War and Peace in the Nuclear Age; Interview with Alexsandr Krasulin, 1986

Well the Morse Code test ban treaty of 1963 has the direct relevance to the problem of nonproliferation. Well then you're a weapon that the bomb is a project and industrial products and as every industrial product it has to be tested like a car by a pair of shoes. And if you will not have. But if you do not have an opportunity to test it you will not have a final product. You cannot be sure that this product will work. That's the direct relevance between the recognition of the problem and then through the fish. So it restricts the number of countries which can test nuclear weapons.

It's all because we really did have a difficult time with the with this project because it meant the proliferation of nuclear weapons. According to this project non-nuclear countries would have access to nuclear weapons. They will have a chance to put their finger on the nuclear trigger. That's that's like that. Naturally we. Were more concerned with certain countries first of

all Federal Republic of Germany than you can understand that. I think he's really because the period to that period was only say 15 years of invading members. Come on come on come on up to it. Unfortunately I think this is the only address and this is the only area. Oh yes I mean that's what I just watched. Well I think I think that this area of nonproliferation he's the only area in the field of

disarmament where the United States and the Soviet Union stand on the common problems in favor of. For the strengthening of the regime the international nonproliferation do I think on different grounds but still in what way. Well it's a very complicated or not complicated but this is a group of them which has many different aspects for the American I mean the position that I would position is simple because you know from the very beginning we have been in favor of nuclear disarmament and that's it. That explains our approach to the problem of 130 Federation but I think the American position is it is different.

First I think the Americans were and still are interested in depriving them main them in how to say. Darkness in the West and the more. I think the United States interested and have been interested in the past in depriving their partners in the western world. First of all Japan West Germany and some others of

nuclear weapons because you know I think we cannot forget about the rivalries about the competition in the West and this is one other example. The second reason for my personal point of view is that having achieved some progress in the development of nuclear energy and military assets the United States certainly has more advanced stage in the development of peaceful nuclear energy and they want in that sense they would like to to to to keep this advanced position comparison to say that Japan or some Western European geysers

how America could look into this sort of context. Where when the different you know market planned economy and we have some other ways of development our relations with that well I say first lecture that to the world economic markets though they're certainly connected with each other. But still we can state about Western economic markets and the socialist countries markets to different economic numbers. That's that's the difference is to approach us and to continue with my explanation of this. Reasoning for the American approach to the problem the frustration is that.

In this situation in this way the Western Allies overnight kind of tight to the. Last consideration which I would like to mention is the fact that. United are not interested in this situation when some of their allies. Might have a nuclear weapon. And in this way do that

which is not in dispute. No. We don't have any specific. Nonproliferation means with our allies because all our allies are members of the. And this is for our relations in the field of the nonproliferation. We don't make any exceptions for our allies because in this sense I mean the liberation of national to make an edge which.

Questions of nuclear experts from other so-and-so for. Exceptions in the field of. Progress. Well. I don't think it had. Much substance in the sense of nonproliferation because we wrote the program had tons of books introduced

by our. Development of international relations in the field of peaceful nuclear. Problem of nuclear energy. One of the. Big bones of the British is not not not not the decisive because you know the frustration is true. OK. So. I don't think that at that time the country is well and speaking in general of the countries where it if only for the

serious efforts to prevent the preparation of nuclear weapons because at that time there were basically two nuclear countries and on the part of one of them there was no desire for any serious efforts on the part of the non proliferation. It was a different situation it was practically the period of the end but still the period of Cold War. You certainly remember that all serious efforts by serious achievements in the field of just Saruman started only in the first part of the sixties to be more precise the lost cause has been three which we have already mentioned was the first

the first sign the first concrete tangible result of this stance that we started the fortunate fortunate development of events in this area because after 63 in 68 we have nonproliferation and some other serious very serious agreements both bilateral and multilateral which seriously gotten serious. I wonder whether whether there are. Some exceptions. These. Central areas started well yes practically at the same time because as you know until the middle of the 50s when your clearance search was

in the field of highly guarded secrets militaristic race of the United States and the Soviet Union United Kingdom because it had it in them to gain nuclear power in the 1950s. But starting from 1954 an international exchange in the field of nuclear information. Again to acquire the force and then the second part of the fifties we have several international conferences on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and which my country participated very actively leading the leading figures in the field of our project like

a lecture. In London on our nuclear achievements and then we had several international conferences in Geneva under the auspices of the United Nations. As you know in 1957 an International Atomic Energy was created which certainly is a very serious institution with very. Great importance to this establishment internationalist. Which plays a very important role in two fields. In the control over the nonproliferation and the second in the development of international cooperation in the field of useful uses them because these are the two I think basic directions in the work of the.

