Alleged violation of Article I of NPT. It has been claimed that the renewal of the MDA would violate Article I of the NPT, under which states already in possession of nuclear weapons undertake: not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly, and not in any way to assist, encourage or induce, any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices. The organisation BASIC has argued that: The fundamental purpose of the NPT is set out in the Preamble: “The prevention of wider dissemination of nuclear weapons”. In reality, this is exactly what the MDA provides – an open-ended arrangement for two named states to ‘disseminate’ information, technology and materials in their pursuit of more sophisticated weaponry.23 This position was supported by Xx Xxxxxx Xxxxx Bosch, the Head of Mexico’s delegation to the NPT review conference in 1995. He argued at the time that “the MDA is inconsistent with 23 BASIC, US-UK Nuclear Weapons Collaboration under the MDA, June 2004 the spirit and letter of the NPT. There should be a full and transparent public debate before the UK government decides to renew it. Perhaps and advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice would help the UK government in its decision”.24 In May 2001 the then Defence Secretary, Xxxxx Xxxx, stated in response to these arguments that: The terms and conditions of the 1958 UK/US MDA, and subsequent amendments, allow for the transfer of special nuclear materials between the UK and US. These movements are carried out in accordance with stringent safety procedures and, since they do not involve nuclear weapons or devices, they do not contravene the NPT.25 That position was reiterated by Xxxx Xxxx in June 2004 when he stated that “Movements under the MDA do not involve nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices; hence they do not contravene the treaty”.26 Supporters of the MDA have also referred to Article V of the MDA itself, which prohibits the transfer of atomic weapons by either party (the UK or US). On that basis they argue that the MDA remains consistent with Article I of the NPT.27
Alleged violation of Article I of NPT. First, it is claimed that the renewal of the MDA would violate Article I of the NPT, under which states already in possession of nuclear weapons undertake not to transfer “nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices” to any recipient whatsoever (ie regardless of whether the recipient already has nuclear weapons). The counter-argument is that Article V of the MDA prohibits the transfer of atomic weapons by either party (UK or USA), making the MDA consistent with Article I of the NPT.14
