Non-proliferation. The multi-syllable word which is difficult to roll off the tongue is on everyone's lips these days.

For some states, it's a classic Hamletian dilemma "having weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) could protect them from potential attackers but attract the attention of a pre-emptive strike; not having them makes them feel insecure in the first place.

Soldiers seal one of the mustard gas canisters left behind by Japanse troops during World War Two in Qiqihar, Heilongjiang Province. One Chinese was killed and 43 were injured last August when the poisonous gas leaked out at a construction site. [newsphoto]

Non-proliferation of WMDs "which broadly include biological, chemical and nuclear weapons "is the common thread running through the most compelling issues in the world today: anti-terrorism, the Iraq war, Iran's acceptance of tougher inspections of its nuclear facilities, Libya's decision to abandon WMDs, and the nuclear standoff on the Korean Peninsula

Vice-Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui says the proliferation of WMDs poses a great risk, which is getting ever more grave with time.

After the Cold War, the international security situation has undergone profound changes. With the threat of confrontation between the two major military blocs disappearing, the risk of military conflicts involving countries worldwide has diminished; but regional conflicts and international terrorist activities have increased, the vice-minister says.

"The most serious challenge is the threat of terrorists and non-state entities"pursuit of WMDs,"he says in an interview with Chinese media.

Gu Guoliang, director of the Centre for Arms Control and Non-proliferation Studies, tells China Daily that the proliferation of WMDs and their delivery systems have become a "rising threat"to the international community.

"It is universally believed that the urgency of countering terrorism and promoting anti-proliferation is greater today than at any time since World War II,"says Gu.

Threats at the doorstep

At the end of World War II, thousands of Chinese were used as guinea pigs and killed in secret Japanese experiments with biological weapons. ]

Sig Hecker, former director the Los Alams National Laboratory and a member of an unofficial US delegation to that visited DPRK's Yongbyong nuclear complex, speaks to the media upon their arrival at the Beijing International Airport January 10, 2004. It was the first time outsiders had been allowed into the plant since UN inspectors were expelled at the start of a nuclear crisis a year ago. [Reuters]

Last August, leaking chemical weapons abandoned by the Japanese killed one person and injured 43 in Qiqihaer, Northeast China's Heilongjiang Province.

The use of napalm in Viet Nam in the 1970s was widely condemned by the whole world. After the Gulf War in 1991, thousands of US soldiers suffered serious illness after depleted uranium was used in weapons.

In 1995, terrorists placed a canister-bomb with sarin gas in the Tokyo subway "one of the most crowded places on earth "and set it off by a timer. Two died and 111 people were hospitalized.

The recent anthrax scares in the United States came as a shock to ordinary citizens; once again, innocent people such as postal officers suffered.

On March 28, 2003, the United States admitted that its forces unleashed tons of weapons using depleted uranium in 1991 Gulf War, which caused an uproar among the international community.

"The first victims of the proliferation of WMDs are innocent people,"says Fei Yongyi, an expert with the Chinese People's Association for Peace and Disarmament.

Proliferation of WMDs and their means of delivery threaten regional and world peace and stability, intensify tension and increase the risk of war, he says.

Since more and more countries are armed with, or have the capability of making, such weapons, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation have become the focus of attention for many countries, he says.

Rising threat of WMDs

In recent years, conflicts in the Middle East have increased, and the arms race in the South Asian sub-continent has escalated. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States, controlling the proliferation of WMDs has become the consensus of the international community.

Libya's and Iran's nuclear facilities, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's (DPRK) announcement that it would revive a programme to produce atomic weapons have caused world-wide concern.

Against such a backdrop, Iran and Libya, as signatory states of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), were under political pressure from the international community requiring them to fulfil their promises not to develop or acquire WMDs.

On December 18, 2003, Iranian Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Ali Akbar Salehi signed an additional protocol to the NPT, paving the way for stricter IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities. The next day, the Libyan Government formally announced that it would voluntarily give up WMDs and allow inspections.

"If they do not stand by these commitments, the two countries will find themselves trapped in political isolation,'' says Gu of the arms control and non-proliferation studies centre, calling their choices "wise decisions."Danger of military strikes

China has long been pursuing the goal of non-proliferation through political and diplomatic means, says Vice-Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui.

"Military means may work in the short term, but in the long term, they can only stimulate further proliferation of WMDs and thus destroy peace and stability in the world.''

Gu Guoliang believes that the Iranian and Libyan decisions are not a reaction to the US-led war on Iraq but the outcome of peaceful negotiations.

Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi's move to terminate the country's weapons programmes was a result of nine months of negotiations among 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 between Iran and the European Union.

"A key lesson of the Iraq war is that international laws and treaties to prevent proliferation must be strengthened, not weakened,"said Gu.

The "first strike"thinking in the Iraq war, paradoxically, serves as a bad example of using WMDs, the expert says. "The moves by the Iranian and Libyan governments again proved that WMD proliferation-related problems can be settled through peaceful means."Zhang says that in the long run, the most effective means to halt proliferation is the rule of law applied to all states, instead of unilateral gunboat diplomacy or double standards.

Saving non-proliferation

The incentive for most countries to acquire WMDs is believed to lie in their wariness of external threats to their national security.

"But 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 it hard for the target countries to win any sympathy or support from the international community,"says Gu.

If the security of a country can be ensured by authoritative international mechanisms, it will not be necessary to acquire WMDs.

Libyan leader Qaddafi also admitted that he was aware that his nation could have a secure external environment even without the deterrence of WMDs.

The Arab world universally welcomed Libya's and Iran's decision to abandon WMDs, saying they will help ease tensions in the Middle East as well as help realize the goal of making the region nuclear-free.

Since the EU and the United States succeeded in persuading Libya and Iran to abandon their WMD programmes, the unavoidable question is whether the Korean nuclear issue could be settled the same way.

The United States and the DPRK signed a nuclear framework agreement in 1994, which included an agreement that the DPRK would freeze its nuclear plans. But since the Bush administration took office, it has adopted a tough policy towards the DPRK.

The nuclear issue erupted in October, 2002 when the United States accused the DPRK of reviving a nuclear arms programme in violation of a 1994 deal. Washington and its allies cut off free oil shipments, also part of the 1994 accord.

A flurry of diplomatic activity followed to seek a way out. A first round of discussions involving the DPRK, the Republic of Korea, the United States, China, Russia, and Japan took place in Beijing last August but ended without a timetable for the second round of talks.

"The second round of six-party talks, which were scheduled for late 2003, have been delayed, which is not a good sign. But fortunately, all parties concerned agree to seek a peaceful solution,"says Gu.

Challenges and uncertainty

Li Bin, director of the Arms Control Programme, Institute of International Studies at Tsinghua University, indicates in a recent article published on the institute's website that US President George W. Bush's tough policies have had a negative impact on the global arms control and non-proliferation regime.

He presents a long list: the United States denied the verification protocol of the Biological Weapon Convention, cut funding support for CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) inspection research, shortened the preparatory time to resume nuclear tests, announced the decision of withdrawing from the ABM (Anti-ballistic Missile) Treaty, raised its military budget to a historic high, and showed its interest in nuclear war in its Nuclear Posture Review.

The thinktanks associated with the Bush government have proposed the replacement of enduring arms-control agreements with flexible unilateral statements.

They suggest that the United States keep the weapons withdrawn from deployment in its reserve in preparation for re-deployment, when necessary. If this idea becomes US policy, the existing global arms-control regime will suffer serious damage, the article notes.

"Nations will face a security dilemma again and, therefore, will not accept assurances provided by arms-control treaties. Instead, they would have to rely only on self-help when facing security challenges and possibly make the worst choice in terms of weapon development plans,"it stresses.

On prospects this year, Gu says that frictions are highly possible during the process of non-proliferation due to the lack of mutual trust.

"Both the final settlement of the Iranian and Libyan WMD issues and the ending of the nuclear deadlock on the Korean Peninsula will be a prolonged and complicated process,"he says.

Motives behind acquiring WMDs will not disappear until sound international relations are established, says Gu.

Only through peaceful dialogues can WMD problems be settled in real terms, he adds.

Close

Today's Top News		Top National News
+Japan warships attack Chinese fishing boats ( 2004-01-16) +Beijing-Shanghai rail drops maglev plan? ( 2004-01-15) +Nation goes on bird flu high alert ( 2004-01-15) +Air safety new top priority ( 2004-01-15) +Shanghai spirit takes shape ( 2004-01-15)		+Taiwan man arrested on spy charge ( 2004-01-16) +Japan warships attack Chinese fishing boats ( 2004-01-16) +Iran plane nose-touches airport ( 2004-01-15) +Beijing-Shanghai rail drops maglev plan? ( 2004-01-15) +Jiang: Constructive US role on Taiwan valuable ( 2004-01-15)