DOI 10.21544/1809-3191.v25n2.p292-314

THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE OPANAL TO IN LATIN AMERICA: AN ANALYSIS ABOUT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE TLATELOLCO REGIME AND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE ON NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION Elias David Morales Martinez1

ABSTRACT

The year 2017 marked the 50th year of the Tlatelolco Treaty, which established the first Nuclear Weapons Free Zone of the world not allowing this armament in Latin America and Caribbean. As a technical and political instrument to verify the implementation of the agreements was created the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons – OPANAL. However, many of the responsibilities were transferred to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This paper analyzes the contribution of OPANAL to nuclear disarmament, considering its successes and weaknesses. This analysis use the theoretical postulates of Bobbio (2003) about the Instrumental Active Pacifism; and Axerold and Keohone (1986) about the dimensions of the effectiveness of international regimes. Keywords: Disarmament. Nuclear non-proliferation. Latin-America. OPANAL. Tlatelolco Treaty.

1 PhD. Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo (SP), Email: [email protected] Orcid:https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8240-8581

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. Elias David Morales Martinez 293

INTRODUCTION

The Second World War practically ended with the beginning of the first nuclear era characterized by the expressive intention of some countries to develop this type of war technology to guarantee a greater potential in military offensives. The attack using two nuclear bombs against the civilian population in Hiroshima and Nagasaky generated a deep feeling of extreme vulnerability in all humanity and revealed the decline of the emancipatory project that was proposed by Modernity, when it failed to promote harmony between science and knowledge in order to achieve human welfare and progress. Thus, since 1945, when the United States decided to drop in Japan the most feared weapon ever built by humanity, an uncomfortable and unstable environment was created in the international system during the Cold War due to the practice of doctrines oriented to the balance of power, a concept widely defended by realistic theorists. It is important to emphasize that after the United States, the ex-Soviet Union in 1949, England in 1953, France in 1960 and China in 1964 made nuclear tests and joined the club of the legally armed nuclear countries, according to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 that stipulated it. It is important to mention that the majority of countries decided not to develop this type of weaponry. Of course, there are many reasons, among them, the high cost to undertake a project of such magnitude, as well as logistical, technological and cultural problems and challenges that were considered and evaluated to assume a final position in the strategic game that was established during the Cold War. Several international mechanisms were constituted based on the new public international law that was being developed from international treaties and regimes in specific areas. The issue of nuclear proliferation and disarmament was quite productive in terms of norms, recommendations and procedures suggested by the international community to ensure a balance of power and threats. On the one hand, there were the countries that held their nuclear weapons and, on the other, the vast majority of countries that had international law in full formation as their only defense against such weapons. The international community understood that it was necessary to establish norms and rules that allowed all countries that did not embark on a nuclear technological project of a warlike nature to have a degree of security

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. 294 THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE OPANAL TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT IN LATIN AMERICA and specific, clear and concise guarantees. At the same time, countries negotiated, on a multilateral basis, agreements for the prohibition, limitation and control of the production and proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, known as the NPT, was signed in 1968, came into force in 1970, and constituted the main pillar of the international regime for establishing limits on the transfer of nuclear technology and measures aimed at prohibiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons. This agreement also considered the possibility that countries that already possess such weapons would gradually get rid of their arsenals until reaching the minimum necessary for their security. However, the issue of nuclear disarmament was always broader and considered perspectives beyond those established by the nuclear powers to control the problem from their points of view. There is an international regime whose initiative comes from countries that do not possess nuclear weapons. This international regime is known as Nuclear- Weapon-Free Zones – NWFZ and precedes the NPT. Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones – NWFZ are geographical areas in which countries exercising full territorial jurisdiction undertake to prohibit nuclear testing and prevent the acquisition, manufacture, introduction, transport, transit and installation of nuclear weapons in previously defined territories (CARREÑO, 2003, p. 3; MARCH and ALMEIDA, 2006, p. 103; MARTINEZ, 2012, p. 55). This prohibition is contemplated either by each country’s own technological development or by the transfer of technology from another country with highly developed nuclear warfare capabilities. Latin America was the first region in the world to establish a regional regime oriented towards a complete ban of nuclear weapons. The Latin American contribution to the development of international law in the area of disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation was the negotiation and entry into force of the Tlatelolco Treaty in 1969. This Treaty established the basis for the propagation of other NWFZ in different parts of the planet. So far (2017) there are five zones formally established as areas free of any presence of nuclear weapons: Africa, Oceania, Southeast Asia, Central Asia and Latin America. Therefore, the Tlatelolco Treaty stands as the pioneer of the proscriptive experience of nuclear armament outside the NPT that has its origin in the interests of the countries that have atomic weapons. The Tlatelolco Treaty determined its institutionalization by creating the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. Elias David Morales Martinez 295

America and the Caribbean – OPANAL. This agency is responsible for supervising the political compliance that the countries of the region assumed when made public the desire to participate in the regional agreement, which implied the renunciation of the development of nuclear technology for war purposes. OPANAL, as a regional organization, has been in full evolution since its constitution in 1969, acting in accordance with the initiatives and consensus derived from the meetings of the Tlatelolco Treaty. In the last 40 years, we have witnessed an interesting performance in its attributions and functions as a regional organization that contemplates the possibility of dialogue among all Latin American and Caribbean countries in the same forum.

