Professor Julian Gadano in his 20 March column called for the publication of a document produced by the Government of the United Kingdom, entitled “Integrated Review of Security, Defense, Development and Foreign Policy”. There, the strategy of that country in terms of external relations and geopolitical situation has been updated with respect to the latest policy, which was published in 2015.
In particular, he mentioned one of the aspects that generated controversy in the new review – the first, as Gadano has pointed out from time to time as the United Kingdom left the European Union – namely: an increase in its nuclear Announces Arsenal.
I agree with the findings of his article when he states that: “The UK government is telling the world that it is shaking up its minimum detention policy and is going to increase its arsenal, so that their submarines have more Unit while they are away from the world, away from their shores ”.
However, to reach that conclusion, Gadano walks through a series of arguments; For example, that in his opinion the problem is qualitative (which he collects in his conclusion that I have already quoted) rather than quantitative. To that end, he points out that the increase in nuclear capacity announced by His Majesty’s government is about 45 major, ranging from 215 to 260, “in a context in which Russia and the United States have nuclear weapons to make the system disappear completely solar,” It doesn’t look like that ”.
This decision on the solicitation of quantitative increases announced by Great Britain comes to light in the successive (established) comparative articles on stockpile inventions of 9 countries that today have nuclear offensive capability: 5-TNP recognized by the Treaty of Non-Treaty, at the time Permanent members of the UN Security Council and four whose nuclear capabilities are known and who are not signatories of that agreement (India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel). To make it shine, it is worth noting that it compares the British arsenal with the prevalence of other superpowers in the bipolar world, and reiterates the similarity of the British arsenal with the Pakistani, among the shorter periods known to date.
Gadano believes that “there is a lot” in view of the destructive power of nuclear weapons, but nevertheless, he insists on not prioritizing the quantitative aspect of the declaration. This is where I disagree, and I point it out.
It is not only and only that the British gesture means opening a complex and dangerous Pandora box, as the author confirms in his conclusion. Regarding the nuclear arsenal, multilateral commitments have sought to promote both nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament for decades. The former undersecretary cannot ignore this point, at which point Argentina has maintained a historical position in favor of the trend. By announcing an increase in its nuclear arsenal, the UK cannot do international law (“there is a devil in the details”, and the Foreign Office is not ignoring them), but it is certainly deciding to tighten their borders. . Applies. It can also be argued that any increase is a form of propagation. In any case, and from whatever theoretical point of view it does not increase the arsenal, disarmament is to be promoted.
It would not be responsible to assume that total and general disarmament is a political objective of humanity in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, among the Argentine Republic and, overall, among other instruments. The instrument states in its sixth article: “Each side of the treaty undertakes to negotiate effective measures relating to the nuclear arms race in the near future and the nuclear disarmament and nuclear disarmament treaty.” And complete under strict and effective international control ”. This commitment, signed by the United Kingdom for more than 50 years, does not harmonize with the “upheaval” of growth in its arsenal.
And by reaching this point, there is a silence in the attention of Professor Gadano who cries in every line. It traces the number and types of British nuclear weapons and their means of delivery and recognizes that their tactical missiles can only be launched from their fleet of submarines “as they navigate the world, from its shores. away.” How, then, does the relationship necessary to remain silent, our position and our history apply to us in relation to the possible consequences of the British qualitative “gesture” on the South Atlantic? Again and again, in a universe of gestures that choreography the ballet of resurgence and detention, the presence of British submarines with nuclear offensive capabilities near the Falkland Islands (present or potential) becomes a matter of concern not only for Argentina, whose Legitimate claims are placed in the fields of law, diplomacy and solidarity among the people, but for all people in Latin America and the Caribbean, who themselves – under the protection of the Acts of Chapultepec – remain as nuclear-weapons Under the commitment of. Free zone, which can be violated by power outside the territorial consensus. Or that it is being violated.
Again, I regret that someone who played an important role in the conduct of nuclear affairs for Argentina has written from a descriptive position. Gadano is not currently a civil servant, but he was, and probably will be again. I hope that your thinking does not anticipate a future in which we are presented as temporarily benefiting from the position of force and enhancing the offensive capability of a country that has placed itself on our side Has given a policy of sovereign territory, where compatriots lie who dared to fight to get it back.
* Former Chancellor. Ambassador to the Republic of Argentina in Chile.
You may also like