The Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (Treaty of Tlatelolco), which now also includes all states in the Caribbean just turned 40 years since signature in 1967.
Its importance as a model for other non-nuclear areas, is constant to peace and international securities contribution, which stood and continue placing today in the center of the political and legal interest. Its parallelism with the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) but without Latin American treaty has affected the principle of legal equality of States and has not been an expression of "unequal rights and obligations by the effect of power", discrimination and nuclear inequality, firstly because neither has been directed to "legalize inequality", secondly even as regards the recognition of the right use nuclear energy in non-military purposes it has been featured universal and unanimous, thirdly not only immediately after 1967 but also in the years posteriors. In addition, the Treaty has a very special interest to the theory and practice of international law and its progressive development, especially regarding the law of treaties and the inclusion of nuclear disarmament in the content need the right.
The forties anniversary of the Treaty of Tlatelolco led to the holding of a seminar in Mexico City, architected by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United Mexican States.
P. Magnarella just wanted to remember that what he wrote earlier for years on this treaty and disarmament, and it is allowing him then, long after, in different and to changing realities moments, but always based on the same principles, to express again his own vision and judgment on the significance and the regional and universal projection of the Treaty of Tlatelolco and its contribution to peace and international security. The 40th Anniversary of the Treaty of Tlatelolco is a perfect opportunity that cannot be missed, to reflect on the times we now live on the contribution of this treaty the result of Latin American intelligence, the principles underlying its policy and its willingness to realistically fight for peace and security, against the arms race, justice and development- to reduction of nuclear weapons.
This reflection has to be done today, necessarily, depending on the current international situation, though without forgetting the one in 1967, but analyzed in relation to what the world is today. Much has been said and written about the time elapsed since the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America was opened for signature in 1967 until the days we live. It could be repeated and shared now all expressed in those years on the legal and political significance of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, on the positive conceptual contribution of the idea of creation non-nuclear areas, the exceptional merit of having kept Latin America and free Caribbean nuclear weapons outside the nuclear arms competition between the superpowers on the exemplary effect of the Latin American initiative on the effect of political, economic and social contribution, from the outlawing of nuclear weapons in a populated area on the planet, Latin America, the world, and the projection and sense of recognition of the right, properly controlled, the use of nuclear energy for non-military purposes, as necessary for the development of the peoples of Latin America element and humanity as a whole. All this can and should be remembered today, to share and applaud. But this exercise repetitive, while interesting and useful, would have far greater significance if limited to memorize what has already been repeatedly he said (Black-Branch & Fleck, 2014).
Instead you can have great current significance analyze the Treaty of Tlatelolco and the experience of its application, depending on the international situation today, in particularly difficult moments, in which non-proliferation are essential guidelines to characterize the international disorder in which we live, insecurity in which humanity is debated, and the dangers and threats facing peace. Indeed, it must be recognized that today the system that the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons tried to impose on the world, to face the danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons, based on the monopoly of possession of such weapons by a few powers, is in crisis. As stated in a recent article written by four prestigious politicians and academics, it is necessary today to "cure the world of nuclear madness".
This "madness" responds to several distinct causes. You cannot analyze them now, but instead, it is necessary to list some of the current expressions of such "madness". Some only, of course, not forgetting the nuclear arms competition between the superpowers and the production and possession of these weapons among the major nuclear powers. But also, one cannot forget that there are multiple states possessing nuclear weapons in addition to those provided for in the NPT, and much more that can get to have them. And what is worse, there are states possessing nuclear weapons that are not provided for in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which have a kind of acceptance to possess them, compared to others, however, who they are stigmatized and demonized for being or to come to be in such a situation (Mansfield, 1974).
