|
|
A European Perspective
| Article
# : |
13450 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
9 / 1987 |
2,826 Words |
| Author
: |
Lord Chalfont
|
The arms control proposals on intermediate range nuclear forces (INF) now being considered by the United States and the Soviet Union contain long-term dangers to world peace. They have reached the negotiating table mainly because the two superpowers need, for different reasons of their own, a conspicuous and early success in the "arms control" process. The danger is that in striving for short-term success they might be prepared to sacrifice the long-term stability of the international structure. It is therefore important to reexamine some basic principles.
A totally disarmed world is a dream world - possibly desirable, but almost certainly unattainable. Yet it is right that disarmament should be among the long-term aims of all civilized governments, if only because the pursuit of peace has a moderating influence on international behavior. Both the Soviet Union and the United States submitted draft proposals for general and complete disarmament (GCD) to the Geneva Disarmament Committee nearly 30 years ago. For a while they were discussed with every appearance of seriousness, until it became clear that neither side took them seriously at all. As long as East and West faced each other across a deep gulf of suspicion, mistrust, and misunderstanding, real disarmament was obviously out of the question.
The countries represented on the Disarmament Committee therefore decided to concentrate on what were at first known as "partial measures of disarmament" but that later came to be described as "arms control." The idea was to seek agreement on measures that would make war between the great powers less likely and, if it happened, to limit its capacity for devastation. As a result, a number of treaties were signed. In 1963 the Partial Test Ban Treaty prohibited all nuclear testing except underground; in 1967 the Treaty of Tlatelolco established a nuclear-free zone in Latin America; in 1968 came the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, designed to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons; and there were treaties to prohibit the placing of weapons of mass destruction on the seabed and the development or production of bacteriological weapons.
Nuclear and conventional tied
All these agreements were derided by the "peace" lobby as treaties designed to prevent people from doing things that either they were unable to do or had no intention of doing anyway. Yet they have succeeded in maintaining to some extent the momentum of arms control, and, most importantly, they have done nothing to upset the stability of the military balance or to damage the security of either side in the East-West confrontation. What is now happening is very different. The draft GCD treaties and the arms control agreements that have been reached over the past 25 years have all been based on one central assumption - that in the disarmament process it is dangerous to try to approach nuclear weapons and conventional forces separately. If they are ever to be eliminated, they must be reduced together, in a phased, controlled process.
The present proposals, unless they are substantially modified in the process of negotiation, are in danger of ignoring this. It may seem, at first sight, logical and desirable to remove all intermediate-range nuclear missiles from Europe and even more desirable, as is now being suggested, to abolish them altogether, but the problems of achieving an agreement acceptable to both sides are
...
Read Full Article
|
|
