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
