This brings us, once more, to the role of the US. While this thesis is concentrating on the bilateral EU-China relationship, it is difficult to completely exclude the US from this analysis. As the world's prime power, the US's influence is necessarily far-reaching, especially when it comes to its
traditional allies, like the EU, and possible contenders for superpower status, such as China. This is evident in the case of Iran, since the US's prior refusal to involve itself with Iran in any way is part of why the EU obtained a leading role in the matter; that and the fact that other countries feared that the US would try to push for a military option through international organizations, and thus
welcomed the advent of the E-3 when it started8. The US's heavy involvement in the Middle East over the last decade also contributes to making it a prime character in the evolving Iranian drama, since the US is Israel's main backer, and Israel is Iran's main enemy in the region, having already
8 Harnisch, S. (2007): Minilateral Cooperation and Transatlantic Coalition-Building: The E3/EU-3 Iran Initiative, European Security, 16:1, p. 6
25
sworn it will never accept a nuclear Iran, backing Iranian dissident groups who assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists, and contemplating the possibility of bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. The EU, China and Russia have all spoken out against Israeli aggression, but the US still makes it possible.
Moreover, the US's presence all around Iran, as mentioned before, only serves to reinforce Iran's sense of insecurity; if Iran is indeed pursuing nuclear weapons, this would be one of the main causes. It is impossible to stop proliferation without first identifying and solving the problems that cause nations to seek a nuclear option, and insecurity is a prime reason.
The US has long been using its influence to push for starker sanctions on Iran; it has long
maintained that it will not negotiate with it unless it stops all enrichment, and it is supposed that US involvement in the early 2000's is what led the EU to adopt a harder position. So far it would seem that the US has not managed to influence China as much as it would like, but China still does not want to run afoul of the US, which is probably part of why China has been trying to keep the Iranian file out of the UNSC; this way, it avoids having to deal with the issue.
Having long ago characterised Iran as being part of an “Axis of evil”, during the Bush
administration, the US has little legitimacy when it comes to dealing with it. However, American influence and power endure, and so remain a primary concern for all involved in international issues.
IV.India's nuclearization
India's case is being considered here because of the stark difference in treatments of itself and of Iran. The EU and the members of the UNSC have spent the last ten years seeking to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, while in contrast India performed its nuclear tests, and six years later signed a strategic partnership with the EU; eight years after its tests, it signed a civil nuclear deal with the US that implicated the rest of the nuclear nations, since it made it possible for them to trade in nuclear supplies with India. This made it the first legitimated non-NPT nuclear nation.
Ever since 1998, India has been seeking recognition from the major powers of its nuclear legitimacy, through its record of non-proliferation of nuclear technology and of export controls - that it claims
26
are «spotless» - through its democratic political system and thus civilian control over strategic assets and the military, and finally through its declared willingness to abide by all nuclear regimes and their stipulations as a way to show India's commitment to playing a greater role in the global system. India's claim is that it gets to be an exception precisely because of its record on non-proliferation, and that it should be a part of the solution to proliferation issues since it has never been part of the problem.
India's nuclearization was not illegal, as India never did agree to join the NPT, on the basis that the treaty is discriminatory against non-nuclear, particularly non-Western nations. This criticism seems to be mostly based on the fact that the five nuclear nations as of late seemed to have taken no steps towards disarmament, as is their legal responsibility under the treaty, while some are even apparently developing new nuclear weapons.
As befits a 'peaceful' nuclear power, India's nuclear doctrine is based on two things: first, "minimum deterrence", that is, the possession of no more nuclear weapons than is necessary to prevent an attack on itself; and second, "no first use" policy, which is the pledge by a nuclear power to only use nuclear weapons as a means of warfare in case of first attack by an opponent.9
Even so, India needs better technology, particularly for its civilian nuclear facilities; and India's vision of itself as a major power, who has been kept out of the circles of power due to Western interference, can only rejoice at the acknowledgment of its own importance that was the Civil Nuclear Deal it signed with the US in 2006.
The US involvement with India was the entire impetus for India being recognised as the equal of the legal nuclear powers, even though it is not a member of the NPT. It is likely that the US's main reason for offering this deal was to secure a firm ally in Asia, just as the US is turning back towards the Asia-Pacific region as part of its periphery, to deal with the rise of China. Moreover, India's huge market, as well as its traditional status as a leader of developing countries could only add to its appeal. However, no-one else could have offered this deal to India, since no other country would
9 Salma Bava, U. (2007) India’s Role in the Emerging World Order, FES Briefing Paper 4, p.4
27
have been strong enough to pull the rest of the legal nuclear countries along with it. This fact alone emphasizes how important the role of the US has been when it comes to India and the nuclear issue.
The deal also allows one to question how committed the US is to non-proliferation in reality.
If we compare India to Iran, India suddenly detonated nuclear weapons, while Iran announced it had been constructing civilian nuclear plants, and ten years later is still not in possession of nuclear weapons, if it was ever pursuing them, which is not definite. In the meantime, India was barely sanctioned, while Iran has gone through ten years of negotiations and sanctions. One can but wonder at the vast difference in treatments.
V.Conclusion
As a conclusion, we would also like to expound somewhat on the EU itself. The European Union is a difficult entity to grasp, and many refute its claim to 'actor-ness', to its position as an international actor. However in this case we are using the EU itself as a single entity for analysis, considering that as a unitary actor, when/if it comes together the Union as a whole has a far greater influence than any of its individual countries could currently hope for individually. When it comes to its
relationship with China, an united Union will have a better chance of making itself heard, and thus attaining its objectives. A stronger EU is however not in the interest of either China or the US, both of which comprehend the implications of a more united EU.
28
Chapter three Case Study: Iran
When it comes to non-proliferation, Iran is probably the first case that will come to mind. While most of the world is wary of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, the EU has taken the lead when it comes to dealing with the issue, with other main actors being the US, China, and Russia; while China and Russia are heavily involved, their perception of the issue tends to skew away from the Western powers', which causes friction; looking at the case of Iran may allow some insight on the China-EU relationship. Furthermore, it is arguable that EU-China cooperation could be a powerful step towards resolving the issue.