeting of the committee that year, then Brazilian foreign minister San Tiago Dantas focused his speech on disarmament and the elimination of nuclear tests.5 A year later, at the opening of the eighteenth United Nations General Assembly, the subsequent Brazilian foreign minister, João Augusto de Araújo Castro, put forth disarmament, development, and decolonization as the three fundamental issues to be tackled by the UN.

The Brazilian approach during the negotiations for the creation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1967 also focused on disarmament and development, with the latter pertaining to the peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Then foreign minister José de Magalhães Pinto stated at the time:

The [NPT] drafts propose limitations only for those countries that do not possess nuclear weapons and they include restrictions which are not essential to the objectives of non-proliferation.



The adherence to the purposes of non-proliferation must not entail a renunciation by any country of the right to develop its own technology.6

In the next regular session of the General Assembly, after the NPT was already open for signature, Pinto underlined “the urgency of drawing up conventions for nuclear disarmament, under effective international control.”7

Brazil eventually refused to sign the NPT. The main reason for this decision was the unequal nature of the treaty, specifically its lack of balance between the obligations and responsibilities of nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states.8 Though Brazil dropped its opposition to the NPT in 1998, it still maintains that the ultimate assurance against nuclear proliferation is the elimination of nuclear weapons, not the restriction of peaceful uses of nuclear technology.

Technology Independence and Reducing Discrimination Within the Order

Brazilian diplomacy has been devoted to ensuring the country’s right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and to putting an end to perceived discrimination enforced by the nuclear powers against the have-nots in the order.

The Brazilian National Strategy of Defense, first released in 2008 and revised in 2012, emphasizes that technological independence is a critical element of national security. It states: a country that “does not master critical technologies is neither independent for defense nor for development.”9 In this regard, the strategy recommends that the strategic projects of the armed forces should be based on autonomous technological capacity, focusing on three strategic sectors: cybernetic, space, and nuclear.

Brazil is expected to become the first non-nuclear-weapon state to develop and operate a nuclear-propelled submarine.

The Brazilian Navy is tasked with the responsibility of developing and investing in the nuclear sector and is currently developing two projects. The first is the navy’s nuclear program, which encompasses full technology nationalization, the development of the nuclear fuel cycle on an industrial scale, and the construction of nuclear reactors, all for exclusive use in Brazil. The second is the navy’s Submarine Development Program (PROSUB), which includes the construction of four conventional submarines and one nuclear-propelled submarine.10

Some members of the international community have questioned Brazil’s motivations and intentions for developing this technology in particular.11 The Brazilian Navy’s project has inspired uneasiness because Brazil is expected to become the first non-nuclear-weapon state to develop and operate a nuclear-propelled submarine. If this occurs, Brazil will effectively create a new category of states that will push the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to adapt its safeguards for the Brazilian case. The project also brings new dynamics to a long-consolidated world order, which will now have to deal with a state that can either be seen as a good example of the responsible use of nuclear technology or one that has set a dangerous precedent regarding uranium enrichment.12

Concerns regarding the Brazilian nuclear program are not new. Ever since the late 1940s, when Brazil first proposed the idea of establishing its own nuclear program, the international community has questioned its intentions.13 Throughout the next thirty years, Brazil signed deals in the nuclear field with France, Germany, Italy, and the United States,14 and it created different commissions and research institutes to develop a nuclear industry. Strong opposition from the United States to technology transfers from Germany and others to Brazil, combined with Brazil’s political crisis between 1961 and 1964, delayed the country’s nuclear development.15

In 1967, then Brazilian president Artur da Costa e Silva, the second president during the military regime, started a plan for the full development of nuclear energy. At the same time, Brazil adopted a firm stance against the NPT. In 1975, Brazil signed an agreement with Germany for the transfer of eight reactors and the full nuclear fuel cycle under the international safeguards of the IAEA. The refusal to sign the NPT together with the fact that Brazil was being led by a military regime fed international concerns that the goal of the Brazilian nuclear program might have been to develop a nuclear weapon.16

Mistrust of the Brazilian nuclear program was eased with the end of the military regime in 1985, the inclusion of an article in the 1988 Brazilian constitution affirming that nuclear technology would only be used for peaceful purposes, and the subsequent creation of the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABACC) in 1991.

