Will Bush's second term nuclear policy make the world more secure, asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed The pivotal event that will forever be associated with George W Bush's first term in office is the war he waged on Iraq in the name of saving the world from Saddam Hussein's alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. There are already signs that an issue of even broader import is likely to dominate his second term, namely, the future of WMD at the level of the planet as a whole. The rapid pace of technological progress, coupled with the unhindered flow of information in the age of globalisation, means that the know-how and technology required to manufacture WMD cannot indefinitely remain the exclusive purview of a handful of advanced countries. If present trends continue, it is only a matter of time before the ability to produce WMD is generalised throughout the world, and no amount of pressure or coercion can prevent their spread. Like it or not, membership in the nuclear club is bound to expand. India and Pakistan have already joined, and experts believe that North Korea (even South Korea) and Iran will shortly follow suit. This trend is expected to rise as more and more states question the moral authority of a privileged few to deny them the right to develop their nuclear capability -- especially in the absence of any objective criteria according to which one state is deemed worthy of developing nuclear power and another is not. For example, Israel is exempt from any kind of international monitoring, whether by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or the UN, although the whole world knows that it has been a nuclear power for decades. It was allowed to build up its nuclear arsenal with impunity on the grounds that it needed to defend itself against those who questioned its right to exist and were determined to wipe it off the face of the map. Even if that were true, and everyone knows that its nuclear arsenal far exceeds its defence requirements, the fact that Israel secretly owns nuclear weapons is an incentive for other nations to try and acquire similar weapons. So the arms race continues, and there is no way to stop it. The proliferation of WMD is a serious problem that needs to be tackled from a wider perspective. There is clearly no "technological" solution to the problem. The spread of WMD all over our planet cannot be halted by technical means alone. The logic of depriving a nation of its ability to possess WMD by furnishing other nations with WMD of a more refined type only encourages the arms race, not the opposite. The only way by which the arms race can be halted requires political measures, and cannot be reached by a technological approach alone, that is, on the basis of the precept advanced by the well- known German military strategist Clausewitz that "war is the continuation of politics by other means". Believing that wars can be won just by altering the types of weapons used is a fallacy. We are living in a period of globalisation. Globalisation proceeds from the premise that the Other has specific interests, some legitimate, others not. For parties in a conflict to ensure that only interests that are legitimate will be upheld, the conflict has to be dealt with politically, not only technologically. The breakdown of the bipolar world order and its replacement by a unipolar world order has fundamentally changed conflict management techniques in our world. The issue is more political than technological. In an article which appeared in Al-Hayat on 22 November, Gamil Mattar wrote that the Falluja battle, and other similar battles, "have more often than not taken the form of a confrontation between an individual Iraqi 'enemy' and an individual American soldier. It is a confrontation between individuals. The enemy is angry, rebellious, fanatic, as he clashes with American power. Although America is confronting him with its fleets, its armies, its heavy bombers, its missiles and all the rest of its weaponry inherited from the Cold War, it failed to achieve its objectives. The US is fighting against an individual not armed with a defensive system adequate to fight missiles, aircraft, and WMDs. This has highlighted the need for a weapons system commensurate with the new types of confrontation." Such a topic needs a political, not a technological approach. Under the bipolar world order, the most acute contradiction was at the very summit of the global community between the capitalist and communist systems. But in the unipolar world order now prevailing, all protagonists swear allegiance to one ideological doctrine, namely, democracy. This does not mean that the world has become devoid of contradictions and violent conflicts. People who feel they have been left by the wayside, so to speak, who feel there is no room for them in the new world order, are rebelling against the system, spawning the all-too familiar phenomenon of global terrorism. On 14 November, Iran signed an agreement with the European Union -- with France, Britain and Germany in particular -- committing Tehran to freeze all uranium enrichment programmes. Does the agreement represent a turning point, or is it nothing more than a mirage? Does it presage an era of long-range cooperation in which Iran will relinquish some of its nuclear prerogatives in exchange for security guarantees and the recognition of its status as a regional Middle Eastern power? The US might find itself compelled to accept such an approach. The IAEA has proposed three scenarios worth considering. The first is put forward by the optimists, who claim that Iran concealed its nuclear programme over the last two decades because it was isolated from the international community. According to this logic, a greater degree of transparency will create a more favourable climate that would allow Iran to produce a nuclear warhead in less than two years in case its relations with Europe and America deteriorate. The second scenario is put forward by the pessimists, who fear that Iran has already come to a decision and that quitting the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) is no longer dependent on Iran's relations with the Western capitals, but just a question of time. This scenario is widespread in Washington, where many believe that Iran considers its economic edge and geo- political status entitle it to be no less privileged than India and Pakistan when it comes to being accepted as a member of the nuclear club. For the last two years, the Bush administration has been studying various options in Washington's fractious relationship with Tehran. One option that is probably under consideration is to encourage regime change. However, this is a risky business that could backfire. Alternatively, Washington might consider launching air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, but considering that these are widely spread all over the country, often deep underground, this would be an enormous undertaking. Moreover, Iran could react by encouraging turmoil and terrorism throughout the region. Perhaps for the moment Washington has no choice but to concentrate on diplomatic means of banning the spread of WMD. The third scenario is the one adopted by Europe now. Although the US believes the Europeans are too easy on Tehran and have made too many concessions, it would be difficult for Washington to go to war against Tehran if this is not preceded by an attempt at negotiations. Under the bipolar world order, the fact that weapons had an overkill capacity able to exterminate humankind not once but several times over gave rise to an extraordinary situation in which the two superpowers themselves held off using force against one another. Because people only die once, the choice was either mutual neutralisation or mutual annihilation. And so the Cold War never developed into a cataclysmic confrontation on the battlefield. Eventually, one of the two global poles collapsed. But paradoxically this did not create a safer world. On the contrary, the equation of an individual fighting an individual, rather than a system of missiles, tanks, aircraft, WMDs facing a similar system on the opposite side, has scattered the battlefield and neutralised mutual neutralisation. The world has become a more dangerous place, not the opposite.
