We
need to be credible when
dealing with Third World nuclear
proliferators
By
Jonathan
Power
October 31, 2003
STOCKHOLM - For well over a year the world has been
so preoccupied by the argument over the micro picture,
whether or not Iraq, North Korea and Iran were building
nuclear weapons, that the big picture- that this is the
right time to take a big step forward on world wide
nuclear disarmament- has been all but overlooked.
Indeed, one can argue that the small picture worries are
not that important, but the big picture worry- that
Russia, the U.S., Britain, France and China still have
missiles ready to point at each other- is the one to lay
awake at night about.
Certainly with Iraq there can now be little debate
about its supposed nuclear weapons' programne. The UN
disarmament process following the first Gulf war in 1991
did its job better than Washington ever imagined.
Whether Iran is or is not building nuclear weapons is
an on going discussion among experts. It has every reason
to, if one accepts the argument than an underdog who
wants to challenge American interests or defend itself
against its aggressive neighbor Iraq can easily persuade
itself that nuclear weapons are the only thing that could
dissuade outsiders from trying an attack. Yet now that
Iraq is disarmed the fair question is who on earth would
Iran need to use them against?
Probably we have to worry about North Korea even less.
For all its isolationism North Korea has no real active
enemies it would use its supposed nuclear arsenal
against. It has Washington on its back, but it is not
actually militarily threatened. Indeed it is the other
way round, if anything. The U.S. soldiers embedded close
to its border are in fact hostages to be quickly killed
in any military blow up.
As for India and Pakistan, from time to time they
teeter irresponsibly on the brink of nuclear war, but
horrific though it would be for those two countries if
there were war, it would cause little danger to the
outside world.
And even Israel, with its "eye for eye" culture, the
only scenario the military planners have ever foreseen is
to retaliate against a chemical Scud attack. Yet if
Israel unleashed its nuclear arsenal it would lose all
legitimacy as a nation. It would become a pariah that no
one, not even America, would extend a helping hand
to.
Does this mean we should relax about proliferation?
Not at all. For the history of the Cold War teaches us
how close we came to accidental war on a number of
occasions and how, in a crisis, politicians can be
tempted at least to threaten to use them, which convinces
others that they are the currency of power. The more
fingers there are on the nuclear button around the world,
the more likely, by intent, malevolence, accident or
insubordination, they could be used with all the
devastation they involve. Most of the arguments
given above depend on rational decision making. But the
Cuban Missile Crisis told us that human beings can get
close to becoming irrational and irresponsible.
This is why we have the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. In May 1995 the treaty, signed by 185 nations,
was renewed indefinitely. But what should have been a
landmark in arms control was more a mark of failure, of
promises made and broken by the big nuclear powers, who
solemnly undertook to move rapidly towards nuclear
disarmament if the treaty were renewed. The recent
disarmament treaty negotiated by presidents George Bush
and Vladimir Putin is riddled with holes. It lacks a
schedule of phased reductions, allowing both sides to
defer the promised cuts until 2012, when the treaty
expires. The treaty does not require the elimination of a
single missile site, submarine, warhead, bomber or
bomb.
Nuclear disarmament seems an idealistic, even utopian
goal. Richard Perle talks of the generals who advocate
rapid nuclear disarmament- like George Lee Butler, the
former head of U.S. Strategic Command- as men
"whose stars are not on their uniforms but on their
eyes". But then to see an end to the Cold War was
regarded as utopian by an overwhelming majority of
experts and politicians until the moment it happened.
In the 1960s the late Herman Kahn, arguably the
greatest nuclear strategist of all time, pondered
pessimistically on the conditions necessary for returning
to a nuclear-free world. He thought it would take a
U.S.-Soviet nuclear war followed by an immediate pact
never to use them again. But Kahn said they must not have
time to bury the dead, otherwise the old mistrust and
enmity will quickly return.
But I think Kahn would be amazed to see how little
enmity there is today between the old nuclear superpower
rivals and indeed between both of them and the rising
superpower, China. Not since 1871-1914 has there been so
little active hostility between the big powers. This must
be the time to get our grip on the issue of big power
nuclear disarmament, for without that there is simply no
credibility when dealing with would-be nuclear
proliferators in the Third World.
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
 
|