It also made equally serious, but linked to the foregoing, is that it has been spreading, cautious and partly the idea, accepting without explicitly express it, that possessing nuclear weapons is a budget made for a State is fully respected and it is able to be fully sovereign. Thus, they have become extremely dangerous places of international tension, sites which exist or is intended that might exist nuclear weapons, not blessed, unlike other places, acceptance, express or implied, by one or more powers nuclear parties to the NPT. Moreover, the issue of the peaceful use of nuclear energy -each day more important to the uncertain future of the traditional sources of energy- remains a confrontational issue. Not only for its agenda item on the right to the environment, but by the vague boundaries between scientific, technological and industrial processes for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and those related to war or military use. The theme of the relationship between possession ABC weapons a, particularly chemical, biological and bacteriological, thinking about the nexus that unites all these types of weapons, and the fact that they are generally the same powers that the stop also constitutes a serious and pressing issue today (Black-Branch & Fleck, 2014).
Terrorism, a phenomenon always present in the history of mankind, did not have in 1967 the universal significance it has today. Foremost, the issue of terrorism not then possessed the political connections that today have not had a close relationship, as currently, with armed conflicts and disarmament and arms trade. And finally, the issue of war militarization of outer space, an issue that could not be foreseen when the Treaty of Tlatelolco, appeared in later decades, closely linked to the military employment of nuclear energy, and now reborn, with all developed the dangers and threats posed Faustian (Morales, 2012).
However, given these issues and these realities, so serious and worrying for the future of humanity and peace and security, how should we today consider the contribution of the Treaty of Tlatelolco to Nuclear Disarmament and Non-proliferation, both with respect the reality in which we live and before the uncertain future that awaits us?
First. I think we should reiterate the full belief in the need for total acceptance and the inescapable general application of the principles of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, exhibits excellent way his inspired. We shall not be reluctant to play here, some paragraphs of this important preamble, more today than in 1967.
Secondly, the non-nuclear areas, which currently exist and cover parts or regions of the world, have been and are an essential contribution to peace and security. But the more important to be thought this contribution would be if they had other non-nuclear areas, covering other areas, especially in the near, middle and Far East. That is why, even knowing the political difficulties that exist, should be a major multilateral effort, and parallel to bilateral efforts to create new non-nuclear areas that meet those neuralgic and critical areas, and especially war or pre-war tension (Morris, 1987).
Thirdly, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons has been, is and will be in the future, both immediate and mediate, an objective of the international community, and therefore of all humanity. But it is not an end in itself but a tool, a means for achieving peace and security and to further economic and social development for the benefit of peoples and individuals. As an instrument and means constitutes a particular aspect of a more general and broader objective: under international control general disarmament (Magnarella, 2008). This desirable goal, enormously difficult to achieve today faces a negative reality that affects it in its possibilities, and projecting, also negatively, with regard to the current situation of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons universally. It is clear that today the world is witnessing, under new forms and with various excuses, one, or rather, several arms races, representing an unfortunate diversion of human and economic resources for armaments, to use the words of Article 26 the United Nations Charter, and that means the opposite of a true "arms regulation system" advocated by the Charter in this article (Pande, 1998).
Fourthly, one of the great merits of zones free of nuclear weapons, and therefore a great benefit for Latin America and the Caribbean, is that non-proliferation imposed in the area concerned, has no exceptions and does not imply any discrimination as a result of which does not imply any form of violation or injury to the fundamental principle of legal equality of States (Buṭrus Ġālī, 1995).
Fifthly, the issue of the peaceful use of nuclear energy is essential today and will be increasingly important in the future of humanity and the morning of the Latin America and Caribbean day. It is, therefore, an "inalienable" right that must be recognized and respected "without discrimination". The boundary between what serves for the peaceful use and what is the military use of nuclear energy is neither clear nor accurate. Therefore, it is very important system controls such as our Treaty imposes in Articles 13, 14, 15 and 16, controls which must play an essential role the International Atomic Energy Agency and OPANAL or regional body relevant in the case of the free zones of Latin American and Caribbean non-nuclear weapons. Control on undeniable right to free and sovereign access to the peaceful use of nuclear energy cannot be unknown to most dangerous political arguments, not justified multilaterally, that could be when it acts to use peaceful nuclear energy to seek or carry out preliminary forms or prior to reaching the preparation of non-peaceful nuclear use. These obstructionist practices may be addressed ways to deny in fact the right to peaceful use, as right for all and by all States- benefit of their peoples, as a means to promote economic and social development.
