Hans Blix on NBCs and US Hypocrisy

June 2nd, 2006 at 18:30 Björn Hallberg

Hans Blix offers blistering critique and an uncompromising stance on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The former Chief UN Weapons Inspector calls for a permanent worldwide ban on said weapons and not just a selective badgering of third wave or alleged third wave nuclear powers. The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission is also very clear on ending all nuclear tests, the prohibition of weapons in space, effective threat reduction and enhanced investigatory powers. All good ideas of course, but as Blix himself has knows all too well, none of that matters as long as there is one player who refuses to listen, consistently flaunts the rules and gets away with it.

On Iran and the need for historical context:

We think Iran is described as a threat, in their enrichment of uranium, is described as a threat to the whole world, and the commission is also of the view that it would be desirable that Iran refrain from going on with enrichment of uranium. But one must also try, if you want a solution for this, to look at the issue from the side of the Iranians. They see 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq and they see American bases in Pakistan and in Afghanistan and more American military activities to the north of them. They remember that Mossadegh, who was elected premier, was ousted with subversive methods from the outside. So it is not inconceivable that some groups in Iran may feel that their security is being threatened from the outside.

On the hypocrisy of nuclear powers telling others how to handle their affair and the notion that nuclear weapons are always more dangerous with some states that others. I.e. the doctrine that the U.S. has been pushing, deflecting attention from its own massive and unrivaled stockpiles and instead making it into a question of moral and character, in which scenario the U.S. of course defaults to the untouchable status of being morally superior.

The American Rifle Association says that weapons are not dangerous in themselves, only the people who hold the weapons. And I can see a sort of echo on that in the view also of the nuclear weapons, that the nuclear weapons are not dangerous, per se, only dependent on who has them. Now the commission does not accept that argument. We say that, yes, governments, individuals can be more or less reckless in this world, but the weapons, per se, are dangerous anywhere, anytime. If you look at the U.S., there are lots of weapons on hair trigger alert, and the same applies to Russia. They are dangerous anywhere where they are. And if you say that, well, let’s simply look at the actors who has them, well, sadly actors change also, governments change in different countries. You may be satisfied and say that these are very responsible people, they won’t do anything, but the next day that government may be overthrown, they may have another one. So the view of the commission now, they say that these weapons are dangerous in anybody’s hands. That doesn’t exclude that some can be more reckless than others.

Entry 561 filed under: Weapons Systems. This entry was posted 2 years, 6 months ago. RSS feed for comments on this post.