The threat of nuclear proliferation
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed warns of the growing trend towards the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction
It is no longer a secret that the decision to bring about a regime change in Iraq was made as soon as President Bush took office, and perhaps even before. Indeed, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was high on the new administration's agenda: one of its first foreign policy moves was to send Vice President Dick Cheney to 12 Middle Eastern capitals in a bid to persuade Arab leaders that the main threat to regional stability was Iraq, not Palestine. Not surprisingly, his visit, which took place long before the events of 9/11, failed to achieve its desired purpose, and the leaders he spoke to remained unconvinced that they had to reshuffle their priorities in line with those of Washington. For America, the world's most profligate consumer of energy, access to Iraq's vast oil reserves, which are second only to those of Saudi Arabia, is of primordial importance; for the Arab world, the festering situation in Palestine continues to dominate the political game.
The events of 9/11, which were attributed to Osama Bin Laden's Al-Qa'eda organisation, propelled the issue of terrorism to the forefront of politics, both regionally and globally. It was not long after the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was ousted that US diplomacy moved to implement the plan Cheney had advocated to Middle Eastern leaders. At the time, his message fell on deaf ears because no Arab regime saw the logic in giving precedence to the problem of Iraq over that of Palestine.
Which of the two problems should be given priority divided the Security Council into two opposing teams. One, headed by the US, included, from within the European Union, the UK, Spain and Italy, and upheld the Bush-Blair argument that Saddam had accumulated a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction which posed a threat to global peace and stability. Iraq was a "rogue" state that had to be stopped before it was too late, even if no hard evidence could be found to corroborate the charges against it.
The second team, which included France, Germany and Belgium and enjoyed the support of the UN inspectors headed by Hans Blix, believed the war option could not be resorted to until WMDs were actually found in Iraq, and argued that more time was needed to conduct a thorough search before embarking on a military campaign.
But Bush and his junior partner Blair defiantly pressed ahead with their war plan, invading Iraq without Security Council approval and raining devastation on its population and basic infrastructure. Although the occupying forces had the run of the country and spared no effort in the search for banned weapons, none were found. However, the war cast light on an issue that had for long remained shrouded in secrecy: the clandestine arms race in which various countries were engaged in a bid to develop or obtain WMDs.
What first blew the lid off the widespread proliferation activity was Muammar Gaddafi's startling admission that Libya was involved in a project to develop WMDs and that it was ready to succumb to UN inspections. The fact that the unsolicited admission came in the immediate aftermath of Saddam Hussein's capture and his humiliating treatment at the hands of his captors is not a coincidence; by voluntarily owning up to what he has for long been accused, Gaddafi was clearly hoping to avoid a similar fate.
Then came the scandal of Pakistan's leading nuclear scientist Abdul-Qadeer Khan, who admitted that for the past 15 years he has been providing nuclear technology to Libya, Iran and North Korea and who was pardoned by President Pervezz Musharraf. It is clear from these developments that the issue of nuclear proliferation has entered a new stage and that a whole new approach is necessary. Following Khan's public confession, it is no longer possible for countries accused of belonging to the so-called "axis of evil" to continue denying that they have, or have tried to build up, stockpiles of banned weapons.
It is also no longer possible to assume that the world will continue to be neatly divided into nuclear and non- nuclear states for ever. The nuclear club is no longer as exclusive as it once was. India and Pakistan were the first to openly force their way in; whether we like it or not, other states are bound to follow suit. With the components and know-how required for the manufacture of WMDs readily available on the open market, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that non- nuclear states will quietly accept the restrictions arbitrarily placed on them by nuclear states. It is equally unlikely that nuclear states would be ready to dismantle their arsenals of WMDs, even if maintaining them carries the risk that the secrets of nuclear technology could be leaked to terrorist groups.
A world system in which some members are regarded as more equal than others is doomed to fail. As long as a handful of nuclear states refuse to even contemplate the possibility of decommissioning their arsenals of WMDs, non-nuclear states will strive to "raise" themselves to the status of the nuclear states by acquiring their own arsenals of WMDs. So far, there is no indication that this vicious cycle will ever be broken. The recent disclosures of proliferation activities are a natural result of inbuilt defects in the nuclear equation. What is new is that this reality can no longer be concealed and has now to be faced frontally, in an atmosphere of openness and transparency.
Moreover, not all states that conceal WMDs are condemned for doing so. Condemnation is reserved only for those accused by Washington of being "rogue" states and members of the "axis of evil". Thus Israel, an undeclared nuclear power since the mid-1950s, has never been condemned for developing such weapons. Indeed, it is assumed to have a "moral right" to possess WMDs on the grounds that the Arab countries threaten its very existence, while actually it is Israel which constitutes a threat for the existence of Arab countries.
Double standards are so blatantly applied to the issue of nuclear proliferation that no action was taken against President Musharraf for pardoning a man who admitted to smuggling nuclear technology to "rogue" states accused of being members of the "axis of evil". The only reason for this is that Pakistan is a key US ally in the war on terror.
It thus appears that Washington's war on terror targets only countries making up what it calls the "axis of evil", in other words, the countries regarded as hostile to America. As a result, we have a ludicrous situation in which war is waged against a country that turns out not to have any WMDs while others who do have these weapons are exonerated and pardoned! This is hardly a recipe for global security and stability.
Mohamed El-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Agency, has warned that the world is moving in the direction of self- destruction if it proves unable to prevent the proliferation of nuclear technology, which is now widely accessible through a vast clandestine global network. El-Baradei has called for swift action to eradicate the network, which facilitates the acquisition of nuclear substances and technology by terrorist groups.
El-Baradei has also called for a revision of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in line with the requirements of the 21st century. He believes no state should be allowed to withdraw from the treaty, as North Korea did last year. He has also called for compulsory random inspections of nuclear sites for all countries and for considering states that withdraw from the treaty as threats to world peace and security, justifying the immediate intervention of the Security Council.
We are actually facing an equation with no precedent in history. The United States is a unique hyper-power with devastating military superiority. What this means in the context of globalisation is that all states have to bow to its will and remove all obstacles standing in the way of its supreme authority. This need not be America's ideology in all situations. It was not the case during Clinton's presidency. It need not be the case of Kerry's, or whoever turns out to be the Democratic candidate for president. But it is certainly the case for the present Bush administration.
