Hans
Blix Report - June 1, 2006
"Weapons of Terror"
The
International Commission on Abolishing
Weapons of Mass Destruction
By
Jonathan
Power
TFF Associate
since 1991
Comments to JonatPower@aol.com
May 29, 2006
LONDON - Since Hiroshima and
Nagasaki the presumption has been that war can get no
worse. The world has been spared a second nuclear war, so
this presumption has a measure of truth. But the planning
for major war has grown more alarming in all manner of
ways - proliferation certainly but, not least, in the
relatively recent statements of the U.S., Russia, the UK
and France who, signalling a momentous shift in military
doctrine, say that they are prepared to use their nuclear
weapons for war fighting and not just for deterrence, as
during the Cold War.
When Hans Blix was the UN inspector
charged with investigating whether Iraq still possessed
weapons of mass destruction he once said that anyone can
hang out a sign "beware of the dog", but it doesn't mean
they have a dog. In Saddam Hussein's case this turned out
to be correct. These days the issue is rather more
complicated. Libya recently gave up its nuclear weapons'
program. But while it was going on there was no dog sign
and no one knew that they had made as much progress as
they had. With North Korea they did hang out the sign but
we still don't know how much is bluff and how much is
real. With Iran all is still a series of question
marks.
Nevertheless, Blix in an interview
he gave me on the eve of publishing the
report of a commission he
chaired on how to get rid of nuclear weapons, concluded
that the big question is not whether the dog in question
is going to bark - it probably isn't unless it is
seriously provoked - but whether the "dog minders" of the
international community, especially the big nuclear bomb
powers, appear credible as they try to de-fang these
animals.
Alas, they shy away from seeing the
obvious: "If they themselves have real dogs with nuclear
and even biological teeth and they say they are more
prepared to use them than in the Cold War days why should
these other new would-be dog owners listen to
them?"
"We have struggled with these
conundrums", he told me, "and trust we have mapped out an
intelligent way of going forward. I believe it is the
first time that such a diverse panel of expert minds
(including an ex US Secretary of Defence) has come up
with a doable program for self-discipline in the
possession of weapons of mass destruction and ultimately
for total disarmament.
Idealistic and out of touch will be
the accusation, says Blix, "but didn't President Ronald
Reagan himself say in his second inaugural address: 'We
seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons
from the face of the Earth?'"
First, the Blix commission argues,
we have to take military threats off the table. The
proliferation of nuclear weapons cannot be solved by the
immediate play of military hardball. The specific cases
that now worry the international community probably can
be contained by a mixture of security and energy
guarantees, by favourable trade agreements and political
engagement. No country can be expected at this stage to
unilaterally forgo its military options (as long as they
remain conventional) but the sword can be sheathed while
negotiations progress.
Second, we have to re-engage with
the legal commitments of the central bargain of the
Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. The nuclear-haves must
take rapid steps to sharply reduce their nuclear
armaments. Whilst the goal must be zero, there can be no
excuses for not immediately halving their arsenals and in
the case of the UK and France forsaking them.
Within the next couple of years
every nation, including not just the old nuclear-haves
but the relative newcomers, India and Pakistan, must sign
and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the brain
child of President John F. Kennedy, and likewise agree to
a treaty banning the production of all fissile material
for military purposes.
As for the use of terror weapons by
revolutionary groups, at present terrorists do not have
the expertise to build or, in the case of biological and
chemical weapons, deliver effective weapons of this kind.
For the future, the Commission argues, if we maintain and
strengthen the efforts against nuclear theft a terrorist
attack need not be a great worry.
After two hours with Blix I came
away even more convinced by this very wise man, who has
seen it all, that the degree of nuclear proliferation
will depend on the atmospherics generated by the
nuclear-haves. If they are seen to be earnestly creating
a world where terror weapons are marginalized and then
abolished, the incentives dangled before both the likes
of Iran and terrorists to try and develop a weapon of
mass destruction will be much diminished.
Read
more about the Commission, see who is behind it,
who has financed it and you can download the report
here:
The
Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission
homepage
Copyright © 2006 By
JONATHAN POWER
I can be reached by
phone +44 7785 351172 and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
Get
free articles &
updates
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"
Här kan
du läsa om - och köpa - Jonathan Powers bok
på svenska
"Som
Droppen Urholkar
Stenen"
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
 
|