What's New

Current Events Update

Current Events December 2007

Last July David Blair wrote the following article for the Telegraph:

“If the greatest threats to global security come from terrorism, nuclear weapons and the spread of failed states, Pakistan stands at the nexus of all three phenomena. The political fortunes of this vast country of 165 million people could scarcely be of greater importance.

Whoever emerges from the present political maelstrom to lead Pakistan will have to deal with the country's unofficial status as al-Qa'eda's heartland. The seven autonomous Tribal Areas lining the north-west frontier have been havens for al-Qa'eda's core leadership since the Taliban's downfall in Afghanistan in 2001.

From these strongholds, Islamist fighters have steadily penetrated the rest of Pakistan and revived the Taliban insurgency in southern Afghanistan. Armed militants have recently taken over enclaves of the once placid Swat Valley in Pakistan's North West Frontier Province, only a few hours drive from the capital, Islamabad.

General Pervez Musharraf has never succeeded in controlling all of Pakistan's national territory. Instead, the Pakistani state is so weak that armed Islamist groups, some linked to al-Qa'eda, have free rein over large areas.

Elsewhere, an ethnic insurgency is underway in the south-western province of Baluchistan, where local separatists are fighting for their own state. Karachi, Pakistan's largest city and the commercial capital, is run by a ruthless political machine linked to organised crime. Another major city, Peshawar, is a hotbed of Islamist zealotry.

A state which wields little control over its own cities is plainly in the throes of disintegration. Last year, "Foreign Policy" magazine gave Pakistan ninth place in a global league of "failed states".

Throw in the fact that Pakistan possesses between 40 and 60 nuclear warheads and all this becomes even more worrying. America has helped install a sophisticated command-and-control structure to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

The warheads are controlled by a highly sensitive body called the Strategic Planning Division led by General Khalid Kidwai. Because Gen. Musharraf can trust so few people with this job, he kept Gen. Kidwai in his post even when Kidwai officially retired earlier this year.

In 2004, Abdul Qadeer Khan, formerly the head of Pakistan's nuclear programme, was exposed as the mastermind of a global proliferation network. Mr Khan, who is now under house arrest, ran a "nuclear supermarket", supplying key components to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Pakistan is a failed state hosting both nuclear weapons and al-Qa'eda's core leadership. This unique combination makes it arguably the world's most dangerous country.”

In the five months since this article was written, Pakistan has taken several giant steps toward chaos. Musharraf is fighting for his political life. With continued strong US support (read money) and his own undemocratic dirty-fighting tactics, he has managed to retain control for now, but his domestic support is limited almost exclusively to the thugs who profit from his presence. And the longer he resists democracy, the greater the probability of a violent coup by some folks who really do not like the US at all. 

What does this situation say to you? Does it make you think, “Hey, someone should do something about Pakistan? Shouldn’t we give Musharraf more arms and money? Shouldn’t we go in there militarily and control the Pakistani nukes?” If so, you are thinking like the US government, and you are harboring the common American delusion of omnipotence. You are preparing to take another huge step down the road to ruin.

On the other hand, Pakistan and the potential it represents has most of the world thinking, “We need to do something about nuclear weapons, and we need to do it right now!”

Does the world really want to eliminate nuclear weapons? Well, at the UN level, just this past December 5 the UN General Assembly voted 170 to 3 (with 9 abstentions) to eliminate nuclear weapons. The same day, the GA passed 13 other resolutions addressing various approaches to controlling or eliminating nuclear weapons. All of these resolutions passed by super-majorities that should be enough to override any veto (if the UN were a democratic institution).

Also at the planetary level, the International Court of Justice, the highest court in the world, stated clearly in 1996 that nuclear weapons are illegal, as if that weren’t obvious. (According to the Geneva Conventions, a weapon must be limited to the battlefield in time and space. Nuclear weapons are not.) The Court also declared unanimously that, "…there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control." During the December meeting mentioned above, the UNGA passed a resolution introduced by Malaysia calling for a return to the Court for an opinion as to whether the nuclear weapon states are actually negotiating in good faith and fulfilling their obligations. There are signs of another World Court movement to take this question back to the Court.

At the mayoral level, Mayors for Peace, championing since 2003 its 2020 Vision (to eliminate all nuclear weapons by 2020), is still growing rapidly. Membership is closing in on 2000 with a realistic hope of reaching the goal of 2020 mayors in 2007, the 25th year since the founding of Mayors for Peace. The 2020 Vision has been endorsed by the US Conference of Mayors and the Council of European Municipalities and Regions. Just this past October 31, at its meeting in Jeju, South Korea, the World Congress of United Cities and Local Governments (the largest municipal association in the world and the voice of the cities at the UN) adopted a final document that included the following paragraph: “We recall that the use of conventional armaments is at present the cause of unbearable suffering for civil populations. We support, moreover the initiative of the Mayors for Peace campaign, which lobbies the international community to renounce weapons of mass destruction. We call on all nation states and armed groups to cease considering cities as military objectives – ‘cities are not targets’.” This is a direct reference to the Mayors for Peace CANT project (Cites Are Not Targets).

The CANT project calls on cities to demand assurances from nuclear-weapon states that they are not and will not be targeted for nuclear attack. It also calls for the “strengthening of international law to protect cities from the scourge of war.” Cities are putting States on notice that they are no longer willing to be held hostage or destroyed as a result of the political machinations of old-fashioned national leaders clinging to the obsolete war culture.

At the grassroots level, a recent poll has shown that 79 percent of Americans and 63 percent of Russians believe their national governments should do more to eliminate nuclear weapons. The percentages in other countries, especially in Europe, are undoubtedly far higher. 

Thus, an overwhelming majority of States, cities, and citizens want to be rid of nuclear weapons. They have taken their case to and won support from the highest court in the land. If the world were a democracy, we would have been rid of nuclear weapons long ago. Instead, the United States, the self-appointed champion of democracy, continues to imperil our civilization and possibly human survival itself by refusing even to discuss universal nuclear disarmament. 

But can we do it? Even if the US agreed, could we actually eliminate nuclear weapons? After all, we can’t un-invent them, right?

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) assures us that if they were free to go anywhere at any time, they could find the nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons leave a radioactive trail. They are far easier to find than biological and chemical weapons, which have both been banned. Furthermore, if we did succeed in eliminating them and downgrading all weapons-grade fissile material, it would be impossible for anyone to secretly create the fuel for a weapon. Uranium enrichment and plutonium extraction require large, expensive, sophisticated, and radioactively dirty facilities that can be seen from space. All we have to do is keep a close eye on those facilities.

Imagine if the US, instead of dragging its feet and intensely resisting every effort toward disarmament, were using its tremendous power and prestige to lead a wholehearted, universally approved effort to find and eliminate all nuclear weapons. We could soon live in a nuclear-weapon-free world.

And that is the meaning of Blair’s article warning about Pakistan. There is one and only one way to liberate ourselves from the obscene and totally unnecessary threat of nuclear annihilation. That way does NOT involve the US deciding unilaterally who may and may not have nuclear weapons, as it is attempting to do. It requires a commitment by all States to get rid of all nuclear weapons before they fall into the “wrong hands.”