National to make energy. How do you get the French say break away from that. Well I think the French and the Chinese membership in the nuclear club let me say so you know the French in that 60 and China in 1960 weigh additional additional drops of water which make up in the sense of and then for illustration there was additional stimulus for more active efforts in the very Federation of Euclid weapons. And actually I think we're very

important factors which contributed to this to the working out of a not pretty Thracian though these two books these two countries are still not members of the Federation of Teachers on a national basis. They practically observe the British and they actively participate in the work of the International Atomic Energy and it's at the neck and as an agency. But still they are not members of the NPT and this is and it's it's a beautiful piece of music is childlike especially in this culture. Statistician Laurie is that you should check his check to see if. You look at his assistance of some type to talk about the boat.

Well I know you know I'm a diplomat. I have been always working on the political side of the problem I don't know the scientific and technical. Problems I work at the racially charged. So I wouldn't discuss these because I'm not a competent person to discuss various questions but I think the Giants joining the nuclear club is and I bet what a for as because it increases the number of your weapon states in this way it increases the danger of nuclear power a nuclear core. It's that simple. Well from my point of view India is not he is not on your plate because as you know news India exploded their peaceful nuclear device in May of 1974.

And since that time it doesn't get any to any other nuclear devices and according to the American experts I've read recently a country needs at least five or six explosions to be sure of that. It's a weapon of war but we cannot. I think you will find this practical point of view. I cannot speak about 18 years and you pick up and decide danger. Man timers at the highest at its highest level leaders officially stated that it is not going to require trick use a nuclear weapon

and you know that from the very beginning was one of the leaders in the movement because it is India who introduced say the question of test. Then on the international agenda as you remember the late president and there in 1954 the wonderful my country introduced the United Nations official introduced the question of the Bishan of test that. And from my early years as a chair of the concluding Convention on the recognition of the uses of nuclear and the last Soviet Indian declaration on the nuclear world it's also the proof of its box.

This is as far as the political side discuss any situation in which it might change. Well I don't know but we have to just have to you to decide but you have to take into consideration a very serious situation in the south of Asia because they openly proclaimed its nuclear ambitions and its neighbor India has to take this into consideration. But this is my just thinking aloud that was it so to live up to India to decide and wait till now we know only the statements of the TDA leadership that it has no intention on its own initiative to acquire to produce nuclear weapons. That's that's if you like that.

Do you have do you worry about other states are you worried about Korea. Well as far as country is concerned if you mean the called an insulin pump which ran well you know the you know the rather recent proposal of getting people's democratic republic at his north but after they've been insulated on this devilish moment of a nuclear weapons free zone in the cold Peninsula I think it gives you an answer. And this photo as Japan is concerned whether we

know about his 39 nuclear principles his belief they will keep it. With the Middle East. What's the what's the thinking about countries like these. Well about Israel I think that to lead to the most dangerous brand in nonproliferation point of view of countries Israel and South Africa because they have nuclear facilities which they operate without any safeguards and they refuse to join the nonproliferation treaty and that if used to put these nuclear facilities under the safeguards so the young ages and this in itself is threatened. Not very good I would say very mildly. Scientists at the nuclear

policy. I think these two countries are the most dangerous for nonproliferation and besides we have always keep in mind that once their country s certain region becomes a nuclear country. It might cause a nuclear chain reaction in the nucleus. That's that's one of the dangers and you know now we have a regional groupings of countries say in the Middle East or in the south of Africa or some other parts where because over Africa and three of her neighbors do not join the NPT. Because they do not want to give up a new rice in the event of change or the situation in a certain area to resort to to hold

all all possibilities which they might use in this situation. This is very dangerous. It's better that that's why we consider one of the basic problems basic problems of the. And the key is the large amount of the participation of states in the BICI problem of joining it. This I mean this treaty really universal agreement with participation of all states and first of all. With the participation of so-called near and nuclear countries near nuclear I mean the countries which which which have the technical know how and the financial possibilities to create their own nuclear weapon we call this

country's nuclear or nuclear scientist and there are about three dozens of them in the world and most of them are members of the NPT but still have. A lot of countries Well we have well in him we have now one hundred and thirty four I think members of the state. But his identity so it makes about the dozens of countries which other members at the moment they haven't a lot of so-called new nuclear besides Israel a South African who may speak about brasil to Chile and they're not members of that lot a lot of the key which you know created the nuclear free weapon of those who

like the America USA doesn't like just like that which today that we do like it where members of the additional protocol of that let alone the additional protocol to. It requires the gurren keys of all nuclear countries to respect the nuclear free state use of Latin America. And we are members of a party that this additional protocol we don't like though from our point of view this treaty has at least three shortcomings as shortcomings. But despite this we join the members of the out the other members of the protocol to really look at each other. Well first it's actually actually legal that was it

does not prohibit directly does not prohibit directly the nuclear explosions. And it is common knowledge that there isn't much difference from a technological between nuclear device and military warhead the ball first. Second the law to look at treaty does not prohibit the transit. And the nature of the first things which comes to mind this fandom and McConnell and the SCO the territory I would say are the treaty it extends extends to the top for The Atlantic and to cover the Pacific which contrary

to the international law to the freedom of crises goes according to United Nations an internationally agreed agreed principle so that the creation of a nuclear weapon free zones his own should cover the territory and the editorial waters of the state should come from our borders. What would you say to the kind of which I heard you say. Well. There was a. Treaty and the truth of restricting Russian. Is like a race. Race is strong but it seems to suggest that the reason that people already have that they can be more responsible than the rest of us.

