The Editor, Sir:

The concept of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty is a sensible and worthy one. However, like most other worthy concepts, it cannot be allowed to stand independently of other relevant factors. This concept becomes inequitable if it operates independently of a commitment to nuclear disarmament by countries which possess nuclear weapons prior to the existence of the treaty. To be equitable, there must be universal acceptance of the principle that absolutely no one is permitted to possess nuclear arms.

No moral justification

Clearly, in an environment where countries are permitted to retain nuclear arms, there can be no moral justification in trying to forbid others from 'levelling the playing field'. The absurdity becomes more obvious when we look at who are the haves and the have-nots in the nuclear arms debate that is now going on.

India and Pakistan have developed their nuclear weapons without much opposition from anyone. Certainly, "stop them at any cost even if to stop them means going to war" are echoes we now hear regarding North Korea and Iran that were not applied to either India or Pakistan. The behaviour of the USA in its invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan could give no comfort to anyone, particularly those who were named in former President Gorge Bush's "axis of evil". If the sovereignty of states means anything, then it cannot be that others dictate to a sovereign state what it may or may not do in what it deems as its national interest, providing that in doing so it does not transgress on the sovereignty or rights of others.

There is moral justification to prevent anyone from producing nuclear arms in an environment in which there is total nuclear disarmament. The sincerity of those who want nuclear non-proliferation should be measured by their efforts to get total nuclear disarmament implemented. The peace-loving people of the world should demand that pressure be brought upon members of the nuclear club to declare a timetable for disarmament. The hypocrisy of those with nuclear arms demanding that others be not similarly armed must not be allowed to continue. The answer I must agree should not be for everybody to be armed with nuclear weapons but that no one should have any nuclear arms.

I am, etc.,

LUCIUS C. WHITE

luciuswhite@hotmail.com

Kingston 6