A few years later, Brazil joined multilateral export control regimes, such as the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and, in 1998, the NPT. These steps were aimed at leaving no room for doubt that the Brazilian nuclear program was solely intended for peaceful purposes and that Brazil was willing to cooperate with others on nonproliferation.

Becoming a party to the NPT, however, did not signify the abandonment of Brazil’s objections about the nonproliferation regime, which continue to be voiced in every speech related to nonproliferation made by Brazilian representatives and every document produced by the government on the subject. Brazil’s complaints include the discriminatory nature of the NPT in the absence of effective measures toward disarmament, the excess of rules imposed on countries that had renounced nuclear weapons, and the difficulties faced by non-nuclear-weapon states when attempting to access nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

In the words of former Brazilian foreign minister Celso Amorim:

Brazil advocates that fighting the proliferation of nuclear weapons must be done both horizontally (to other states and non-state actors) and vertically (in countries that already have them). Proliferation risks indeed pose a disincentive to disarmament, but the lack of significant progress in disarmament creates incentives for proliferation. . . .Also, states that have already agreed to give up nuclear weapons cannot be requested to give up the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.17

The failure of the nuclear powers to take serious steps toward disarmament is one of the reasons that Brazil has not yet signed the Additional Protocol that would provide the IAEA with greater access to Brazil’s nuclear facilities. As Brazil’s 2008 National Strategy of Defense states, the country “will not adhere to amendments to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons extending the restrictions of the Treaty, until the nuclear weapon states advance in the central premise of the Treaty: their own nuclear disarmament.”18

The nuclear powers’ failure to take serious steps toward disarmament is one of the reasons that Brazil has not yet signed the Additional Protocol.

Brazilian objections to the NPT have always been focused on the autonomy given to the nuclear powers, as opposed to the restrictions imposed on the non-nuclear powers. The cases of India, Israel, and Pakistan—countries that possess nuclear weapons and yet are not NPT parties—exemplify Brazil’s concerns. These countries enjoy privileged relationships with certain nuclear-weapon states, including deals in the nuclear area, such as the 2008 U.S.-Indian nuclear agreement and subsequent Sino-Pakistani nuclear cooperation, neither of which is permitted under the NPT. The United States and other powers have a policy of silence regarding Israel’s nuclear program, which sharply contrasts with the treatment given to Iran and other countries that are not U.S. allies. These cases demonstrate that the norms established under the NPT have become both more flexible and more fragile, calling the existence of the nonproliferation regime into question. The question then becomes, if the obligations established by the regime are not obeyed by all, then is the regime credible?

In the opening speech of the 2015 NPT Review Conference, Brazilian Ambassador Antonio Patriota, the permanent representative of Brazil to the United Nations, stated that:

The continuing implementation gap between non-proliferation and disarmament obligations discredits the NPT bargain . . . and threatens to corrode the foundation upon which the regime was built. . . .



Arsenal reductions, especially when carried out in the context of modernization programmes and vertical proliferation, do not equal nuclear disarmament.19

The indefinite extension of the NPT and the absence of a deadline for total disarmament provide a comfortable situation for nuclear-weapon states. They have no constraints to motivate them to engage in disarmament policies like those that are applied to non-nuclear-weapon states, such as intrusive safeguards, technology denial, or the threat of sanctions.

In addition to this, the lifting of sanctions imposed on India and Pakistan after their nuclear tests, combined with the Nuclear Suppliers Group’s 2008 waiver for India to engage in civil nuclear trade and the silence surrounding Israel’s nuclear arsenal, equates to acceptance of these countries’ unofficial status as non-NPT nuclear-weapon states.

