WMD Proliferation and the Deadly Connection
Marko Beljac | 09.02.2003 14:46
WMD Proliferation and the Deadly Connection
Marko Beljac
There exist two types of terrorism; the type we like and the type we don't like. The type we like is the type that we, by which I mean the West, and our various clients and proxies, commit. The type we don't like is the type committed by official enemies, against us and our clients. In essence, terrorism which is systemic, that is, that reinforces the world capitalist system, is to be welcomed; all terrorism which is anti systemic is to be condemned. As such it is not terrorism per se that is condemned in mainstream commentary but anti systemic terrorism.
The same applies to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation. There is systemic and then there is anti systemic proliferation. Iraqi WMD programs were no problem while Saddam was bleeding the Iranian Islamic revolution white in the 1980's, it being an example of systemic proliferation. However as soon as Saddam disobeyed orders and threatened the Western hegemonic position in the Middle East, his WMD programs became anti systemic ones overnight.
A worthy question to ask is why do nations such as North Korea seek to arm themselves with WMD? The US national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs testified to the Senate that WMD, "are not envisioned at the outset as operational weapons of war, but primarily as strategic weapons of deterrence and coercion" [1]. Furthermore the Rumsfeld commission, chaired by the current hawkish Pentagon chief, stated that "for those seeking to thwart the projection of US power, the capability to combine ballistic missiles with weapons of mass destruction provides a strategic counter to US conventional and information based military superiority" [2]. The Pentagon's 2001 report on proliferation concurred, "some states may see asymmetric strategies, such as the employment of biological and chemical agents, as a means of avoiding direct engagement with US forces and a way to level the playing field" [3].
In other words, the main reason that the potential targets of US attack seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction is to deter the US. What's more this is well understood by strategic policy makers. Notice the Pentagon's use of the term "asymmetric strategies". The main threat of WMD proliferation as far as the Pentagon is concerned is that such an "asymmetric strategy" may undermine what the military refers to as full spectrum dominance, which basically means absolute global military dominance. The loss of full spectrum dominance may lead to "self deterrence" it is feared. Thus, as the US seeks to use force to shore up the world capitalist system, anti systemic states (i.e. "rogue states") seek to deter US offensives. It should be added that "self-deterrence" has been an underlying concern of US proliferation policy going way back to the Johnson era Gilpatric report on nuclear proliferation [4].
We see here a "deadly connection" between Western conduct in international affairs and WMD proliferation. If we are truly concerned with WMD proliferation per se, then our main task must be to eliminate this deadly connection. We can do this by first concentrating on our moral responsibilities, in this case changing the way we go about things in world politics. So long as might makes right WMD proliferation and eventual human self extinction becomes a logical consequence. That this continues to be the operative norm of world order is due in so small measure to us.
It is interesting to note that the main threat of WMD proliferation is self deterrence. It is feared by elite policy makers that if nations such as Iraq or North Korea and so on were to acquire WMD then the population at home would not give Washington an open cheque to bomb any country that it so desires. This is one of the main reasons why the Bush administration (and before it the Clinton administration) is so interested in pursuing the development of mini nukes, i.e. low yield earth penetrating nuclear weapons. Policy makers figure that the population at home would be able to stomach the use of low yield nukes in a war, thus eliminating self deterrence [5]. Full spectrum dominance itself is a response to the fear of self deterrence. It is well understood by the ruling class that support for foreign military adventures in the post Vietnam era - the era of the “Vietnam syndrome” - is quite thin.
Given this the main purpose, as far as Washington is concerned, of the various non proliferation regimes is to cement US hegemony. Basically “arms control is for you not for me”. This is easy to appreciate when one observes that it is the US which has the world’s most sophisticated nuclear arsenal, with a strategic doctrine which states that they ought to be used as weapons of intimidation (i.e. terror) by providing an umbrella of power under which the US may attack other states with conventional forces. Furthermore the US projects itself as a nuclear armed crazy irrational state [6], which shows no sign of adhering fully to the terms of the NPT regime, which rejected an offer by Iraq to dismantle all WMD programs in the Middle East out of hand (UN security council resolution 687 of 1991 calls for this), which consistently has voted against arms control resolutions in the UN, which is hell bent on a ballistic missile defence system whose predictable consequence would be to further fuel proliferation, which has been messing around with the biological weapons convention protocol in order to protect US industry and so on.
Of course, concern about WMD proliferation is the stated rationale provided by Washington for its planned invasion and occupation of Iraq. We on the left know that this is a fraud, just as we know that Washington is as concerned for the welfare of the people of Iraq as it was for the women of Afghanistan, but even if we accept the framework of discussion pushed by the mainstream it is by no means obvious that our first response to WMD spread should be war. Indeed, if we want our last response to be war (President Bush) then our first response must be to eliminate the deadly connection.