Sixthly, the creation and existence of the Latin American and Caribbean zone free of nuclear weapons, as well as others that have followed the example of Tlatelolco, should be supported and promoted (Prohibition of nuclear weapons in Latin America, 1981).
Seventhly, the analysis of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, its implementation and its effects cannot be made the subject of the detached way of general disarmament and the arms race. We have said something about it. But here it is pertinent to note that the Preamble to this Treaty emphasizes "that the areas militarily denuclearized not an end in themselves but a means to achieve at a later stage of general and complete disarmament" (Khripunov, Ischenko, & Holmes, 2007).
Today, at 40 years of opening for signature of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which now has 32 Latin American and Caribbean States parties, and whose protocols I and II have been signed and ratified by all states in the continental additional condition of doing so it must be emphasized proudly on the importance and significance of this instrument. It is necessary to continue struggling for its full implementation, respect for the extra-continental powers with nuclear weapons zone free of nuclear weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Holst, 1981). It is required that the Treaty of Tlatelolco is politically using for our America demands respect for their safety, asserting their right to be free from intervention or coercion of any kind, and the necessary action in favor of general disarmament is respected and against the arms race. But also, Tlatelolco should be today, in coordination with the IAEA, an element to ensure the full right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. Use should be non-discriminatory or exclusive, oblivious to the pressures or external political and economic interests that seek to prevent, limit or condition the truly peaceful use of nuclear energy, to impose underdevelopment, making this energy is not accessible it can be necessary for economic and social progress, and consequently for the collective welfare of the peoples and human rights of beings that form them (Redick, 1975).
Finally, I pay a double tribute, which basically constitutes one: Mexico that had the initial idea, launched the initiative and fought for the adoption of the Treaty of Tlatelolco and after so, fought tirelessly to ensure its entry into force and its ratification by all Latin American countries and the Caribbean, while tirelessly he struggled to protocols I and II were signed and ratified by China, the United States, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom and Soviet Union (now Russia) (Redick, 1981). Professor Alfonso Garcia Robles, intelligent, clever and constant in the desire to achieve the realization of the Mexican idea and implementation of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which was the first legal exponent, in time, the content and significance of Treaty-what he did in the course dictated in Academy of International law at the Hague, is a permanent fighter for the correct application of the Treaty by all who received recognition of his country and all Latin Americans, and that, attributed the Nobel Peace prize, he won the highest expression of gratitude of mankind for their devotion to the cause of disarmament and peace. Currently, all 33 states of the Latin American and Caribbean continent are part of the Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (NWFZ) thanks to the latest ratification of Cuba in 2002.