THE INTERNATIONAL REGIME FOR NUCLEAR-WEAPON- FREE ZONES – NWFZ

The international Disarmament and Non-Proliferation regime is very broad. Several unilateral, bilateral and multilateral international treaties are currently in operation. Several of these treaties are aimed at controlling the production of nuclear weapons; others are aimed at the reduction and gradual elimination of nuclear arsenals, while other treaties focus more on the prevention of nuclear weapons. The case of the NWFZ corresponds to this last category, calling the countries to engage in building common structures of trust based on a public commitment of international character by assuming responsibility for preventing vertical, horizontal and geographical nuclear proliferation, as well as promoting the disarmament of other countries. For the countries that are part of the territorial jurisdiction in the region to be denuclearized, the NWFZ establish the supreme commitment of not implementation of policies that encourage nuclear development for military purposes. This action is carried out via internal and external mechanisms that guarantee the possibility of consolidating a firm structure that ensures its security both internally and externally. Thus, the NWFZ brings structures favorable to the internal strengthening of regional confidence among the countries that are part of the regime, by committing all member countries not to carry out nuclear plans of military nature. On the other hand, externally, the NWFZ establish commitments

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. 296 THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE OPANAL TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT IN LATIN AMERICA that can be extended to the nuclear powers so that they recognize and respect the acquired status of a denuclearized region. Generally, the following characteristics are present in the NWFZ: 1) Areas constituted by an international treaty for an indeterminate period. 2) The initiative for the formation of a new NWFZ must be exclusive to the members of the specific region. 3) The NWFZ must necessarily be recognized by a resolution issued by the UN General Assembly. 4) The NWFZ establish a system of control and verification of nuclear installations, under the safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA. 5) Complete Prohibition of any nuclear weapons inside the region. 6) The nuclear powers undertake to respect the denuclearized zone by diplomatic legal protocols. 7) Promotion of the development of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (OLIVEIRA, 2004; CARREÑO, 2003; MARTINEZ, 2008). Martinez (2018, p. 209-213) argues that currently the international regime of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation mechanisms are composed of several multilateral and bilateral treaties, as well as five NWFZ established and recognized as such, by treaties limited to specific regions, and recognized by resolutions formally issued by the UN. Latin America and the Caribbean were denuclearized by the Tlatelolco Treaty, which came into full force in 2002 when the ratification process was completed by all member countries. The Rarotonga Treaty established the second NWFZ in the Pacific in 1986. The third NWFZ was negotiated in Southeast Asia through the Bangkok Treaty with full validity from 1996. The fourth NWFZ was established in Africa by the Pelindaba Treaty, which entered into force in 2010. Finally, the Central Asian region was denuclearized by the Semipalatinsk Treaty, which entered into force in 2009. Similarly, there is the category of a State that has proclaimed itself free of nuclear weapons, like Mongolia, which, due to its geopolitical conditions, decided to be a Nuclear-Weapon-Free state – NWFS. Mongolia is part of the nuclear-free zone regime by self-proclamation in 1992, being recognized as nuclear-free by the UN General Assembly only until 2000, being the first country to declare its territory free of nuclear weapons in the middle of a completely nuclearized region. Mongolia is situated between Russia and China, nuclear powers that rival the military hegemony in the Asian continent. This was the only way Mongolia found to ensure its nuclear safety by establishing formal commitments to respect

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. Elias David Morales Martinez 297 this status via protocols directed to its neighbors, who are nuclear powers (MARTINEZ, 2012, p. 56). Finally, there are three geographical areas considered integral parts of the regime of free zones, but characterized by the absence of a human habitat. The Antarctic, due to the Washington Treaty, in force since 1961, is a territory free of any warlike weaponry, being destined exclusively for scientific purposes. The Outer Space, known as the Moscow Treaty, in force since 1967, forbids countries that have nuclear weapons to place them on platforms built in the earth’s orbit. Finally, the 1972 Seabed Treaty prohibits the establishment and construction of nuclear platforms on the seabed in territorial waters and beyond it (MARTINEZ, 2012, p.57). The international regime of NWFZ is quite extensive and increased significantly, not only during the Cold War but also in recent years, expressing a growing interest of countries to strengthen their security guarantees in relation to the countries that maintain the possibility of the use of any weapon of nuclear nature within their military doctrines. This progressive interest in building and establishing strengthened NWFZ on the legal basis of international law has led to new cooperation initiatives being established recently between NWFZ. Martinez (2018, p. 214-220) analyses in detail the process initiated in 1996 at the UN, when the Brazilian proposal to constitute the Southern Hemisphere as a nuclear-weapon-free zone was adopted. This action considered the need to restrict the passage of nuclear-armed manned vessels in the oceans of the Southern Hemisphere. This induced the countries led by the United States, France and the United Kingdom to declare their complete opposition to this legal action of international significance. However, since 2000 and under the leadership of and New Zealand, a solid process was initiated, aiming to expand and link the different established NWFZ in order to seek mechanisms for cooperation. These countries decided to present a proposal to the UN General Assembly to hold an international conference of States Members of NWFZ. In 2005, the first conference was held in City, with an expressive participation of the member countries of the different NWFZ, as well as an interesting participation of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean – OPANAL. Then, the Declaration of Principles and Commitments of the NWFZ was adopted and signed by 130 countries (MARTINEZ, 2012, p. 57-58). This Declaration is a document that contemplates understandings, principles