There are lessons here for the anti war dissident as well. How many times will the powers that be bomb, invade and occupy other nations, more than a decade after the fall of the Berlin wall, based on half truths, lies, hypocrisy and faulty moral reasoning before we understand that there exist enduring institutional interests that account for this crass behaviour? How many times must the mainstream media conveniently frame discussion to suit the powers that be before we realise that their behaviour can also be accounted for by the same enduring institutional interests? To adopt a truly critical stance is to account for such behaviours by exposing the institutional structures, rooted in capitalism, that bring them about cold war or no cold war. This would differentiate us from others who may criticise this or that policy but fail to subject the underlying institutional structure of society to critique. This also differentiates us from those who say an invasion of Iraq would cost us more than it would benefit, totally ignoring the moral dimension.
Therefore if we are concerned with the threat of WMD proliferation, as we surely should be, a few courses of action are open to us. Firstly we need to eliminate the deadly connection. We need to change the way we conduct ourselves in international affairs and to do this we need to tackle the underlying institutional interests that construct world order. Secondly we need to fully uphold the various non proliferation regimes. For instance by adhering to the negative security assurances, by signing and ratifying the nuclear test ban treaty and agreeing to cease using other methods to develop and test new weapon designs, by really beefing up the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction program (which was threatened with termination by the Bush administration as a diplomatic threat to the Russians demonstrating just how serious these people are), by ratifying the outer space treaty, by doing something about NATO nuclear sharing and most importantly by changing our threatening nuclear postures and taking the NPT regime seriously by moving meaningfully towards nuclear disarmament.
Once we do something about our contributions then we may contemplate courses of action against rogue violators of global non proliferation regimes. To do otherwise is to effectively advocate a course of action whose purpose and predictable consequence is to cement a system of world order that is irrational, unjust and out right dangerous.
1. Robert D. Walpole, Statement for the Record to the Senate Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services on the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States 9 February 2000, Central Intelligence Agency, www.cia.gov/public_affairs/speeches/nio_speech_020900.html
2. Donald Rumsfeld, Report of the Commission to Asses the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States Executive Summary: Pursuant to Public Law 201 104th Congress July 15 1998, www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/rumsfeld/index.html
3. William Cohen, Proliferation: Threat and Response 2001, Department of Defense, www.defenselink.mil/pubs/ptr20010110.pdf , pdf p 10.
4. See pp1-2 of Roswell Gilpatric, A Report to the President by the Committee on Proliferation, National Security Archives, George Washington University www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB1/nhch7_1.htm
5. See, Stephen M. Younger, Nuclear Weapons in the Twenty First Century: LAUR-00-285D June 27 2000, Los Alamos National Laboratory, www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/doe/younger.htm , pdf p 14.
6. See, United States Strategic Command, Essentials of Post Cold War Deterrence at The Nautilus Institute,online at www.nautilus.org/nukestrat/USA/advisory/essentials95.html, PDF p7.
Marko Beljac
There exist two types of terrorism; the type we like and the type we don't like. The type we like is the type that we, by which I mean the West, and our various clients and proxies, commit. The type we don't like is the type committed by official enemies, against us and our clients. In essence, terrorism which is systemic, that is, that reinforces the world capitalist system, is to be welcomed; all terrorism which is anti systemic is to be condemned. As such it is not terrorism per se that is condemned in mainstream commentary but anti systemic terrorism.
The same applies to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation. There is systemic and then there is anti systemic proliferation. Iraqi WMD programs were no problem while Saddam was bleeding the Iranian Islamic revolution white in the 1980's, it being an example of systemic proliferation. However as soon as Saddam disobeyed orders and threatened the Western hegemonic position in the Middle East, his WMD programs became anti systemic ones overnight.
A worthy question to ask is why do nations such as North Korea seek to arm themselves with WMD? The US national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs testified to the Senate that WMD, "are not envisioned at the outset as operational weapons of war, but primarily as strategic weapons of deterrence and coercion" [1]. Furthermore the Rumsfeld commission, chaired by the current hawkish Pentagon chief, stated that "for those seeking to thwart the projection of US power, the capability to combine ballistic missiles with weapons of mass destruction provides a strategic counter to US conventional and information based military superiority" [2]. The Pentagon's 2001 report on proliferation concurred, "some states may see asymmetric strategies, such as the employment of biological and chemical agents, as a means of avoiding direct engagement with US forces and a way to level the playing field" [3].
In other words, the main reason that the potential targets of US attack seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction is to deter the US. What's more this is well understood by strategic policy makers. Notice the Pentagon's use of the term "asymmetric strategies". The main threat of WMD proliferation as far as the Pentagon is concerned is that such an "asymmetric strategy" may undermine what the military refers to as full spectrum dominance, which basically means absolute global military dominance. The loss of full spectrum dominance may lead to "self deterrence" it is feared. Thus, as the US seeks to use force to shore up the world capitalist system, anti systemic states (i.e. "rogue states") seek to deter US offensives. It should be added that "self-deterrence" has been an underlying concern of US proliferation policy going way back to the Johnson era Gilpatric report on nuclear proliferation [4].
We see here a "deadly connection" between Western conduct in international affairs and WMD proliferation. If we are truly concerned with WMD proliferation per se, then our main task must be to eliminate this deadly connection. We can do this by first concentrating on our moral responsibilities, in this case changing the way we go about things in world politics. So long as might makes right WMD proliferation and eventual human self extinction becomes a logical consequence. That this continues to be the operative norm of world order is due in so small measure to us.
