Current Events September 2006

On January 10, 2005, Peter Brooks of the Heritage Foundation, in an article called Egypt’s Nuclear Option, wrote:

As if North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons programs weren't enough, now it seems Egypt may be pursuing the bomb as well.

The evidence isn't conclusive yet. But according to an initial International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) statement last week, several Egyptian scientists conducted unreported nuclear experiments over the past 30 years.

That's reason for concern. Egypt, a signatory to the United Nations' nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), had promised to swear off nuclear weapons. And, like all treaty members, Cairo is required to supply the IAEA with a written declaration of past nuclear work.

Well, it turns out that Egypt forgot to mention some nuclear activities in its 1982 declaration. And it failed to inform the IAEA about some new work since then, too.
Egypt denies violating the treaty, but the IAEA is analyzing environmental samplings from nuclear facilities near Cairo, looking for evidence of uranium enrichment or plutonium extraction.

Discovery of an Egyptian nuclear program would rattle Middle East peace and stability, further pull the rug out from under teetering U.N. nonproliferation treaties and possibly crumble Egypt's relatively strong relationship with the U.S.

This apparent attempt by Egypt to hide a nuclear weapons program is exactly the behavior the US and Israel hold up as the reason to keep Iran from enriching uranium or building a nuclear weapon. Does anyone remember Egypt’s nuclear program becoming a major news item? It is beyond the scope of this column to speculate about why Iran’s failure to be completely open about its nuclear program is so much more threatening than Egypt’s, but there must be a good reason. After all, an article published on the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) website in May 2006 states:

The Egyptian government has recently undergone a policy change in its approach to nuclear arms, now indicating a renewed interest in a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East as opposed to a push towards developing nuclear weapons. The country maintains an active nuclear research program with two research reactors aimed at developing an independent nuclear fuel cycle which could provide cover and opportunity for development of a clandestine program. However, Egypt has never possessed nuclear weapons and does not have experience in developing them clandestinely. Previous reports of Egyptian intentions to construct a nuclear power plant at El-Dabaa have since been negated as those plans have been set aside. Since April 2005, however, there have been conflicting reports of negotiations between Egypt and Russia for a nuclear power station.

So it seems that the US believes that Egypt has been persuaded to abandon nuclear weapons, thus we will allow it to have its own fuel cycle, a privilege we do not grant to Iran. Egypt still insists that it will not sign the CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) unless Israel signs the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty). The last paragraph in this article states:

In February 2006, Egypt achieved a symbolic victory in implementing its goal of a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East. At Egyptian insistence, a paragraph calling for a WMD-free zone in the Middle East was included in the 4 February 2006 IAEA resolution to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council. Egypt has long stressed the need for a Middle Eastern WMD-free zone, which has previously met resistance from the United States. However, Egypt’s insistence on including the paragraph in the resolution was supported by China, Russia, Europe, and eventually the United States.

Wow! Egypt somehow had the power to force the US, desperate for UN action against Iran, to accept a paragraph about a WMD-free zone in the Middle East. So now, on paper, we have Egypt, China, Russia, Europe and the US all supporting a WMD-free zone in the Middle East. What could possibly be holding it up? Could the delay be related to the two new nuclear-capable submarines Israel just bought from the Germans?

Everyone knows that Israel has nuclear weapons. The recent widely publicized submarine purchase was a clear message to its enemies. “We have nuclear weapons riding around safe in the sea, and we are ready to blow you away if anything bad happens to us.” This message is the key to a strategy known as nuclear deterrence. This strategy and the arms race it spawned between the US and Russia cost the US at least 5.5 trillion dollars. It must have cost the Russians a similar amount. Contemplating what could have been done with that money to feed the hungry, heal the sick, eliminate the root causes of terrorism, and fight global warming is enough to make a grown peacemaker weep, but I digress.