The exceptional status granted to these countries weakens the NPT and could even annul the incentives for non-nuclear-weapon states to be parties to the treaty. The norms established by the treaty must be complied with by all states in order to ensure its credibility. This is why, in 1998, Brazil joined Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa, and Sweden in founding the New Agenda Coalition with the objectives of making progress on nuclear disarmament and calling for the five NPT nuclear-weapon states and the three non-NPT nuclear-weapon states to make a commitment to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Brazilian diplomats have been arguing that the NPT will only meet its dual goals of disarmament and nonproliferation when it is truly universal and that all it takes to put the regime in danger is the existence of a single nuclear-weapon state. Indeed, what puts humanity in jeopardy is not the development of peaceful nuclear activities but the continued existence of nuclear weapons.

Recommendations

On May 17, 2010, Brazil, Iran, and Turkey signed a joint declaration on Iran’s nuclear program, according to which Iran would deposit 1,200 kilograms (2,646 pounds) of low-enriched uranium in Turkey and, in return, would receive 120 kilograms (265 pounds) of fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. It affirmed, in accordance with Article IV of the NPT, Iran’s right “to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy . . . for peaceful purposes without discrimination.”20 The Tehran Declaration was the result of long negotiations between the three nations to reach a solution regarding the Iranian uranium enrichment program.21

The Tehran Declaration demonstrated Brazil’s interest in participating in nuclear politics on the global stage.

The agreement demonstrated Brazil and Turkey’s joint interest in participating in nuclear politics on the global stage. However, the refusal of the United States and other permanent UN Security Council members to recognize the Tehran Declaration shows that the power of these new actors is still very limited.

The question remains, how can the emerging powers, particularly Brazil, impact the outcomes of international security issues and nuclear politics specifically? Brazil especially seeks to influence adherence to rules established by the NPT pertaining to disarmament and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Since its accession to the treaty, Brazil has been an active participant in the NPT Review Conferences. The country was involved in proposing the thirteen steps on nonproliferation and disarmament established at the 2000 NPT Review Conference and was an active player in the discussions on the 64-point action plan to implement the three pillars of the NPT during the 2010 Review Conference.

Yet, there are still doubts about the effectiveness of the Brazilian position. Can Brazil change or influence politics? What are the actual contributions that Brazilian actions, such as the negotiation of the Tehran Declaration, provide to the regime? One answer to these questions is that Brazilian discourse in relation to the nuclear nonproliferation regime has been ineffective. Unlike Brazil, nuclear-weapon states do not devote much attention to the issue of disarmament. At the 2015 NPT Review Conference, for example, Ambassador Patriota used the word “disarmament” 36 times during his opening speech. Representatives from the five NPT nuclear-weapon states, on the other hand, did not make more than eight references each to it. And this mismatch has been witnessed on several other occasions at international conferences.

As a result, it does not matter how much emphasis Brazil places on nuclear disarmament in bilateral meetings and multilateral forums. The power to influence the agenda only through speeches and declarations has proved minimal up to this point. The rejection of the Tehran Declaration by the United States and other Western powers followed by the adoption of sanctions against Iran serves as proof.22

Even so, Brazil can take several practical steps to help achieve its goals of disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. First of all, Brazil must participate and promote others’ participation in international coalitions committed to nuclear disarmament, such as the New Agenda Coalition and the Humanitarian Initiative. Only by adding its voice to a chorus of other countries will it be able to influence the agenda. Together with others, Brazil could propose a protocol, such as a plan for disarmament, to be signed by all nuclear-weapon states—de jure and de facto. Such a plan should be implemented under the oversight of the IAEA, with clear deadlines for its fulfillment and a commitment by these states to stop developing new nuclear weapons and modernizing existing arsenals. In addition to this initiative, Brazil could present a legal document on negative security assurances, guaranteeing that nuclear weapons will not be used against non-nuclear-weapon states and that existing nuclear-weapon-free zones will be respected until nuclear disarmament is either achieved or under negotiation.

