With
confronting would-be nuclear powers
credibility is everything
By
Jonathan
Power
January 9, 2003
LONDON - Washington and its closest allies- at least
those who try to put themselves in Washington's shoes-
now realize they are beleaguered by the Pandora's Box of
nuclear and missile proliferation and that they have no
adequate policy to deal with them. Their moral authority
is all but used up, just when they need it most, to deal
with Iraq first and now North Korea.
George Bush must be wishing he were Lula in Brazil-
cancel the order for new military jets, tell the nation
the money is going to relieve poverty and meanwhile use
the credibility earned to keep the Brazilian economy on a
responsible course, even though that will incur quite a
bit of belt-tightening for everybody. Lula, a week into
office, must be already set to win re-election. But what
equivalent moral authority does George Bush have in order
to win over the hearts and minds of both his electorate
and the UN Security Council? Could he really persuade
either his voters or his closest allies to go to war
simultaneously with Iraq and North Korea? Yet just to
launch an invasion of Iraq, when it is the lesser sinner,
seems by the day increasingly irrational. It is North
Korea that has the missiles, the bombs, and the
possibility for producing quickly more plutonium and more
bombs. Clearly something has to be done with both. But as
word leaks out that under a previous Republican
administration a blind eye was turned to Iraq's
development and use of weapons of mass destruction in its
war with Iran, the Bush administration (containing people
like Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who was party to
these previous decisions) finds it difficult to summon up
sufficient credible moral authority to deal effectively
with what has now become an exceedingly complex
three-ring circus.
Washington, London, Paris and Berlin are all culpable
in their various ways for letting the nuclear genie out
of the bottle. It is no use blaming North Korea, China
and Russia when Western companies have been making a
fortune over the years out of proliferation. Look at the
case now being brought against Boeing Co and Hughes
Electronic Corps for selling forbidden rocket knowledge
to China. It is good to see the case becoming so public
as it reminds us what has been going on for decades. But
for much of the time too little was done. As for
government policy towards the proliferators it has been,
as Michael Klare wrote in his book "Rogue States and
Nuclear Outlaws, "ambivalent, indecisive and
inconsistent".
A prime example of this is America's attitude towards
Pakistan. In April 1979 the Carter Administration,
convinced that Pakistan was secretly building a nuclear
weapon, suspended military aid, in a move mandated by
Congress's Symington Amendment. However, when Soviet
troops invaded Afghanistan in December 1979 the
Administration persuaded Congress to overrule the
amendment and a large arms aid program was started up
again. For the next decade, in return for Pakistan's help
in building up the mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan- who
later turned into Osama bin Laden's storm troopers-
Washington turned a blind eye to Pakistan's nuclear bomb
efforts. Only in 1990 with the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan defeated did President George Bush, the
father, belatedly cut off military assistance. Even
today, after all the lesson's learnt, in return for
winning Pakistan's support in defeating the Taliban and
pursuing al-Qaeda Washington appears to be turning yet
another blind eye to Pakistan's latest acquisition of
missiles from North Korea.
It was the same with Israel. Although senior U.S.
officials (and probably those of other Western countries
too) were aware in the early 1960s of the secret Israeli
nuclear reactor and weapons plant at Dimona in the Negev
desert, they chose to connive in concealing it from
public knowledge. Nothing was allowed to interfere with
Washington's "strategic relationship" with Tel Aviv, a
policy whose chickens are now coming home to roost.
The issue of credibility also runs right through two
important international agreements. The Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty permits five already declared
nuclear weapon states- the U.S., the UK, Russia, China
and France- the right to maintain their nuclear arsenals
while denying this privilege to other countries. On the
last occasion the treaty was renewed these nuclear-haves
solemnly promised to start getting rid of their nuclear
weapons in return for most of the rest of the world
remaining signatories. The promise has been clearly and
unambiguously flouted.
Similarly, the Missile Technology Control Regime
allows member states- mainly the most advanced industrial
powers- to possess unlimited numbers of ballistic
missiles. But it bans sales of missile technology to
non-members.
Maybe all this hypocrisy and double think had some
justification when the West was locked in a life and
death struggle with the Soviet Union. But for the last
ten years it has become visibly intellectually
unsustainable. If President Bush feels that events are
propelling him into a no-win situation with Iraq and
North Korea then here in forty years of dissembling and
double dealing is at least some part of the
explanation.
I can be reached by phone +44
7785 351172 and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
Copyright © 2003 By
JONATHAN POWER
Follow this
link to read about - and order - Jonathan Power's book
written for the
40th Anniversary of
Amnesty International
"Like
Water on Stone - The Story of Amnesty
International"
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
 
|