It is interesting to note that the main threat of WMD proliferation is self deterrence. It is feared by elite policy makers that if nations such as Iraq or North Korea and so on were to acquire WMD then the population at home would not give Washington an open cheque to bomb any country that it so desires. This is one of the main reasons why the Bush administration (and before it the Clinton administration) is so interested in pursuing the development of mini nukes, i.e. low yield earth penetrating nuclear weapons. Policy makers figure that the population at home would be able to stomach the use of low yield nukes in a war, thus eliminating self deterrence [5]. Full spectrum dominance itself is a response to the fear of self deterrence. It is well understood by the ruling class that support for foreign military adventures in the post Vietnam era - the era of the “Vietnam syndrome” - is quite thin.
Given this the main purpose, as far as Washington is concerned, of the various non proliferation regimes is to cement US hegemony. Basically “arms control is for you not for me”. This is easy to appreciate when one observes that it is the US which has the world’s most sophisticated nuclear arsenal, with a strategic doctrine which states that they ought to be used as weapons of intimidation (i.e. terror) by providing an umbrella of power under which the US may attack other states with conventional forces. Furthermore the US projects itself as a nuclear armed crazy irrational state [6], which shows no sign of adhering fully to the terms of the NPT regime, which rejected an offer by Iraq to dismantle all WMD programs in the Middle East out of hand (UN security council resolution 687 of 1991 calls for this), which consistently has voted against arms control resolutions in the UN, which is hell bent on a ballistic missile defence system whose predictable consequence would be to further fuel proliferation, which has been messing around with the biological weapons convention protocol in order to protect US industry and so on.
Of course, concern about WMD proliferation is the stated rationale provided by Washington for its planned invasion and occupation of Iraq. We on the left know that this is a fraud, just as we know that Washington is as concerned for the welfare of the people of Iraq as it was for the women of Afghanistan, but even if we accept the framework of discussion pushed by the mainstream it is by no means obvious that our first response to WMD spread should be war. Indeed, if we want our last response to be war (President Bush) then our first response must be to eliminate the deadly connection.
There are lessons here for the anti war dissident as well. How many times will the powers that be bomb, invade and occupy other nations, more than a decade after the fall of the Berlin wall, based on half truths, lies, hypocrisy and faulty moral reasoning before we understand that there exist enduring institutional interests that account for this crass behaviour? How many times must the mainstream media conveniently frame discussion to suit the powers that be before we realise that their behaviour can also be accounted for by the same enduring institutional interests? To adopt a truly critical stance is to account for such behaviours by exposing the institutional structures, rooted in capitalism, that bring them about cold war or no cold war. This would differentiate us from others who may criticise this or that policy but fail to subject the underlying institutional structure of society to critique. This also differentiates us from those who say an invasion of Iraq would cost us more than it would benefit, totally ignoring the moral dimension.
Therefore if we are concerned with the threat of WMD proliferation, as we surely should be, a few courses of action are open to us. Firstly we need to eliminate the deadly connection. We need to change the way we conduct ourselves in international affairs and to do this we need to tackle the underlying institutional interests that construct world order. Secondly we need to fully uphold the various non proliferation regimes. For instance by adhering to the negative security assurances, by signing and ratifying the nuclear test ban treaty and agreeing to cease using other methods to develop and test new weapon designs, by really beefing up the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction program (which was threatened with termination by the Bush administration as a diplomatic threat to the Russians demonstrating just how serious these people are), by ratifying the outer space treaty, by doing something about NATO nuclear sharing and most importantly by changing our threatening nuclear postures and taking the NPT regime seriously by moving meaningfully towards nuclear disarmament.
Once we do something about our contributions then we may contemplate courses of action against rogue violators of global non proliferation regimes. To do otherwise is to effectively advocate a course of action whose purpose and predictable consequence is to cement a system of world order that is irrational, unjust and out right dangerous.
1. Robert D. Walpole, Statement for the Record to the Senate Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services on the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States 9 February 2000, Central Intelligence Agency, www.cia.gov/public_affairs/speeches/nio_speech_020900.html
2. Donald Rumsfeld, Report of the Commission to Asses the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States Executive Summary: Pursuant to Public Law 201 104th Congress July 15 1998, www.fas.org/irp/threat/missile/rumsfeld/index.html
3. William Cohen, Proliferation: Threat and Response 2001, Department of Defense, www.defenselink.mil/pubs/ptr20010110.pdf , pdf p 10.
4. See pp1-2 of Roswell Gilpatric, A Report to the President by the Committee on Proliferation, National Security Archives, George Washington University www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB1/nhch7_1.htm
5. See, Stephen M. Younger, Nuclear Weapons in the Twenty First Century: LAUR-00-285D June 27 2000, Los Alamos National Laboratory, www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/doe/younger.htm , pdf p 14.
6. See, United States Strategic Command, Essentials of Post Cold War Deterrence at The Nautilus Institute,online at www.nautilus.org/nukestrat/USA/advisory/essentials95.html, PDF p7.
Marko Beljac