A little less than half a century of creation of the Treaty, several achievements can be highlighted in nuclear disarmament, because as the countries of the region were incorporated into the Treaty until reaching full, it was consolidated so we can say that today there is no possibility of a nuclear arms race in Latin America or the remote prospect of a war between the parties which could use atomic weapons also creating this agreement marked a precedent in international law because it served as inspiration for the creation of other NWFZ in the international arena: the Treaty of Rarotonga in the South Pacific in 1985, the Treaty of Bangkok in Southeast Asia in 1995, the Treaty of Pelindaba in Africa in 1996, the Treaty Semipalatinsk in Central Asia which became operative in 2009 and Mongolia. Thus, the creation of this domino effect played in favor of strengthening peace, regional and global security and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The two Additional Protocols to the Treaty have been a great achievement for regional disarmament, as the former stipulates that all territories in the Latin American area, de jure or de facto, are under the control of extra-continental powers undertake to respect the status denuclearization of the region, including the US, France, the UK and the Netherlands, which gives it greater scope to territory (Heurlin, 1967). Secondly, more substantial, states that the nuclear powers, namely the USA, USSR, China, France and the UK undertake not to use atomic weapons to longer threaten to use against the Contracting Parties to the Treaty which undoubtedly strengthened the Treaty in terms of nuclear safety. Other achievements of the Treaty it is worth mentioning were the very creation of OPANAL - the only NWFZ which has a body and linking existing and support by the Agency and the International Atomic Energy Organization (IAEA) in the system control and verification of the global nuclear safeguards regime. However, despite the achievements of the 44 years, there are some challenges to reach for the Treaty of Tlatelolco adapt to the new international scenario where nuclear threats by the powers still latent in the absence of a universal treaty to eradicate nuclear weapons completely, the existence of new holders of these weapons states (Israel, North Korea, India, Pakistan and possibly Iran) and new non-state actors such as terrorist groups could acquire such weapons (Robinson, 1970).
Strengthen of the Agency as the key player on the international agenda for global disarmament in terms of nuclear weapons. To do this, we should intensify and continue the work of coordination with other denuclearized regions that allow implementing a common policy on disarmament against the nuclear. Powers, with the experience that has OPANAL, support regions of the Middle East, Central Europe and the Korean Peninsula to establish an NWFZ in these areas in order to further expand the space of these. The nuclear powers require legal guarantees they will not use or threaten them to other nations to new threats the world faces. Finally, we must combine serious and substantive efforts with other organizations such as the IAEA, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban (CTBT) and the Conference on Disarmament to carry nuclear disarmament and weapons of WMD do not fall into the hands non-state actors or terrorist groups that threaten international security (Guilhaudis, 1981).
In conclusion, the Treaty of Tlatelolco through OPANAL should continue with the efforts made to adapt to the new requirements of the time which were limited to the Latin American sphere and gradually have been expanding in the international arena. However, the task is not easy and the way to go to reach the global atomic disarmament is not short. In recent years, no doubt we are facing a new wave non-proliferation through the efforts of the international community and the creation of new NWFZs, the new Treaty on Strategic Arms Reduction between the US and Russia which became operative in February this year, among others. However, the reluctance of the US, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea to sign and / or ratify the CTBT without a universal instrument legally binding nuclear disarmament, efforts made in the interest of safety and peace international are at the halfway point (Serrano, 1992).
It was precisely this fact and the growing nuclear arms race that began after the end of World War II (EUA in 1945; USSR in 1949, Britain in 1952, France in 1960 and China in 1964), the context and the reasons that led Latin American governments to start a process to ensure that the region again unless scenario of the nuclear threat and at the same time, ensure the military denuclearization of the area, which would only be possible with the commitment of the atomic weapon States (Epstein, 1984).
