 |
International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation |
|
International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation |
The focus of this INESAP Bulletin has been planned since one year, when it became increasingly clear that the nuclear arms race had not ended, but was entering a new phase. Even before the nuclear detonations in South Asia shattered the world, there were plenty of indicators that major players in the international arena were preparing for military competition in the next millenium. Far ahead of all others, the last remaining superpower, in its all-encompassing quest for security against diminishing threats, continued to provoke new threats and subdue the development of high-technology to the projected future battlefields on earth and the high grounds in space.
Since the beginning of the space age, the control of this new dimension of competition has been a central focus of US security policy. While the race to the moon was in the center of public debate in the 1960s (now revived with the Mars mission, films like Apollo 13 or John Glenn's return into orbit), the cold war inflamed a fierce battle between the US and the USSR on the military use of space. The fears of a "red space" are over now, but the alternative of a US-dominated space (John Pike) is not very attractive to the rest of the world. Expansionist attitudes, based on the experiences at frontiers in the Wild West, run through a number of recent documents on US space strategy, like the 1997 Long Range Plan "Vision for 2020" of the US Space Command or the 16-volume set "New World Vistas - Air and Space Power for the 21st Century" which was prepared by the US-Air-Force in 1996 (Regina Hagen).
What is at stake is the exploitation of the supposedly unlimited resources in space, which would serve the interest of those who are "first". The struggle for being first would be a fall-back to attitudes of "survival of the fittest". Justification for the expected revival of power play has been outlined in books like "The Clash of Civilizations" by Samual Huntington or "War and Antiwar" by Alvin and Heidi Toffler. Such books do not "predict'' future, they "invent" it. The underlying assumption of good and bad guys, of democratic and rogue states is nothing but the projection of the own attitudes towards others.
Unfortunately, nuclear weapons are an essential element of such awkward thinking, despite the assertions that future warfare would be based on surgical strikes and clean battlefields without casualties. Nothing can be less "surgical", less "clean" and create more victims than nuclear weapons, despite all attempts to control their impact. In the previous years, the United States and NATO gave the clear symbol that nuclear weapons will remain a cornerstone of their security policy and will not be given up but need to be "modernized" (Jackie Cabasso). This message has been understood by Russia and by the emerging powers in the South. Therefore, it is not so unexpected that the year 1998 has seen India and Pakistan emerge as new declared nuclear weapon states (Zia Mian, M.V. Ramana, Merav Datan, Götz Neuneck) and a number of ballistic missile tests in various parts of Asia (India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran).
After the nuclear shockwaves from the Rajathan desert in India, Bill Clinton's regret to see "the Indian subcontinent repeat the worst mistakes of the 20th century", might have been said honestly, but it also reflects the perception of a President who is more involved in personal affairs than in understanding the own role in the world's conflicts. How can the commander of the greatest and most sophisticated nuclear force in the world ignore his own nuclear arsenal and attack India, a country which has demanded nuclear disarmament since five decades? Of course, India's and Pakistan's reasons to go nuclear need to be condemned like anywhere else, but it was ultimately the refusal of the nuclear haves to give up their arsenals that helped hawks in India to prevail and put the Gandhi tradition to rest. Now that India has behaved alike, the rogue states doctrine feels confirmed: don't trust anyone. But it rather confirms the simple message from the cold war times: hawks need each other, wherever they are.
Different from the rather simple bilateral East-West arms race, the expected North-South and South-South arms races by far exceed the complexity of previous experiences. What makes it difficult to predict or control, is the diversity of states and their interests the variety of conflicts and their causes, combining political, military, economic, ecological, religious or ethnic dimensions. Increasingly, the driving motives are related to the competition on the planet's dwindling resources. This is especially true for Asia, where everything seems interconnected. For instance, nuclear testing by India can be seen as a reaction to the nuclear weapons of China and the United States, but it automatically provoked Pakistan to do the same. Pakistan has neighbors in the Middle East, who recognized the first Islamic bomb. Together with Iran and other Arab competitors this could stimulate Israeli threat perception and reactions, e.g. in missile defense. The same can be said for North-East Asia where in addition to the struggle between India and China a competition between China and Japan is on the horizon. The North Korean missile test, announced as a space launch (David Wright), has added to a strengthened cooperation of Japan with the US in missile defense, which in turn could lead to strong responses by China (Wu Chunsi).
The United States should help to contain this emerging arms race, rather than to fuel it by a missile defense system that undermines the basis of arms control, the ABM Treaty (George Lewis). The newly declared nuclear weapon states are a severe challenge to the current non-proliferation regime (Rebecca Johnson) and point to its transitory character. There is a bifurcation between a world with every nation having the right to go nuclear or a new norm which neglects this right to everyone. The way out of this dilemma is the design of new rules and international agreements, which strengthen international cooperation on earth and in space.
Despite the negative developments of this year there are still signs of hope (Janet Bloomfield, Pamela Meidell). One is the election of non-conservative governments in much of Europe, with the red-green government in Germany being the last one. This trend could form a basis for ending the century of violence as well as the nuclear age, in the civil and the military sector. For both, adequate accounting of plutonium is an important basis (Martin Kalinowski, Wolfgang Liebert, Silke Aumann). Another indicator are the on-going initiatives among governments to implement steps leading towards a nuclear-weapon-free world in the UN system, above all the New Agenda and the disarmament resolutions in the UNGA, which led to a shift of the anti-abolition stand of many NATO members. Still most activities occur on non-governmental levels, including the Middle Powers Initiative, the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention , the statements of US Bishops, the nuclear-weapon-free communities (Regina Hagen) and growing citizens inspections of nuclear and missile facilities. Jürgen Scheffran