Why does it seem so impossible now, when the great powers no longer feel threatened by one another? 

Almost all the talk is about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to states like Iran and North Korea or to terrorists? 

The foreign ministers and their advisers meet again and again. 

All are concerned that Iran has enriched some milligrams of uranium to a 4% level and some want to wave the stick immediately as they are convinced that Iran will – a number of years from now – violate the commitment it has made in the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to forego nuclear weapons.  

It is desirable that the foreign ministers talk about potential Iranian weapons but they do not seem to devote any thoughts to the fact that there are still some 27.000 real nuclear weapons in the US, Russia and other nuclear weapon states and that many of these are on hair trigger alert and might be set off within seconds – deliberately or accidentally. 

Nor do they seem to realize that the engagement they demonstrate in reducing the nuclear weapon threat appears only moderately impressive so long as they do not take seriously the commitment they have, themselves, made within the framework of the NPT to move toward the reduction and elimination of their nuclear weapons arsenals.  

The stagnation in global disarmament efforts is only part of the picture. 

In the US the military authorities want new types of nuclear weapons and in the UK the government is considering the replacement at tremendous cost of one generation of nuclear weapons by another as a means of defense – against whom? 

And while one army of engineers works to knit the world together through electronics and satellites another army is thinking hard how to destroy the satellites. Preparations are made for war in space.  

Last year a UN summit of Heads of States and Governments failed to adopt a single recommendation on how to attain further disarmament, to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to more states and to terrorists.  

For nearly a decade work at the disarmament conference in Geneva have stood still. It is high time for a revival.  

One can well understand that policy makers in the US – as elsewhere – felt disappointment and concern that the global instruments against nuclear proliferation – the NPT and international inspection – proved insufficient to stop Iraq, North Korea.

Libya and – perhaps – Iran on their way to nuclear weapons.

Perhaps this should be seen as part of the background to the inclination to use the enormous military potential of the US as a threat or direct means to preventing proliferation.  

However, after three years of a costly and criticized war in Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction that did not exist perhaps doubts may arise about the military method and a greater readiness may emerge again to try global cooperation to reduce and eventually eliminate weapons of mass destruction?  

A report with 60 concrete recommendations to the states of the world on what they could do to free themselves from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons is now available: www.wmdcommission.org.

It has been worked out by an independent international commission and as the chairman of the Commission I have presented the report to the Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan and to the public.  

Apart from proposals for measures to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction to more states and terrorists, the report points to two measures that could turn current concerns about renewed arms races into new hopes for common security. 

In both cases success would depend upon the US.  

A US ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty would in all likelihood lead other states to ratify and bring all such tests to an end, making the development of nuclear weapons more difficult. 

Leaving the treaty in limbo as has been done since 1996 is to risk new weapons tests.  

The second measure would be to conclude an internationally verified agreement to cut off the production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons purposes. 

This would close the tap everywhere for more weapons material and would be of special importance if an agreement on nuclear cooperation with the US were to give India access to more uranium than it presently has. 

It is positive that the US has recently presented a draft cut-off agreement but hard to understand why it does not comprise international inspection. 

Do the drafters think that the recent record of national intelligence show that international verification is superfluous? 

 HansBlix@MaximsNews.com

Other MaximsNews Columns by Hans Blix

HANS BLIX: WHAT HAPPENED TO DISARMAMENT?

IRAN at the UN SECURITY COUNCIL

The Next Secretary-General of the United Nations

Iran Nuclear Threat?

Iraq: Did They Lie?

The UN and Arms Control

Weapons of Mass Destruction, Challenges Ahead...

Weapons of Mass Destruction, Terrorism, Global Security

Nuclear Weapons and Terrorists

About Hans Blix

Dr Blix is the former Foreign Minister of Sweden and most recently the head of the UN’s weapons inspection team in Iraq.

Before that, from 1981 to 1997, he was the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency in which capacity he oversaw the dismantling of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program. 

He was a delegate to the UN General Assembly for 20 years and to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva for 16 and Chairman, Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission .

He is the Former Executive Chairman of United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and Director-General Emeritus of the IAEA.

Dr. Hans Blix is a Columnist for MaximsNews Network.

To read excerpts and to purchase Dr. Blix’s book, see Disarming Iraq.