What we have in the Middle East is a burgeoning nuclear arms race. How long will the Egyptian people, whatever its government says, be content to push for a nuclear-free zone while Israel is sailing nuclear-armed submarines around the Mediterranean? Can anyone doubt that Israel’s nuclear weapons are a provocation to the Arab world? How humiliating. Israel, with the world’s silent assent and active US support, has a nuclear arsenal and submarines with which to threaten Iran, but Iran is threatened with sanctions and bombing if it even continues to enrich uranium. How long will the Arab world stand for this sort of humiliation? How long will Pakistan keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

As reported previously in this column, David Dionisi in American Hiroshima says that an Al Qaeda operative has informed the CIA that Al Qaeda already has a nuclear device it picked up in Kazakhstan. That shines a different light on the famous July 10 New Yorker story in which Seymour Hersh informs us that the Pentagon is all that stands between the Bush administration and using nukes in Iran. Hersh wrote:

In late April the military leadership, headed by General Pace, achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a nuclear device to destroy Iran's uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz... “Bush and Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning,” the former senior intelligence official told me. “And Pace stood up to them. Then the word came back: 'Okay, the nuclear option is politically unacceptable.’”

Does “politically unacceptable” mean the Pentagon is opposed? Does it refer to some other opposing political force? Did General Pace convince the civilian leadership that the nuclear option is politically unacceptable? If someone were going to worry about the political acceptability of nuclear weapons, you would think it would be the civilian leadership, the ones who get elected. Why would they need General Pace to explain nuclear politics to them?

There is a reasonable explanation. General Pace persuaded Bush and Cheney by saying something like, “You cannot use nuclear weapons in Iran because if you break the nuclear taboo, Al Qaeda is going to use a nuke to blow up a city in the US, and there is nothing we can do about it.” I have absolutely no evidence for this, of course. It’s just one way of understanding what Hersh found out, but if true, this would mean that the US is already being deterred by Al Qaeda’s nuclear weapon.

It would also mean that the situation the hibakusha of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have long feared is coming to pass. They have said for years that human beings and nuclear weapons cannot coexist indefinitely. What they meant was, unless we get rid of nuclear weapons, eventually everyone will want one. If everyone wants one, it is only a matter of time before they spread around the world. And if large nations, small nations and non-state actors are all threatening each other and protecting themselves with nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time before a nuclear weapon falls into the hands of someone stupid enough to use it. And that is precisely where we are headed.

Do you doubt that nuclear weapons are spreading everywhere? On September 7, an article appeared in the Korea Times entitled Mushroom Cloud Is Looming Over Asia:

In less than a month, two influential Japanese politicians have called for their country to have nuclear weapons. Following Tokyo Mayor Shintaro Ishihara, former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone said Tokyo needs to study the issue of nuclear arms to prepare for a possible change in the alliance with the United States. The leader of the conservatives even stressed he made the remarks in time for the campaign to elect the next Japanese premier. Both his reason and the timing were outrageous.

Nakasone cited the presence of nearby nuclear states. He was referring to North Korea, since Russia and China have long been nuclear powers. The old politician’s comment overlaps that of Tokyo’s foreign minister, who said, “We have to thank North Korea (for its military challenges),’’ after Pyongyang test-fired missiles in early July. It would stun the world if the longtime spearhead of the anti-nuclear movement reverses its position by pointing to an unsubstantiated boast by an unreliable regime….The international community should endorse no more nuclear states in Asia, neither North Korea nor Japan. East Asia is the only region in the world where historical scores have not been settled yet, mainly due to an unrepentant former aggressor. Giving that state an atomic weapon could lead to another Hiroshima in another part of the region.

In 1999, Vice Minister of Defense Shingo Nishimura suggested that Japan have its own nuclear weapons. He was quickly forced to resign by the resulting public outcry. On April 6, 2002, Liberal Party President Ichiro Ozawa directly threatened China saying that Japan could easily produce several thousand nuclear weapons and outgun China if challenged by Beijing. This comment elicited only a minor reaction. Now, two of Japan’s opinion leaders are talking openly about the possibility of Japan possessing its own nuclear weapons, and we get the news from Korea. Clearly the forces for sanity are weakening. If Japan goes nuclear, we will know that the peace culture of Japan has lost.