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. 298 THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE OPANAL TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT IN LATIN AMERICA and commitments to promote nuclear disarmament by each of the countries that are part of international regimes of this nature. It was also agreed to establish cooperation mechanisms between the different NWFZ in order to unify consensus and common proposals to the different zones in international forums to achieve the gradual expansion of the influence of the NWFZ, mainly in the areas of the Southern Hemisphere (Treaties of Tlatelolco, Pelindaba and Rarotonga), with the purpose of definitively realizing the intention of a Southern Hemisphere completely free of the presence of any nuclear weapons (MARTINEZ, 2018, p. 217-226). In 2010, the Second Conference of NWFZ was held, with the participation of Mongolia due to its unilateral status. At this conference, strategies were established to promote dialogue between the different nuclear-free zones with the existing international agencies for this purpose. The Conference took place in New York before the NPT Review Conference. In 2015, the Third Conference of Nuclear Free Zones was held to review and verify the agreements reached at the two previous conferences and the strategies to be adopted in the coming years. In all these conferences, OPANAL was present as the only body derived from the regional nuclear disarmament regime. The IAEA and representatives of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty – CTBT also participated actively in the meetings. In the light of what has been discussed so far, we can see that the international regime for NWFZ is constantly evolving. The international community has held three international conferences (2005, 2010, 2015), bringing together the five existing Free Zones, with 130 countries under this regime, and has also included delegates from other international agreements and treaties that favor nuclear technology for peaceful purposes to the detriment of military objectives (MARTINEZ, 2018, p. 217- 220). In this sense, we can now dedicate ourselves to the Latin American organization OPANAL and its leading role in its development as a regional institution dedicated to nuclear non-proliferation, as well as verify its practice with other continental programs of cooperation and promotion of nuclear disarmament.

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. Elias David Morales Martinez 299

REGIONAL GOVERNANCE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN LATIN AMERICA: THE TLATELOLCO AND OPANAL TREATIES

In the case of Latin America, the process that led to the declaration of the region as a nuclear-weapon-free zone was completely innovative, due to the historical situation of the continent when the nuclear disarmament regime was being negotiated. The 1960s was significant in establishing the basis for the creation of an international legal structure for nuclear disarmament. In the historical context, the 1962 missile crisis with its epicenter in Caribbean, the nuclearisation of France (1960) and China (1964). The fears founded on a possible arms race in the region following the emergence of military regimes in the majority of Latin American countries, accelerated the procedures for the intention to declare a complete prohibition of nuclear weapons in the continent as soon as possible. The Mexican initiative in 1963 gave rise to the Tlatelolco Treaty by exercising an epistolary diplomacy. Five Latin American countries responded to the call that Mexico addressed to the countries of the region to support a proposal for a resolution at the UN in which initial guarantees were given to begin negotiations on a regional treaty on nuclear disarmament. The five countries were Brazil, Mexico, , , and (MARTINEZ, 2008, p. 131). However, at the same time that the meetings to conclude the Tlatelolco Treaty were in progress, the NPT was also being negotiated under the leadership of the nuclear powers. Here there is a direct link between what was being negotiated in the two multilateral agreements. The Tlatelolco Treaty as a regional initiative, composed of similar countries and with equal commitments for all, would in fact be a strong response to the NPT that would address other types of interests, defended by the nuclear powers. Bosh (2005) argues that the political horizon of the group of five countries, which in 1963 presented the regional disarmament initiative to the UN, changed dramatically after the military coup in Brazil in 1964. It favored the Mexican leadership that was to be the first denuclearized region during the long negotiation process. Likewise, is important to recognize the role played by some individual actors, mainly the Mexican ambassador Alfonso Robles, who through his offices managed to advance

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. 300 THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE OPANAL TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT IN LATIN AMERICA the process of concluding the Tlatelolco Treaty. Years later, in 1982, Alfonso Robles was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, precisely for his fight against nuclear weapons. To reach a general agreement during the negotiation process in the case of the Tlatelolco Treaty, it was necessary to overcome a triple challenge: 1 - Establish mechanisms of trust between the countries of the region not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons in any form. 2 - Obtain the guarantee that the non-continental countries with jurisdiction in the region would assume the commitment not to introduce such weapons in the delimited territory. 3 - Have the certainty on the part of the nuclear powers that they would not use or threaten with the use of nuclear weapons to any country that was part of the denuclearized region. In this historic process of the Tlatelolco Treaty negotiation, which gave rise to the first experience of the international community’s establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in a densely populated region, it is necessary to list the conferences that gave rise to the debates in order to arrive at the final concession for the denuclearization of Latin America. The Preliminary Meeting about the Denuclearization of Latin America –REUPRAL (Reunión Prelimiar sobre la Desnuclearización de América Latina), in 1964, established the initial basis for defining the geographical limits of the new nuclear-weapon-free zone. The adoption of verification, inspection and control methods necessary for the proper implementation of the agreements reached, and obtaining support commitments from countries outside the region with jurisdiction inside it, as well as from the nuclear powers (MARTINEZ, 2008-b, p. 136). In 1965 and 1966 the four conferences of the Preparatory Commission for the Denuclearization of Latin America – COPREDAL (Comisión Preparatoria para la Desnuclearización de América Latina) were held. A significant increase in the number of participating countries, mainly the Caribbean ones, which managed to include a greater perimeter to the region that was being denuclearized, occurred during the course of these conferences. Because of the three meetings, the final text was prepared and submitted to the countries for signature. Several aspects and topics were discussed representing some controversy: the issue of peaceful explosions and the transit and transport of nuclear weapons across the zone of prohibition. During this period, an interesting dichotomy was observed by the Latin American countries with the greatest nuclear technology development:

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. Elias David Morales Martinez 301

Brazil and . These countries were involved in a kind of military rivalry and contemplated the possibility of undertaking parallel plans for the development of nuclear technology for military purposes. During the negotiations of the Tlatelolco regime, two strong coalitions were formed. Mexico and the great majority of Latin American countries that defended the complete prohibition of nuclear tests and explosions and were in favor of the possibility of accepting the transit of nuclear weapons across the region. Brazil and Argentina, on the other hand, was against the authorization of transit, while defending the possibility of peaceful nuclear explosions. The Treaty, because of all the negotiations, seemed to have satisfied the majority of those concerned. However, Argentina and Brazil decided to start another bilateral negotiation in which the mutual mistrust would be solved. Both countries decided that they would not sign the Tlatelolco Treaty and established approximation mechanisms to negotiate a joint agreement for a possible way out and to overcome feelings of mutual rivalry as soon as they perceived themselves as countries with a potential threat, due to the significant nuclear development they were maintaining. Thus, during the years following the implementation of the Treaty, Brazil and Argentina built during the 1980s bases of trust to establish harmony in their bilateral perceptions regarding nuclear technology. In 1991, in Guadalajara, the Agreement between Brazil and Argentina for the Control and Accounting of Nuclear Materials and for the Exclusively Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy –ABACC (Acuerdo entre Brasil y Argentina para el Control y Contabilidad de Materiales Nucleares y para el Uso Exclusivamente Pacífico de la Energía Nuclear) was firmed. When the Tlatelolco Treaty was opened for signature in 1967, and once the minimum number of members was reached, the Preliminary Meeting for the Establishment of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean was held in in 1969 –REOPANAL (Reunión Preliminar para la constitución del Organismo para la Proscripción de Armas Nucleares en América Latina). This conference allowed the discussion of the bases for the formatting of the new organization and helped to develop a control over the compliance of the agreements established under the Tlatelolco regime. The objectives of the Agency were established: to ensure and safeguard the provisions of the Tlatelolco Treaty, to fulfil its fundamental purposes,

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. 302 THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE OPANAL TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT IN LATIN AMERICA to guarantee the absence of nuclear weapons in the region and to ensure the peaceful use of nuclear energy (MARTINEZ, 2008-b, p. 200). Thus, OPANAL was born with a great mission to watch over the proper fulfillment of the provisions that the Tlatelolco Treaty established to denuclearize all of Latin America. However, OPANAL’s participation was restricted to the exercise of an eminently political practice to the detriment of logistical and technical procedures for the practice of control and protocol as a procedure to be implemented in case of possible violations of the Treaty. For the negotiators of the Tlatelolco Treaty, it was necessary to delegate the competence of verification of the agreements in relation to technical procedures to another international organization more qualified for this purpose. The International Atomic Energy Agency, however, would be responsible for carrying out technical visits to member countries in order to carry out rigorous inspections by means of safeguards signed between the countries and the Agency. In this sense, OPANAL was relegated to an eminently political supervisory function, by maintaining the dialogue between Latin American and Caribbean countries, acting as the only forum for discussion and debate that brought together all the countries of the Caribbean and the Latin American continent. In 2010, OPANAL began to have the support of a new Latin American forum, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States –CELAC (Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y del Caribe). Considering that OPANAL’s role was limited exclusively to maintaining political dialogue among its members, in recent years several challenges have arisen and the Agency has had to face it in order to continue with its functions, which are important, since it is the only body derived from a regional denuclearization agreement. It is relevant to highlight the progressive evolution of the Latin American regime of nuclear disarmament, especially when discussing the challenges that OPANAL must face based on the historical and political situation of the continent today. Thus, the transfer of the responsibility for technical control derived from the agreements to another more competent agency created a fragility that led to an underestimation of the political commitments in terms of its obligatory nature. Likewise, the presence of another regional agency much more specific and limited, the ABACC, intensified the technical and logistical weakening of OPANAL. The last few years have been difficult for OPANAL to be financially sustained, since

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. Elias David Morales Martinez 303 it depends on the contributions made by the Member States in accordance with the internal statutes of the organization and the majority of them do not honor their commitments in this regard. In this regard, with the document OPANAL S/Inf 1049, the Latin American Organization established a series of goals and challenges that must be met for this second decade of the 21st century:

• Strengthen OPANAL with greater dynamism and commitments in the various international forums on nuclear disarmament by reviving its political agenda. • Complete the ratifications of the changes in the Tlatelolco Treaty in order to validate the legal status of all members. • Negotiate with the nuclear powers to modify or remove their interpretative declarations about the additional protocols to the Tlatelolco Treaty. These declarations are official statements made by the nuclear powers at the time they signed the commitment to respect the legal status acquired by the region, and the powers generally reserved the right to use their nuclear weapons under certain circumstances and conditions. In fact, it is the greatest challenge that OPANAL have to face in the coming years. • Strengthen the control system of Tlatelolco starting from the reestablishment of cooperation between the different agencies that act in the same area: ABACC and IAEA. • Implement mechanisms that favor the peaceful use of nuclear energy by the countries that constitute the Tlatelolco regime. In this respect, a very relevant question should be asked in the current context in which Brazil, for example, plans to expand the production of nuclear energy by building seven new nuclear plants in the next 20 years. • Discuss the abolition of Article 18 of the Tlatelolco Treaty, which allows members to conduct peaceful nuclear tests. • Intensify academic strategies aimed at promoting education for nuclear disarmament in Latin America. In this regard is available the institutional support of the United Nations Regional Center for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean – UNLIREC. • Promote political coordination with other NWFZ in order to organize and actively participate in the Conferences of NWFZ States held every 5 years. OPANAL, as the only institutionalized body within a formally established NWFZ, has stood out in previous editions of the

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. 304 THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE OPANAL TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT IN LATIN AMERICA conference, precisely because it leads political harmonization processes to strengthen agreements and demands common to the different NWFZ.

Considering the priorities that the organization proposed to follow, it is appropriate to mention that from this new political situation, in a regional scenario favorable to nuclear disarmament, there is a tendency for a new logic to be configured in the Latin American security system. The concomitant existence, since 2010, of an exclusive integration project for Latin America and the Caribbean – CELAC, allows the countries of the region to begin to discuss and share their concerns about regional security in a much closer political instance, differently from the traditional environment of the Organization of American States – OAS. In this context, OPANAL must strengthen its actions and logistics, considering the challenges mentioned above, mainly the benefits that can be derived from greater cooperation with both ABACC and the IAEA in the field of control and technical verification. However, there is still a spectrum little explored and that has a promising future for the political maturity that the Agency intends to achieve. Thus, OPANAL must expand its cooperation mechanisms with UNLIREC, as a UN body in Latin America, and much more since it is the general disarmament regime that favors technological, scientific, economic and social development via the subdivisions of General Disarmament and Conventional Weapons that this agency presents in its organizational structure. Tlatelolco Treaty, in 2017, completed 50 years and was recognized as the only regional legal instrument presenting guarantees against the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons by countries that possess this type of arsenal. The commemorations were held in Mexico City, the headquarters of OPANAL, highlighting that in the 80 million square kilometers in which more than 600 million people live, nuclear weapons are prohibited to be produced, to be introduced and to enter or transit across the region. OPANAL’s contribution to regional integration in Latin America has also been recognized, since for a long time it was the only formal mechanism for political expression, bringing together all the countries of the region. These meetings were the only opportunity for all Latin American and Caribbean countries met to discuss other issues beyond those strictly related to nuclear issues. However, since 2010, due to the rise of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States - CELAC, an approximation between

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. Elias David Morales Martinez 305 the two forums started. CELAC recognized the efforts of OPANAL as a specialized organization in the area of disarmament and continental protection against the threat of nuclear weapons. CELAC issued official pronouncements on several occasions to support the honest actions that OPANAL carried out. Among the most important are: the CELAC Declaration about Nuclear Disarmament, adopted in Buenos Aires, 2013; The Special Declaration about Nuclear Disarmament of Havana, 2014; The Special Declaration about the Urgent Need for a World Free of Nuclear Weapons of Bethlehem, 2015; The Special Declaration about the Commitment to Advance in the Multilateral Negotiations on Nuclear Disarmament, Quito, 2016. As we can see, there is a recent articulation of institutional cooperation between OPANAL and CELAC in relation to the strengthening of the Latin American regime for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. In this regard, we can understand that in addition to the existence of an approximation between both forums, there is a need to strengthen the Latin American regime in order to make it solid and able to face possible challenges in the near future. However, it depends on the development and implementation of offensive defense policies by the countries that possess such war weapons.

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS FOR THE STUDY OF NWFZ: ACTIVE INSTRUMENTAL PACIFISM, GOVERNANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF REGIMENS

Within the wide theoretical framework dedicated to the study of the behavior of the players in the international system, the trend towards nuclear disarmament is maintained when we confront realistic and idealistic postulates. The processes of disarmament and nuclear non- proliferation would exist if there was an explicit desire of States to ensure the predominance of their individual interests by seeking to maximize their perception of security. Moreover, there is a strong convergence related to pacifist movements that proclaim the possibility of reaching and materializing peaceful structures in the different interactions of international relations. Bobbio (2002) presents a theoretical approach that allows us to analyses the international behavior related to the establishment, negotiation and expansion of NWFZ as international nuclear disarmament regimes.

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. 306 THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE OPANAL TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT IN LATIN AMERICA

As a leading political writer, Bobbio argues that the possibility of nuclear war has altered the ways of thinking about the peace/war binomial. In addition to this problem, nuclear weapons are a constant threat without any distinction of class or nationality, which makes it difficult to understand the possibilities of establishing peaceful cohesive mechanisms. Faced with this situation, the Italian thinker proposes an analytical variable based on pacifist procedures that help to form an atomic consciousness that leads, at least, to limiting and eliminating the political instrument of war. Thus, Bobbio presents the path of pacifism as a way to mitigate war, considering the political structure of the mechanisms favorable to its elimination. Active pacifism presupposes an ethic and a justification that war, if it is not necessary, is not good either and therefore, it must be prevented from happening through different mechanisms. In this sense, instrumental active pacifism supports disarmament and the peaceful settlement of disputes through the effort to destroy the instruments of war (in this case, nuclear weapons) or at least to reduce its quantity and danger. The objective of instrumental active pacifism, in addition to seeking the prohibition of the use of specific weaponry, is also to limit the presence of weapons in different regions. The creation of NWFZ and OPANAL, as well as the linking of these areas with regimes of greater geographical scope, are part of this type of action and effort motivating States to achieve a common objective, which is to achieve general and complete disarmament in the global context. Moreover, within the conceptual universe of International Relations, the formation and dynamics of international regimes encompasses much of the theoretical study. Krasner (1983) states that international regimes are principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures around which the expectations of the negotiating parties converge in a specific aspect of international relations. He explains that principles consist of established beliefs, while rules consist of behavioral patterns defined in terms of rights and obligations, and rules would be prescriptions that guide action along with the dominant decision procedures, policies and practices for the adoption and implementation of collective agreements. Likewise, Axerold and Keohane (1986) propose to analyze the emergence of international regimes from the existence of three dimensions that are characteristic of the initial process of any regime.

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. Elias David Morales Martinez 307

The first dimension is the mutual interests based on the premise that the greater the mutual interest of the participants who negotiate the regime on a given international issue, the greater the chances to the parties establish the agreement. The second dimension is related to future uncertainties regarding gains and losses that may alter the behavior of the parties in their commitments to the regime. In this respect, the need to establish transparent guarantees that reflect the greatest possible objectivity in order to reach agreement in the negotiation of commitments, goals and expected results by implementing the regime. The third dimension is related to the number of participants involved in the multilateral agreement, and this numerical variation may alter the results of the intended agreements. The three dimensions of Axerold and Keohane (1986) are identified in the Tlatelolco regime as a sample of the theoretical amplitude that NWFZ can offer for studies. In the foreground, there was an interest in the region becoming a nuclear weapons-free zone. This intense collective interest of the countries of the region led to the realization of the second dimension, which derived exactly from the uncertainties about the future generated by the constant nuclear threat against the countries of Latin America. Thus, in the face of collective fear, these countries decided to seek legal mechanisms for their protection and security. As the regime was negotiated and future results and benefits were realized, the number of participants increased until all the countries of the region were involved. In this process, there were difficulties mainly due to the different ways of interpreting the future commitments and benefits that the denuclearization regime would generate for its members. Thus, we can evaluate the Tlatelolco regime from its effectiveness in the region, considering three aspects that deserve to be highlighted:

• Since its entry into force, the Tlatelolco regime has managed to prevent Latin American countries from developing nuclear weapons. However, the greatest achievement is that until now, no nuclear weapons have been detected in the region, by either transfer, mobilization, introduction or transport by belligerent nuclearized countries. • Propagation of the pacifist ideals of Tlatelolco to other regions of the planet. The increase of new NWFZ inspired by the example of Latin America, in fact, strengthens the regional regime. • Despite the fact that the nuclear powers not removed the interpretative declarations or reservations to the Tlatelolco Treaty, which

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. 308 THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE OPANAL TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT IN LATIN AMERICA guarantee the possibility of using nuclear weapons in accordance with their doctrines, the nuclear powers recognized the peaceful contribution and have worked hard to provide negative guarantees of security to the region, which means gradual commitments to non-aggression.

To conclude, we can consider once again that the final objective of the NWFZ, as well as the institutionalized Agency for the control and supervision of agreements, OPANAL, is undoubtedly to make a world free of nuclear weapons a reality. This idealistic objective has been present from the very moment the first was conceived. The question that arises is how the balance of power between the nuclear powers can be maintained in an international scenario that favors nuclear disarmament as the guiding principle. For this reason, it is not necessary to seek and interpret the new function that nuclear weapons represent for the countries that possess it in the post-Cold War context, when the dynamics are very different, including the perspectives of a new global, geopolitical and hegemonic order.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

This article discusses the process by which the first international treaty was negotiated to ban nuclear weapons in a densely populated area. Latin America was not only the first continent to do so, but also promoted itself as a leader in strengthening the international regime of NWFZ. Likewise, it was highlighted that Tlatelolco is the only treaty of this nature (among the other five NWFZ) that institutes the establishment of a regional body dedicated to the control and verification of the agreements by the Member States. This body, known as OPANAL, has contributed since its formation to the regional project of keeping the continent free of arms and nuclear warfare devices. The effectiveness of the Tlatelolco regime is measured from the results over the 50 years of its existence and its applicability in the region. However, in spite of the political fragility to which OPANAL has been subjected, and mainly in relation to the financial fragility it is facing, we cannot exclude the advanced state and political maturity that the region has reached with regard to nuclear disarmament. This is measured in the leadership that Latin America has exercised in the negotiations of new NWFZ, as well as in the Conferences of States that are part of NWFZ.

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. Elias David Morales Martinez 309

Finally, the challenges that Latin American governance in the area of nuclear disarmament must face in the coming years are quite broad and dense. Based on these results, it is expected to verify how the reservations made by the nuclear powers regarding the Tlatelolco regime concerning the use of nuclear weapons against Latin American countries might be removed or cancelled. The search for other alternatives for cooperation between the different regional regimes (UNLIREC; ABACC, OAS) can also strengthen pacifist legal actions that lead to the instrumental elimination of nuclear warfare devices. Some of them still exist as resources of deterrence between the different powers, maintaining the balance of threats as an extension of the Cold War in a historical context that is in the process of being overcome.

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. 310 THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE OPANAL TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT IN LATIN AMERICA

LA CONTRIBUCIÓN DEL OPANAL AL DESARME NUCLEAR EN LATINOAMÉRICA: UN ANÁLISIS DE LA EFECTIVIDAD DEL RÉGIMEN DE TLATELOLCO Y DE LA GOBERNANZA REGIONAL SOBRE LA NO PROLIFERACIÓN NUCLEAR

RESUMEN

En el año 2017 se completaron 50 anos del Tratado de Tlatelolco que estableció la primera Zona Libre de Armas Nucleares del mundo al proscribir este armamento en América Latina y el Caribe. Como instrumento técnico y político para verificar la implementación de los acuerdos fue creado el Organismo para la Proscripción de Armas Nucleares – OPANAL. Sin embargo, muchas de las atribuciones fueron transferidas a la Agencia Internacional de Energía Atómica – AIEA. En el presente trabajo se analiza la contribución del OPANAL al desarme nuclear, teniendo en cuenta sus aciertos y fragilidades. Este análisis utilizará los postulados teóricos de Bobbio (2003) sobre el Pacifismo Activo Instrumental y de Axerold e Keohone (1986) las dimensiones de la efectividad de regímenes internacionales. Palavras-chave: Desarme. No Proliferación Nuclea. América Latina. OPANAL. Tratado de Tlatelolco.

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. Elias David Morales Martinez 311

REFERENCES

AXEROLD, R.; KEOHANE, R. Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy: Strategies and Institutions. In: OYE, K. (Eds.), Cooperation Under Anar- chy. Princenton: Princenton University Press, 1986.

BOBBIO, N. O Problema da Guerra e as Vias da Paz. São Paulo: Unesp, 2002.

BOSCH, M. Zonas Libres de Armas Nucleares. [versão eletrónica] Jor- nal La Jornada, jueves 28 de abril de 2005. Available at: www.lajornada. unam.mx. Access on: Feb.12, 2019.

BUSTILLO, M. G. La Proliferación Vertical y Horizontal de Armas Nucle- ares. Revista Occidental, ano. 10, n. 1. Tijuana: 1993.

CARREÑO, Edmundo. (2003). Las Zonas Libres de Armas Nucleares en el Derecho Internacional Contemporaneo. EVC Disc 17; OPANAL, Méxi- co, 24 jul. 2003.

COMUNIDAD DE ESTADOS LATINOAMERICANOS Y CARIBEÑOS. Declaración de la CELAC sobre Desarme Nuclear. Buenos Aires, 20 ago 2013. Available at: https://www.wagingpeace.org/declaracion-de-la- ce- lac-sobre-desarme-nuclear/. Access on: Dec.12, 2018.

COMUNIDAD DE ESTADOS LATINOAMERICANOS Y CARIBEÑOS. Declaración especial sobre desarme nuclear. II Cumbre CELAC, La Haba- na, 29 de janeiro de 2014. Available at: http://celac.cubaminrex. cu/sites/ default/files/ficheros/doc_3_5_declaracion_desarme_nuclear_ espanol. pdf. Access on: Nov. 20, 2018.

