Perspectives from the Pugwash Community

Towards a WMD-Free Middle-East

1 February 2004
by André Landesman

I am a member of the French Pugwash National Group. I just read the statement by the Pugwash Executive Committee on Libya and non-proliferation, I have to say that I do not agree completely with the statement such as it is presented.

I agree that Colonel Qadhafi's decision to dismantle Libya's facilities for manufacturing WMD is a positive development. If Libya does not qualify any more for the status of rogue state in the view of the US administration, I am happy. But in my view Libya does not qualify yet for the status of a democratic stabilized country. Libya may not be a threat any more but it remains a risk. As a european, I cannot help thinking that Libya is the only rogue state (or former rogue state) wherefrom Europe is at range for some No-Dong type missile. For Libya, i would say "wait and see".

As for Iran, the cooperation with IAEA has been announced, but were there already inspections performed? I read that they have not yet been fully accepted in practice. The Iran issue may be related to the conflict between conservatives and progressists in Teheran, and it is not clear who is winning. Regarding non-proliferation in Iran, Russia plays there a role which is not necessarily positive!

As for Israel, one should not be naive. The chances that "Israel follows the Libyan example" are identical to zero. I do not know whether such a plea is only naive or even counter-productive. This is because Israel is the only nuclear state for which its very existence is at stake. One has all reasons to be very pessimistic about the israeli-palestinian conflict (or war). The only sign of hope is the draft for a peace agreement signed in Geneva by Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abd-Rabbo. I believe the Pugwash Executive Committee should fully support this agreement and, on top of it, ask the western governements, both north-american and european, to support it as well.

As for the obligations for the other nuclear states under the NPT treaty, I have no objection to remind them. I would point out that there is a new danger in the shift for strategic policy from deterrence arms to battlefield arms. Tell me if I am wrong, but this change seems to be real in the USA. As far as France is concerned, I am afraid that such a shift is also planned, in its own scale of course. I do not believe that the french government will ever forget about its nuclear weapons except if a better way of guaranteeing its defense is designed instead. I also believe that such a move can only come out of a true european defense and security policy, in the long run.

Best regards

André Landesman