& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

UN Security Council and Iraq

Can a Zero Level Nuclear Capability be Ensured ?

SPOTLIGHT ON MIDDLE EAST

Muslehuddin Ahmad
SOME tlnw ago there mu a cartoon tn an mt ernatlonal new • pa per on l*rrakient Saridam lluaaaln In the cartoon top part of Saddam * head wm cut and lifted up like the hd of a kettle and the UN tnapectora were desperately peeping Into hts head for something — apparently something on nuclear bomb Thia cartoon amply de scribes what the UN Security Council was up to and what it ultimately finds - probably nothing
Saddam's madness and partly Kuwait a tactless behaviour with Saddam on more aid/debt and Rumetla oil field led to Iraqs aggression on Kuwait. This was. however, successfully overturned by allied military action — Operation Desert Storm — led by the US The Initial objective was to free Kuwait but as It always happens at the end of every war the victors — the allied forces — imposed almost tm possible ceasefire conditions on Iraq. though some of them had nothing to do with aggres sion of Kuwait.
The most Important post war objective of allied power was to destroy Iraq's military power and nuclear capabilities, if any. There were conflicting reports about Iraq's nuclear capabilities Some reports said Iraq was 15-20 years away from testing nuclear bomb while others assumed it to be only couple of moths way However, UN Security Council ceasefire resolution 687 stipulated destruction of all nuclear capabilities of Iraq.
The UN inspectors made
••vrral visits to Iraq and phys icaily destroyed some scud missiles and missiles launchers In their effort to visit suspected nuclear sites, UN's In spectors laced several "stand offs" The latest stand ofF and UN inspectors determination to visit Government Ministry Buildings tn Baghdad created almost a warlike situation. Some of the allied powers under US leadership were about to bomb the suspected places tn Iraq This was later avoided Apparently the allied power decided not to go for any confrontation with Baghdad at a time when they were probably not logistically prepared for this May be the US election and Bush's own position in the election campaign had something to do with It
The latest UN Inspection team reportedly visited several suspected places In Iraq. The leader of 14th UN Inspection team Maurizio Zlffero, on completion of the Inspection said Iraqi nuclear programme was reduced harmless by allied bombing during Gulf War and subsequent actions by the UN Inspection teams He emphatl cally said, "It (nuclear pro gramme) stands at Zero now His categorical statements put him at odds with hts colleague. David Kay, the leader of an car Iler team, who said Mr. Zlf-fcros statement was imprudent — all the suspected sites were not fully Investigated and there were Indications that Baghdad regime continued Ils efforts to build underground nuclear reactors. The world gets baffled by such opposing statements from responsible experts of the world body. One suspects political motives in the entire exercise even at experts level. Let the UN Secu rity Council look at this seriously and come out with Its own decision. It involves the fate of not Saddam but of a nation.
Even If Iraq had some rudimentary form of nuclear
program, there was nothing wrong if it is seen In the con text of Israel s nuclear capabilities. It is a well-known fact that Israel has nuclear bombs. Other day Israel reportedly threatened Iraq with Neutron bomb attack if Iraq launched scud missiles on Israel.
No body supports Saddam s madness but any rudimentary efforts on alleged nuclear bomb making should also be judged In the light of a coun try's right to have 'minimum deterrent" - an argument used Ixy some allk-d nuclear powers to uphold their decisions not to reduce their nuclear arsenals when the superpowers made some cuts In their nu-clear weapon stocks Moreover. if Israel can have nuclear bombs and the world Including UN Security Council could remain silent on it, its neighbours could not commit any thing wrong if they try to look for something as "minimum deterrent" for their own defense. Moreover, white the allied powers have nuclear bombs which could destroy the world many times over, are they morally right to go for destructions, under the cover of Security Council, of any
sovereign country's Nuclear Programme that is probably still on paper? The argument of nuclear weapons in wrong hands are no longer valid after the collapse of Soviet Union.
Unfortunately. It is a world of double standard. The mi clear powers ever busy In piling up their own nuclear weapons and also augmenting the destructive powers of nu clear arsenals are preaching nuclear non proliferation . It is not going to work The world will never be safe with nuclear weapons In some hands. Either none or all should have them — the very fear of nuclear retalia tion may be the real deterrent. As It seems Iraq did not use chemical weapons because of the fear of allied powers nu clear retaliation. This fear might even make conventional forces redundant.
As It appears Iraq probably had marginal nuclear research programme But. nonetheless, the nation faced severe sovereignty damage Before proceeding on to the next step on Iraqi nuclear Issue the UN Security Council may like to reassess the purpose and the effectiveness of the entire exercise.
If one goes by the report of the latest UN Inspection team. Iraq s nuclear capabilities now stand at ’zero', but can UN Security Council ensure "zero" level nuclear capability of Iraq even at a distant future and even under someone other than President Saddam Hussain? UN can destroy build Ings, papers and present equipments, but can it destroy the brains of the nuclear ex peris of Iraq? Can it stop some nuclear powers supplying technologies and equipments to Iraq and for that matter to other nuclear hungry nations? A time may come and tt does not seem to be far away when hawkers would go around with nuclear technologies Many ill-paid nuclear brains of the former Soviet Union are in the region.
Another action by the Security Council on "no-fiy" Zone and policing of the Iraqi air bejow 32nd parallel by some
allied powers are fraught with grave danger Majority of the Iraqi population is SMTu. Is Saddam persecuting all Shiites? No body supports persecution of anyone or any group of people and only law should take Its own course to punish wrong doers However, Security Council should seriously investigate why Saddam is not acting against all Shi'ites but only against those Shi Ues and some army deserters In the marshy land neighbouring Iran, it 1s one thing to try to oust Saddam but quite a different thing to curb-out a region of a sovereign country on some pretext probably with the aim of Installing some form of rebel administration In the southern marshy land The allied powers now having one-track mind of ousting Saddam and the countries In the region must seriously assess the political and strategic outcome of this
Allied powers may replace Saddam but there are many Saddams In Iraq and around Dictators aside Saddams and Gaddafis are not born as such: International politics and re Mions political animosities produce them Only sensible solution of regional problems and International political atmosphere devoid of hatred, domination. subjugation, hegemony, double standard etc can stop rise of Saddams and Gaddafis Let the UN — the World Body — be run by the sovereign members of the world for which Immediate restructuring Is needed with expanded Security Council with no veto powers