The prohibition of nuclear proliferation is unquestionably a mainstream topic. However, since 2002, the issue at the core of the Korean Peninsula and Iranian nuclear crises seems to have changed from simple nuclear proliferation to the right to speak. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that no one had the right to demand Iran abandon its uranium enrichment program. North Korea also published a statement saying that the threat of war and sanctions from the US made it necessary "to carry out nuclear tests that are necessary for possessing nuclear weapons." Iran is claiming its "rights" and North Korea "self-defense". Is the cornerstone of the non-proliferation movement as solid as before?

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was signed in 1968 and is the legal basis for resistance to nuclear proliferation. The treaty divides countries into nuclear and non-nuclear states. Those who built and exploded nuclear weapons or other explosive nuclear devices before January 1, 1967 are considered legitimate nuclear states. All other countries, regarded as non-nuclear states, violate the treaty by developing nuclear weapons. For the 30 years the treaty has been in effect, countries that have wanted to develop civilian nuclear technology, have been forced underground. According to the basic consensus of the international community on non-proliferation issues, nuclear proliferation is considered detrimental to stability and peace in the region and therefore must be restrained.

The non-proliferation of nuclear weapons has become the mainstream and not because non-nuclear states have been ignoring their own security interests. It is the result of rational choices made by nuclear and non-nuclear states in the same game. On the surface, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is discriminatory in the sense that it divides countries into nuclear and non-nuclear states. The reason the 188 member countries accept the treaty is that non-nuclear countries, by doing so, are able to make use of nuclear power peacefully. Furthermore, they have not faced (at least as far as they are aware) any external security threats that jeopardize the nation's survival. The risks associated with the development of nuclear weapons would be far greater than the benefits they receive as signatories to the treaty. It is the restrain between nuclear and non-nuclear states that contributes to a general consensus on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in the international community.

However, there are great challenges to non-proliferation. There is no fixed or standard answer to the question of whether or not non-nuclear countries have the right to engage in uranium enrichment activities, which could be used either in the development of nuclear weapons or civilian nuclear energy programs. In the Iran nuclear crisis, the United States believes Iran's uranium enrichment activities are a prelude to its development of nuclear weapons. However, Iran says it has a right to undertake uranium enrichment. Given the absence of detailed clarification in the treaty document, both the United States and Iran say they are in the right. It is extremely difficult to form an international consensus on this issue.

Some major Western countries have a history of not treating countries involved in nuclear development equally, therefore eating away at the moral foundation of the nonproliferation program. There are also some flow-on effects from the Iraq war to consider. Countries that have been involved it the war seem now to have realized that non-proliferation might be used as a tool to promote geopolitical security interests and even an excuse for waging war. They are worrying that over-emphasis on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons will allow nuclear states to ignore their disarmament obligations and use their own nuclear weapons to damage other non-nuclear states.

The current nuclear proliferation crisis is a comprehensive problem. However, the non-proliferation movement seems to have over-emphasized the effect of a temporary solution by exerting only pressure and sanctions, but have not found addressed the root issues of nuclear proliferation.

The ultimate goal of non-proliferation is to eliminate nuclear weapons and free the human beings from the threat of nuclear terror. Even though the recent nuclear crises have exposed some of the problems in the non-proliferation process, the rational choice is still not outdated. If any of the parties fail to exercise restraint and prudence, it would push the non-proliferation back under the governance of the "law of jungle", which would be a bad situation for everyone.

By People's Daily Online; The author is an associate researcher at the Institute of American Studies in the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences