Atoms, apartheid, and the agency: South Africa's relations with the IAEA, 1957–1995

Abstract

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the "Content") contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Sovereignty and trading states: denuclearization in Belarus, Kazakhstan, South Africa, and Ukraine

“…In March 1965, South Africa built the 'Research Reactor' Safari 1 with US technical support, and in 1967, Safari 2 was completed. 60 However, in 1968, with gradually escalating mistrust in the US, South Africa refused to sign the NPT. During the first decade of accession and ratification of NPT (1968NPT ( -1977, non-recognized nuclear aspirant countries like Libya, Syria, and North Korea signed the Treaty and yet secretly continued nuclearization while the de facto nuclear weapon states, India, Pakistan, and Israel never signed from the beginning.…”

The Slippery Slope Argument against Geoengineering Research

“…What makes South Africa unique is that, after having successfully assembled (developed) a number of a nuclear bombs, the country decided to end its nuclear ambitions, dismantling its bombs in the late 1980s. 21 That is, state investment in research may have led to development, but it did not lead to deployment. Rather, through political action, development was actually reversed (despite the significant sunk costs).…”