Who Needs Nuclear Bombs?

My little pal Monte lives with his grandmother and Mother Washington seldom reads anything except her bible so lots of days he comes to me with his homework. This particular day I was laying out the ingredients for Cindy to make us Cuban Sandwiches for lunch while he went through is social studies.

“So what do you know about the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty?” Monte asked. He tried to hand me a photocopy of the treaty, but lucky for me my hands were full.

Usually current events is one of my strengths but this time I had to say, “Not much, buddy. What’s the question?”

“Well, the teacher’s talking about this ex-president Carter,” Monte said, moving his books to take up less than half my kitchen table. “Carter’s saying the U.S. doesn’t support this treaty because we’re not getting rid of our nuclear weapons. He’s like, we’re the reason Iran and North Korea don’t stop trying to get their own nukes. Then he says, “discuss.” I hate it when he does that.”

“Well, I don’t know about the treaty,” I said, buttering the bread, “but claiming that America is responsible for somebody else wanting nukes doesn’t make sense to me. Do you really think Iran, North Korea and other countries wouldn’t want nuclear weapons if we didn’t have them? That nut I can’t pronounce in Iran, Ahmad-whatever, says in public that he wants to dominate the Middle East and wipe Israel off the map. He can use nuclear weapons to do that and whether or not we have them is irrelevant.”

I kept talking while I pulled the dill pickles and roast pork out of the refrigerator. “And anybody who’s studied Kim Jong Il in North Korea knows he’s just plain power hungry. I think he’d be even more interested in having nuclear weapons if he thought he could be the only leader on earth to have them.”

Right about then Cindy came in, in her typical whirlwind fashion. She dropped her briefcase, gave me a quick kiss, slipped out of her suit jacket and draped it on the back of her chair. I dropped the ham and Swiss cheese on the table and handed her papers Monte had tried to give me.

“Before we get started with food, tell the kid here about the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.”

“I’m impressed you could even pronounce that,” she said, accepting the papers and starting to scan them. “What about the treaty, Monte?”
“I guess the real question is, is the USA setting a bad example by not obeying the treaty.” I could see Monte perk up. I guess he was happy to get a more educated opinion. I was only a little insulted. But I could see Cindy examine the treaty language more carefully and knew she was still in lawyer-mode. In this case, that was probably a good thing.

“Monte, I’m not going to tell you I agree with the way our country has handled this,” she said in her courtroom voice, “but the claim that we are in violation is legally false. Look here. When you talk to your teacher you can say that this is the pivotal provision, Article VI.”

I read it over her shoulder. It was short: Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

“See, fellows, there’s no binding legal obligation to give up nuclear weapons. The only legal requirement is to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. We’ve been negotiating on such matters for more thirty years. We’ve also signed and implemented several arms control agreements that have reduced our nuclear inventory quite a bit.

Monte’s brow wrinkled. He likes to debate. “But right after that, doesn’t Article VI say we need to have a treaty complete disarmament?”
Cindy dropped the papers and started building sandwiches. “That’s right. But keep reading. You’ll see that “elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons" would take place not prior to, but "pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament." That means we get rid of the rest after everyone agrees to a treaty.”

“Then why’d Carter make this remark?”

Cindy stopped to push up her blouse sleeves before putting the first sandwich in our little press. “That’s politics, Monte. Because the language of Article VI doesn’t actually say what the disarmament fans want it to say, they have worked for decades to reinterpret it. But you can tell your teacher that your lawyer friend says it’s not good legal strategy for one party to go beyond the letter of a legal agreement until all the parties agree to do so. Now clear off the table. I’ve been waiting all day for this sandwich.”