He said well I will give you only one argument that nuclear weapons kills everyone without and they had it got to him. This skin of color to the color of skin to the race to the Chanel of statehood. I think it doesn't make any curious but the notion that it's appropriate for national purposes. National purposes. Well I can repeat that the nonproliferation treaty is one of the most important international

agreements because well lecture this is the ONLY a multilateral multilateral international agreements which greatly restricts the danger of nuclear war and the danger of nuclear warheads. It's not only for whites it's not only for at each north and for South is for everyone. It's it's one of the global problems the problems of human survival because in the past the question was either war or peace. But now it's death or life that's unfortunately that simple now that you said it's not a nuclear club.

Some members you know political at once to reserve it for themselves. Can you respond to that. Why. Right. For of. Course that. That was part of his caution. Which made such a promise. Well I can I can again refer only to one fact Article 6 on the NPT and this article was introduced into the text of the treaty on the systems or on the proposal of some not aligned and neutral. I'm in Sweden but his own countries and this article 6 contains the obligation to pollute in the very simple way. And this is actually the only

international agreement in accordance with H with one hundred and thirty plus countries have the obligation to conduct these aren't negotiations and to achieve disarmament measures. First of all in the arms of in the field of nuclear. Armaments. And we from our point of from my point of view when we in the first decade after decade when we could not achieve their radical solution as they called at that time about Donek problem. Then people started not only as I mentioned danger started to go. Too far in the search for alternate routes to the solution of the atomic trouble and one of

the routes was the nonproliferation neither was the nuclear weapons just a recognition of as better than many others which in the long run. Should leave I would say should leave to the same final go in your place. So approach. Proliferation. Of these Whether you call yourself I call it aggression and not on the mere. Well the nuclear as you call a self help act against the Iraqi atomic installations was officially condemned by the United Nations overwhelming membership of the United Nations as an

aggression don't aggression. We're strongly against such self help and for effort. Well no no no no no no country in the world can solve the problem on their own nonproliferation on their and individual basis because it's a collective and the taking in itself is certainly as they can diffuse the acceptance of a nuclear weapon you can produce your own weapon but still they have to have safe guarantees against nuclear. Attack against you in this threat of nuclear weapons against your county. And you can look at you with polo. So I think it's a universal truth. That's my problem.

Rula didn't mention one thing. The nuclear expert experts said that three reactors and such if you are interested in that the cause of this is a very important also. OK so let me do it. I've lost in terms of a get out of their policies both by the state for voice of Soviet Union. No difference. OK when I just say something is even better. OK. How do the boxes of. Export. Programs to start with IT WAS terms of the British version. I think there isn't much difference in basic policies. Both of the United

States and the Soviet Union in the field of nuclear experts to some of its allies se United States. Shows more loyal loyal efforts then that is allowed by certain international agreements and this is not only my opinion this is that being USA are the United Nations which are many times in the recent years the United States to refrain from the assistance say to South Africa in the field of it and got the ration and assistance in the field. Your pledge to the to South Africa ought to be Israel but I can repeat that as a basis to both countries. Stand on the same

grounds stay on the same ground and this is a very important factor because you know I'm a very oh my a contradiction between nonproliferation interests and commercial interests. And we would like that. The nonproliferation interests do they all over commercially. Otherwise there will be no not for three years. We do enrich uranium for example for many countries you know of even for France and many other countries Sweden for example. But we do it. Very strict in strict accordance with international rules established by international court appearances by young agency and by some of the. It's a national law X and this is probably the only way to observe it very

strictly the established rules. And besides we have so called a London club that has the confidence of the main nuclear exporters nuclear equipment materials exporters. Unfortunately for the last well say eight or even 10 years this club was not active but right now it might tell lies its activity to to make it again because it's a very important establishment. They always said yes to an official list. It's actually like a collab but it has very importance or I think there's a great appreciation I think of the sort of control of. Materials. But. That the West has said for years.

That. Just. How do you explain. Well we're going to turn to one of your first questions about nuclear cooperation with China and I can repeat again we I'm not a specialist in this field but I don't think we failed in a new way in the new way with our relations with China in the field of nuclear weapons. China is a great country has huge economic incentive resources and by the way as you know a lot of Chinese physicists are U.K. to the United States. So but I wouldn't go into into details because I just don't know.