This happened, the region achieved the five permanent members of the Security Council of the UN sign and ratify Protocol I Additional to the Treaty, to which four of them made him their 'interpretative declarations'. This historical fact in favor of peace and security in the region led to the first 'Free Zone Nuclear Weapons' (NWFZ) in the world, in a densely populated territory, which is now parts of the 33 countries Latin America and the Caribbean. Precisely to ensure the achievements and purposes of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, two years after it was created, in 1969, the Agency for Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), being still the only body of this kind among the five NWFZ that now exist on the planet. One of the most important contributions of the Treaty of Tlatelolco and its agency, globally, is that it has been a reference and inspiration for the creation of other NWFZs that came on in the world. In the South Pacific (1985) with the Treaty of Rarotonga; in Southeast Asia with the Treaty of Bangkok (1995); and a year later, with the Treaty of Pelindaba on the African continent. The latter, like the treaty establishing the NWFZ in Central Asia, came into force in 2009, which has five integrated by 114 States NWFZ today. Faced with this fact, the first challenge of Opal has been renewing its political agenda to be consistent with the new international dynamics as far as this issue is concerned, which, in turn, has led to strengthening the body by engaging more active of its the Member States. In this agenda, the issue of the consolidation of the non-nuclear areas occupies an essential place, which has initiated dialogue with the nuclear powers linked to Protocol I of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, in order to amend or withdraws the interpretative statements the protocol and thereby complete the regime of military denuclearization (Conference on Energy and Nuclear Security in Latin America, April 25-30, 1978, St. Johns, Antigua, West Indies, 1978). Another relevant issues and is closely related to the process of atomic disarmament and non-proliferation, are the work of policy coordination OPANAL with another NWFZ, as they are conceived as a means to achieve the ultimate goal is the disarmament complete and general nuclear. On another occasion, I want this issue to illustrate the significance and importance of this work, in building the world free of the nuclear threat. Nuclear disarmament is not possible if we do not work together, so we have also initiated joint actions with civil society organizations at regional and international levels. The Treaty of Tlatelolco was innovative in several respects, and in some continues to pioneer In the past, the region committed to nuclear non-proliferation, and 33 States have complied; Today, everyone keeps alive that the states possessing atomic weapons fulfill their commitment to disarm hope. We know that this is not an easy or immediate objective, that the road is long and complex, very complex, and that efforts to make this possible a task for all States Parties, the Council, and the General Secretariat; It is a task with all the non-nuclear areas, multilateral forums, and civil society.
References
Black-Branch, J. & Fleck, D. (2014). Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law - Volume I. Dordrecht: Springer.
Buṭrus Gali, B. (1995). The United Nations and nuclear non-proliferation. New York: United Nations. Department of Public Information.
Conference on Energy and Nuclear Security in Latin America, April 25-30, 1978, St. Johns, Antigua, West Indies. (1978). Muscatine, IO.
Epstein, W. (1984). The prevention of nuclear war. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.
Guilhaudis, J. (1981). Nuclear free zones and zones of peace. The regional approach to disarmament within ‘non‐nuclearised regions‘∗. Arms Control, 2(2), 198-217.
Heurlin, B. (1967). Nuclear-free Zones: An Attempt to Place Suggested and Established Nuclear-free Zones within the Framework of International Politics. Cooperation And Conflict, 2(1), 11-30.
Holst, J. (1981). The Challenge from Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear- Weapon-Free Zones. Security Dialogue, 12(3), 239-245.
Khripunov, I., Ischenko, N., & Holmes, J. (2007). Nuclear security culture. Amsterdam: Ios Press.
Magnarella, P. (2008). Attempts to Reduce and Eliminate Nuclear Weapons through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Creation of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones. Peace & Change, 33(4), 507-521.
Mansfield, M. (1974). The Inter-American Conference of Tlatelolco in Mexico City. Washington: U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
Morales, I. (2012). Editorial: Security, Accountability, Geopolitics, Social Movements, Lobbying, and Social Protection in Latin America Today. Latin American Policy, 3(2), 145-146.
Morris, E. (1987). The verification issue in United Nations disarmament negotiations. New York: United Nations.
Pande, S. (1998). Regional denuclearisation—I tlatelolco treaty: How successful?.Strategic Analysis, 22(1), 35-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09700169808458788
Prohibition of nuclear weapons in Latin America. (1981). Washington.
Redick, J. (1981). The Tlatelolco regime and nonproliferation in Latin America. International Organization, 35(01), 103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300004100
Redick, J. (1981). The Tlatelolco regime and nonproliferation in Latin America. International Organization, 35(01), 103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300004100
Robinson, D. (1970). The Treaty of Tlatelolco and the United States: A Latin American Nuclear Free Zone. The American Journal Of International Law, 64(2), 282.
Serrano, M. (1992). Common security in Latin America. London: Institute of Latin American Studies.
