An army guard
Greenpeace fully supports disarming Iraq, and indeed all nations that have weapons of mass destruction (WMD), including the United Kingdom. But pre-emptive military strikes will not help control or abolish these weapons.
India, Pakistan and Israel are known to have nuclear weapons; North Korea is openly seeking to acquire them. All are outside the realms of any international control. The Bush administration has stated that at least 13 countries are pursuing biological weapons research. Does Bush intend to attack each of these in turn?
A collective, effective international arms control and disarmament system is the solution. The framework for such a system already exists, through the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva and treaties such as:
- Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),
- Comprehensive Test Ban treaty
- Biological Weapons Convention, and
- Chemical Weapons Convention.
Rather than being strengthened, this delicate framework is being undermined by the hypocrisy of existing nuclear weapons states, and the actions of the Bush administration in particular. If Bush and Blair are genuinely concerned about WMD, they should recommit to the arms control, nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.
Five steps to weapons control and real security
1. Implement and strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
The NPT is a contract: the non-nuclear signatories promise not to acquire nuclear weapons, and the nuclear signatories promise to negotiate away those they possess. Fully implenting the NPT means non-signatories signing up and nuclear weapons states living up to their obligations. The USA, Britain, France, Russia and China have been in material breach of this article of international law for three decades. Since Bush took office, the US has been developing new nuclear weapons that can be used first in a conventional conflict. The US is committed to retaining an arsenal of around ten thousand nuclear weapons. At the NPT review conference in 2000, the US and other signatories agreed 13 specific disarmament commitments to move towards implementation of the NPT, beginning with an end to nuclear weapons testing. Last year, the Bush administration said it would not abide by the additional commitments.
2. Fast phase out so-called 'civil' nuclear power
States seeking to acquire nuclear weapons do so through nuclear energy programmes. This enables them to get the material, and also to evade detection by inspectors, since many materials are so-called 'dual use' (ie military or civil). Any radioactive material, including all the waste which remains radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years and cannot be safely disposed of, is an ingredient for a 'dirty bomb'. It is lunacy to allow the nuclear industry to continue creating radioactive material.
3. Minimising the risk from existing nuclear material.
Unfortunately, the world has a dangerous legacy of nuclear material from the last five decades of irresponsible construction of nuclear power stations and nuclear weapons. The most widespread problem is in the states of the former Soviet Union. The international community should pay to make the Soviet nuclear legacy less insecure. This would cost a fraction of the cost of a war on Iraq, and would contribute much more to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Yet the Bush administration has proposed deep cuts in funding for programmes safeguarding nuclear materials in the countries of the former Soviet Union. The least sensible management option for nuclear waste is to reprocess it. This separates out the uranium and plutonium, making material for weapons more easily accessible, and emitting a large quantity of radioactivity in the process. Reprocessing must end immediately.
4. Strengthen the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions.
Instead of strengthening them, the Bush Administration is undermining them. In 2001, it vetoed the adoption of a Protocol to the BWC which would have established a verification regime, on the grounds that this would involve intrusive inspections and threaten the commercial interests of its biotechnology industry.
5. End dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power by developing the renewable economy.
The world economy's dependence on fossil fuels, and oil in particular, distorts international relations and stokes conflicts. Fossil fuels must be phased out, not just for security reasons but also to protect the global climate. We do not need nuclear power to replace fossil fuels. With sufficient investment and political will, renewables could provide all the energy we need; not just the electricity, but the energy for industry, for heating and for transport as well.
Greenpeace briefing: Tackling weapons of mass destruction