COMUNIDAD DE ESTADOS LATINOAMERICANOS Y CARIBEÑOS. Declaracón Especial 21: sobre el compromiso para avanzar en las negocia- ciones multilaterales de desarme nuclear. IV Cumbre CELAC, Ecuador, 2016. Available at: http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/images/ ed_integra- cao/21.Declaracin_Especial_21_Sobre_Desarme_Nuclear.pdf. Access on: Nov. 20, 2018.

GRAHAM, Thomas. El Tratado de Tlatelolco, el Tratado de No Prolifera- ción (TNP) y el Tratado de Prohibicion completa de los Ensayos Nucle- ares (TPCE): hacia una opción cero en armas nucleares?. In: ALVES, P.;

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. 312 THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE OPANAL TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT IN LATIN AMERICA

CIPOLLONE, D. (Eds.). Las Zonas Libres de Armas Nucleares en el Siglo XXI. Nueva York – Ginebra: UNIDIR, 1997.

KRASNER, S. International Regimes. Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press, 1983.

MARZO, M., ALMEIDA, S. A Evolução do Controle de Armas Nucleares: desarmamento e não proliferação. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Ciência Mod- erna, 2006.

MARTINEZ, E. A Experiência de Tlatelolco: um estudo do regime lati- no- americano e caribenho de proscrição de armas nucleares 1963-2008. Tese (Doutorado em Integração da América Latina) - Universidade de São Paulo, SP, 2008.

MARTINEZ, E. A Nova Doutrina Nuclear dos EUA e a Materialização do Hemisfério Sul Livre de Armas Nucleares. Carta Internacional. v. 7, n. 12, p. 53 – 68, 2012.

MARTINEZ, E. O Processo de Vinculação das Zonas Livres de Armas Nucleares do Hemisfério Sul: Implicações Geopolíticas e Estratégicas para o Brasil. Revista da Escola de Guerra Naval. v. 24, n. 1, jan 2018. Available at: https://revista.egn.mar.mil.br/index.php/revistadaegn/ ar- ticle/view/650/90 Access on: Jan.12 2019.

O’BRIEN, Terence. A nuclear-Weapon-Free Soutrhern Hemisphere. Nu- clear Weapons Free Zones. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.

OLIVEIRA, O. A Polêmica Questão do Desarmamento Nuclear: a criação de zonas livres de armas nucleares (ZLANS)”. In: MENEZES, W. (Ed). O Direito Internacional e o Direito Brasileiro. Ijuí: Editora UniJuí, 2004.

ORGANISMO PARA LA PROSCRIPCIÓN DE ARMAS NUCLEARES EN AMÉRICA LATINA Y CARIBE. Declaración de la Conferencia sobre Zonas Libres de Armas Nucleares: Documento CZLAN/CONF/5. México, 2005.

ORGANISMO PARA LA PROSCRIPCIÓN DE ARMAS NUCLEARES EN AMÉRICA LATINA Y CARIBE. Los retos del Opanal para la Agenda del Desarme Nuclear. 28 out. 2010.

ORGANISMO PARA LA PROSCRIPCIÓN DE ARMAS NUCLEARES EN AMÉRICA LATINA Y CARIBE. Segunda Conferencia de los Esta-

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019. Elias David Morales Martinez 313 dos Partes y Signatários de los tratados que establecen Zonas Libres de Armas Nucleares y Mongolia. Nova Iorque. Documento Final NWFZM/ conf.2010/1, 2010.

ORGANISMO PARA LA PROSCRIPCIÓN DE ARMAS NUCLEARES EN AMÉRICA LATINA Y CARIBE. Third conference of states parties of treaties that establish nuclear-weapon-free-zones (nwfz) and mongolia. Documento Inf.008/2015. Nova York, 2015.

ORGANISMO PARA LA PROSCRIPCIÓN DE ARMAS NUCLEARES EN AMÉRICA LATINA Y CARIBE. Relaciones Externas del OPANAL. Me- morandum del Secretario General. Documento CG/11/2015. 13 nov. 2015.

ORGANISMO PARA LA PROSCRIPCIÓN DE ARMAS NUCLEARES EN AMÉRICA LATINA Y CARIBE. 50 Aniversario del Tratado de Tlatelolco: medio siglo de América Latina y el Caribe libre de armas nucleares. Do- cumento S-114/2017.

REDICK, John. Precedentes y legados: la contribución de Tlatelolco al si- glo XXI. In: Las Zonas Libres de Armas Nucleares en el Siglo XXI. Nueva York, Ginebra: UNIDIR, 1997.

ROSENAU, J., CZEMPIEL, E. Governança sem Governo: ordem e trans- formação na política mundial. Brasília: Editora Universidade de Brasilia, 2000.

SALGADO, Edmundo H. Diccionario de Política Internacional. México, D.F.: Editora Porrúa, 2000.

YOUNG, O. A Eficácia das Instituições Internacionais: alguns casos difí- ceis e algumas variáveis críticas. In: ROSENAU, J., CZEMPIEL, E. Gover- nança sem Governo: ordem e transformação na política mundial. Brasília: Editora Universidade de Brasilia, 2000.

R. Esc. Guerra Nav., Rio de Janeiro, v. 25, n. 2, p. 292-314. maio/agosto. 2019.