Of equal importance to Brazil’s nuclear diplomacy efforts is reinforcement of bilateral commitments with Argentina, especially the ABACC. Maintaining the proper functioning of the agency and mutual trust between the two countries is essential to ensuring the objectives of the Brazilian nuclear program.

Brazil could choose, however, to adopt a more radical position, linking its membership in the NPT to effective measures toward disarmament. Refusal to sign the Additional Protocol has long been a point of leverage used by Brazil to demonstrate the need for the nuclear powers to fulfill the provisions in NPT Article VI that specifically call for “negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.”23 So far, it has not achieved the expected outcome, as China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States remain heavily armed.

In this sense, Brazil must ask whether it is time to take further measures to achieve the desired goal of pushing the nuclear powers toward disarmament. Could withdrawal from the NPT be the right path? Could this be done without harming the image that Brazil has nurtured as a responsible nation in the nuclear order?

Brazil is subject to unique legally binding instruments that ensure its renunciation of nuclear weapons and its commitment to peaceful uses of nuclear technology.24 Thus, withdrawing from the NPT would be a symbolic act and technically would not substantively change any of the commitments to which Brazil has previously agreed. This option would only be effective if there were an alternative framework to the NPT, such as a convention to ban nuclear weapons, and if other countries followed this path. Otherwise, withdrawing from the treaty would raise serious international concerns about the intentions of the Brazilian nuclear program and could possibly turn Brazil into a pariah state. Sanctions against Brazil could, among other serious effects, jeopardize investments in the country’s own nuclear program and impede future engagement with the nonproliferation regime. Thus, withdrawal from the NPT is a drastic action that would divert Brazil from its main objectives in the global nuclear order: ensuring the right to peaceful uses of nuclear technology and working toward global disarmament.

The author would like to thank Raphael Nascimento, Carlos Augusto Rollemberg, Togzhan Kassenova, Toby Dalton, and Lauryn Williams for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this essay.

Notes

1 “Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil,” updated November 2008, accessed at World Intellectual Property Organization, http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=8755.

2 The commission was created to deal with the problems raised by the discovery of atomic energy.

3 In 1947, during a meeting of the Brazilian National Security Council, Alvaro Alberto reported the Brazilian position that was presented at the commission: “The Brazilian delegation requested that it be recorded that in its opinion nations possessing raw materials should, after contributing their quota to serve the needs of the rest of the world, be allowed to utilize additional quantities as they wish, for the development of their own economy and for peaceful purposes.” See “Minutes of the Tenth Session of the Brazilian National Security Council, Alvaro Alberto’s Proposal to Establish a Brazilian Atomic Energy Program,” August 27, 1947, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, National Archive (Brasília), accessed at the Wilson Center, http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/116912.pdf?v=782231f7c673896359c4e077353e9872.

4 The first disarmament negotiation forum was the Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament (1960), which included five Warsaw Pact nations and five North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nations. This committee preceded the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament (1962–1968), which was succeeded by the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (1969–1978) until the United Nations (UN) Conference on Disarmament was formed in 1979.

5 “Final Verbatim Record of the Conference of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament [Meeting 003],” Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament, March 16, 1962, http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/endc/4918260.0003.001/1?q1=Brazil&view=image&size=100.

6 José de Magalhães Pinto, “XXII Regular Session of the United Nations General Assembly,” September 21, 1967, http://funag.gov.br/loja/download/1031-Brazil_in_the_United_Nations_1946_-_2011.pdf.

7 José de Magalhães Pinto, “XXIII Regular Session of the United Nations General Assembly,” October 2, 1968, http://funag.gov.br/loja/download/1031-Brazil_in_the_United_Nations_1946_-_2011.pdf.

8 During the discussion of the draft treaty on August 19, 1966, at the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament, eight members of the committee, including Brazil, presented a joint memorandum that stated that for the non-nuclear-weapon states the question of balance of mutual responsibilities and obligations between the nuclear and the non-nuclear powers was of particular importance.

