-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No Threats, No WMDs The incentive for most countries to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) lies in their wariness of external threats to national security. Dispelling such fears through peaceful negotiation is the only effective way to stop the proliferation of WMDs -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By GU GUOLIANG On December 18, 2003, Iranian Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Ali Akbar Salehi signed an additional protocol to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), paving the way for stricter IAEA’s inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The next day, the Libyan Government formally announced to voluntarily give up WMDs and allow inspections. The international community hailed the significant steps the Iranian and Libyan governments had taken. It is universally believed that the developments will further promote the causes of counter-terrorism and anti-proliferation. WISE DECISION: Libyan Secretary for External Relations and International Cooperation Abdel Rahman Mohamed Shalgham announces Tripoli’s decision to abandon WMDs at a press conference in December 20 After the Cold War, the international security situation has undergone profound changes. With the disappearance of confrontation between two major military blocs, the risk of military conflicts involving countries worldwide has diminished, but regional conflicts and international terrorist activities have increased. The proliferation of WMDs, including nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and their delivery vehicles, have become a focus of the international community. In recent years, conflicts in the Middle East have increased, and arms races in the South Asian sub-continent have escalated. The September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States awoke the world to the threat by terrorists to international and regional security. The efforts to control the proliferation of WMDs is conducive to international and regional peace and security and thus has become the consensus of the international community. Against such a backdrop, Iran and Libya, as signatory states to the NPT, were under political pressure from the international community. They were required to fulfill their promises not to develop or acquire WMDs. If they do not stand by these commitments, the two countries, which have been suffering from political isolation and economic sanctions, will find themselves trapped in an even more miserable situation. Furthermore, WMDs will not necessarily safeguard the security of a country. On the contrary, efforts to acquire WMDs will only become an excuse for some powers to use force, and make the attacked countries hard to garner any sympathy or support from the international community. The Iranian and Libyan governments seem to have been well aware of the severe aftermath an inflexible attitude toward the IAEA’s requirements for weapon inspections would result in and thus made a sensible choice. The moves by the Iranian and Libyan governments again proved that WMD proliferation-related problems could be settled through peaceful negotiations. Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s decision to terminate the country’s weapon programs was a result of nine months of negotiations between Washington, London and Tripoli. The signing of the additional protocol to the NPT by the Iranian Government was also achieved after months of tough negotiations it had with the Europe Union. In the 1960s and 70s, it was also through negotiations that Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and other countries suspended their WMD plans. In early 1992, the former Soviet republics including Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, which had become independent at that time, signed agreements to dismantle nuclear weapons in their respective territories. SEALED DEAL: Iranian Ambassador to IAEA Ali Akbar Salehi (left) congratulates IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei after signing the Additional Protocol of NPT on December 18 If the security of a country can be ensured by authoritative international mechanisms, it will not be necessary to acquire WMDs. Qaddafi said that the world had undergone great changes and he was aware that Libya could have a secure external environment even without the deterrence of WMDs. The Arab world universally welcomed Libya and Iran’s decision to abandon WMDs, saying they will help relax tensions in the Middle East as well as help realize the goal of making the region nuclear-free. At the same time, Egypt, Bahrain and Qatar all claimed that Israel was the only country beyond the reach of the NPT in the region and that it should take steps to abandon its own WMD programs. Since the United States and EU succeeded in persuading Iran and Libya to abandon their WMD programs, people can’t help asking whether the Korean nuclear issue could be settled in the same way. In fact, the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea signed a nuclear framework agreement in 1994, which included an agreement to freeze the DPRK’s nuclear plans. But since the Bush administration took office, it has adopted a tough policy toward the DPRK. Both sides criticized each other for violating the 1994 agreement, and crisis has once again been burgeoning on the peninsula, threatening the stability of Northeast Asia. The second round of six-party talks, which were scheduled for late 2003, have been delayed. This is not a good sign. But Iran and Libya are good examples that might help Washington and Pyongyang to reconsider their next steps. Nevertheless, how will Iran and Libya fulfill their promises? The most critical problem is whether they will fully accept the inspections by the IAEA, which will inevitably touch on the issue of national sovereignty. It will take some time to dispel their suspicions and wariness about international motives. While welcoming the decision by Iran and Libya to accept IAEA inspections, U.S. officials insisted that it was only a “beginning.” The U.S. representative to the IAEA, Ken Brill, emphasized that it would need a long time to confirm if Iran stopped developing nuclear weapons. Due to lack of mutual trust, frictions are highly possible during the inspections. The final settlement of the Iranian and Libyan WMD issues will be a prolonged and complicated process. At the same time, Israel is maintaining its position of refusing to destroy its WMDs. Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz recently threatened that Israel would destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities if it deemed the actions necessary, even if Tehran had formally signed the additional protocol to the NPT. Facts prove that the motives behind acquiring WMDs would not disappear until sound international relations were established. Global peace and stability would be achieved afterwards and so the security of nations would be ensured. Branding some countries as “rogues” and using a “preemptive strategy” against them will only provoke them to develop WMDs. Only through peaceful dialogues can WMD problems be settled in real terms. International terrorism and the proliferation of WMDs constitute a threat to the international community. The world needs to respond to this threat with greater cooperation, and a strengthening of non-proliferation agreements and inspection mechanisms. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------