9 Brazilian Ministry of Defense, National Strategy of Defense (Brasília: Ministry of Defense, 2008), http://www.defesa.gov.br/projetosweb/estrategia/arquivos/estrategia_defesa_nacional_ingles.pdf.

10 The submarine program is part of a technology transfer agreement between Brazil and France, signed in 2008. The partnership for the development of a nuclear-propelled submarine does not involve the transfer of nuclear technology.

11 Sarah Diehl and Eduardo Fujii, “Brazil’s Pursuit of a Nuclear Submarine Raises Proliferation Concerns,” WMD Insights, March 2008, 2; Hans Rühle, “Nuclear Proliferation in Latin America: Is Brazil Developing the Bomb?,” Spiegel Online International, May 7, 2010, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nuclear-proliferation-in-latin-america-is-brazil-developing-the-bomb-a-693336.html; and Sarah Diehl and Eduardo Fujii, “Brazil’s New National Defense Strategy Calls for Strategic Nuclear Developments,” Nuclear Threat Initiative, October 30, 2009, http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/brazils-new-defense-strategy/.

12 The Brazilian nuclear-propelled submarine is expected to be completed in 2025. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is discussing how to apply and verify the nuclear material bound for submarine reactors.

13 The proposal for the establishment of a nuclear energy program was presented by Commander Alvaro Alberto, then Brazilian representative to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, at the tenth session of the Brazilian National Security Council, on August 27, 1947. See “Minutes of the Tenth Session of the Brazilian National Security Council.”

14 In 1962, Brazil and France signed the Agreement for the Peaceful Utilization of Nuclear Energy. See “Acordo entre os Estados Unidos do Brasil e a República francesa sobre utilização da energia atômica para fins pacíficos,” accessed at Brazilian Ministry of External Relations,http://dai-mre.serpro.gov.br/atos-internacionais/bilaterais/1962/b_16/at_download/arquivo. In 1954, Brazil purchased centrifuges for uranium enrichment from Germany. The equipment was not delivered because the United States prohibited the transport of the centrifuges. After that, in 1969, Brazil and Germany signed the Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Scientific Research and Technological Development, which included cooperation in the nuclear area. See “Acordo geral entre o Governo da República Federativa do Brasil e o Governo da República Federal da Alemanha sobre cooperação nos setores da pesquisa cientifica e do desenvolvimento tecnológico,” accessed at Brazilian Ministry of External Relations, http://dai-mre.serpro.gov.br/atos-internacionais/bilaterais/1969/b_44/at_download/arquivo. The most important agreement signed by the two countries was in 1975, the Agreement on Cooperation in Peaceful Utiliza-tion of Nuclear Energy, which included the construction of eight nuclear power plants by the year 2000. The nuclear deal received a lot of criticism and only one nuclear power plant, Angra II, has been constructed. In 1958, Brazil and Italy signed an agreement for cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. See “Brazil-Italy: Cooperation Agreement for the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy,” 1966, accessed at Brazilian Ministry of External Relations, http://dai-mre.serpro.gov.br/atos-internacionais/bilaterais/1958/b_75/at_download/arquivo. The first atomic agreement between Brazil and the United States, Cooperation Treaty for the Peaceful Develop-ment of Atomic Energy, was signed in 1955. Since then, Brazil signed different agreements with the United States, including an agreement for the supply of enriched uranium in exchange for Brazilian natural uranium with application of safeguards in 1972. See “Cooperation Agreementon the Research of the Brazilian Uranium Sources,” 1972, accessed at Brazilian Ministry of External Relations, http://dai-mre.serpro.gov.br/atos-internacionais/bilaterais/1972/b_67/at_download/arquivo.

15 The U.S. policy of nuclear technology denial to Brazil started in this period. Recently released secret documents reveal that the United States applied political pressure to prevent Brazil from acquiring sensitive technologies and stalled Brazil’s nuclear program. For more details, see “Memorandum from Brazilian Foreign Minister Silveira to President Geisel, US Threats and Promises and Brazilian Responses,” February 25, 1977, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, Contemporary Brazilian History Research and Documentation Center, accessed at the Wilson Center, http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/115220.pdf?v=7611c4b41a5a3d7bfc8a12a339560e95; and “Cables Between the Brazilian Embassy in Washington and the Brazilian Foreign Ministry on the Transfer of Nuclear Material,” 1975, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, Contemporary Brazilian History Researchand Documentation Center, accessed at Wilson Center, http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/115173.pdf?v=80efab03864c130fe88eaac52b4ce85b.

16 After the military regime ended, it was revealed that Brazil had developed a secret nuclear program. The secret program was dismantled in 1989 when it was integrated with the safeguarded civilian program previously based on cooperation with Germany. In 1990, then Brazilian president Fernando Collor de Mello sealed the nuclear-test site built at Serra do Cachimbo. In the same year, the president made a speech at the UN General Assembly in which he stated that “Brazil today rejects the idea of any test that implies nuclear explosions, even for peaceful ends.” See “Abertura da XLV Sessão da Assembléia Geral das Nações Unidas” [Opening session of the XLV United Nations General Assembly], Library of the President ofthe Republic, http://www.biblioteca.presidencia.gov.br/ex-presidentes/fernando-collor/discursos-1/1990/88.pdf/at_download/file.

17 Celso Amorim, “O TNP e o Tripé Nuclear” [Three-fold mandate of the TNP], Folha de São Paulo, May 9, 2005, http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/opiniao/fz0905200509.htm.

18 Brazilian Ministry of Defense, National Strategy of Defense.

19 Antonio Patriota, “Statement by H.E. Antonio de Aguiar Patriota Ambassador, PermanentRepresentative of Brazil to the United Nations,” speech at the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, April 28, 2015, http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2015/statements/pdf/BR_en.pdf.

20 “Text of the Iran-Brazil-Turkey Deal,” Julian Borger’s Global Security Blog (blog), Guardian, May 17, 2010, http://www.theguardian.com/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/may/17/iran-brazil-turkey-nuclear.

21 For more details about the negotiation of Tehran Declaration, see Celso Amorim, Teerã, Ramalá e Doha: Memórias de uma política externa altiva e ativa [Tehran, Ramallah and Doha: Memories of active and proud foreign policy] (Rio de Janeiro: Editora Saraiva, 2015).

22 The UN Security Council approved sanctions against Iran just a few hours after the formal reaction by France, Russia, and the United States to the terms of the Tehran Declaration. Former foreign minister of Brazil Celso Amorim believes that one of the reasons that the declaration was rejected could be the fact that it had been accomplished by two emerging countries. See Carolina Jardim, “Celso Amorim: ‘Novo acordo nuclear com o Irã é mais complexo e sujeito a problemas” [New nuclear deal with Iran is more complex and prone to problems], O Globo, August17, 2015, http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/celso-amorim-novo-acordo-nuclear-com-ira-mais-complexo-sujeito-problemas-1-17178851#ixzz3zLsQ186N.

23 “Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT),” accessed at United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPTtext.shtml.

24 These legally binding instruments include the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Treaty of Tlatelolco, the South Atlantic Peace and Cooperation Zone, and the Quadripartite Agreement between Brazil, Argentina, the IAEA, and the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABACC).

Brazil’s Nuclear Policy: The Case for Incrementalism

Matias Spektor

Brazil’s nuclear program is currently in retraction and decline following a period marked by a great deal of expansion. Throughout the 2000s, government funds flowed into expanding indigenous uranium-enrichment capabilities, building a third nuclear reactor, and beginning new work on a nuclear-propelled submarine. These initiatives were part and parcel of a broader trend of Brazil’s more assertive role on the international stage, fueled by a booming economy and rapid modernization at home. Plans, however, went into reverse as the country entered the 2010s with a decaying economy and a messy governing coalition that has proven too unstable to sustain the previous course. As of 2016, Brazil’s nuclear program is on hold, with corruption probes paralyzing work on the nuclear reactor and the submarine, and budgets drying up across the board.1