|
1972
|
|
martedì, gennaio 27, 2004
Armi di distruzione di massa. Terrorismo. Stati falliti.
Partiamo dal Musharraf che non ti aspetti. Intervenendo a Davos ammette per la prima volta che scienziati pakistani possano aver venduto segreti nucleari a Iran, Iraq, Libia e Corea del Nord e contemporaneamente chiama in causa le responsabilità europee: "I accept that," he said, adding that he would like to see European countries and scientists investigated for their involvement, as well. Musharraf, Pakistan's top general who seized power in a bloodless 1999 coup, said that only the European countries had the sophisticated metallurgy necessary to produce key elements for nuclear weapons. "There are European countries involved in the refining and producing. It is high-class metallurgy. Where is it available? In Europe. So why is no one talking about it?" he said. Sull’evoluzione della situazione in Pakistan ed in generale sulla proliferazione su scala globale di WMD notevoli i contributi di Oxblog e di Belmont Club (qui e qui). Due i passaggi-chiave: It is hard to escape the conclusion that neither pre-emptive warfare, nonproliferation treaties, sanctions, aid programs nor diplomacy can do more than slow down the spread of weapons of mass destruction. By 2025, a period equal to the time elapsed between the first Pakistani nuclear research effort and their tests, WMD technology should be available to every country that can afford a national airline. Long before then, the model of bipolar nuclear deterrence will have collapsed in tatters. The industrial nations, which in the years following World War 2, declined to acquire their own nukes, will no longer be able to rely on an American nuclear umbrella when confronted, not by a single unitary aggressor, but by a host of smaller, resentful regional rivals. If a group of nations or terrorist groups in combination, disperse the tasks of WMD manufacture and weapons delivery among themselves, then not a single one will technically constitute a "clear and present danger". Just as Malaysia, which "only" manufactures centrifuge parts is guilty of nothing, then surely a group of nations which together provide the componentry, funding or training facilities for a terrorist-assembled bomb should not be held to account if New York is destroyed. Every effort by an American administration to crack down on a rogue state, will by definition be legally unjustified, because there was no "actual" WMD capability. Only if the danger as a whole is apprehended can the threat be foreseen. Only if addressed as a whole can it be prevented. Much of the criticism directed against Operation Iraqi Freedom arose from the observation that few Iraqi chemical weapons were found in a ready-use state. This is taken as proof that the threat was inflated, or even concocted. Until one realizes that the discovery of componentry, rather than finished goods, means things are rather worse, not better. First, the existing nonproliferation treaties were not designed to deal with the distributed design, manufacture and use of WMDs. The data from Libya shows how the Islamic countries have worked around the limitations of the treaties. Second, they underscore the limits of the IAEA inspection process, which cannot ascribe a sinister intent to the manufacture of parts in isolation from those which they are intended to match in other countries. Third, it means the one terrible premise of the Three Conjectures is very to near to attainment: a robust Model-T A-bomb made from dual use parts. Non dovrebbe essere così difficile – dopo l’11 settembre - capire perchè la natura della minaccia terrorista imponga di confrontarsi con la realtà degli stati falliti. Eppure da più parti non si fa altro che recriminare sull’eliminazione di un gangster genocida che sfidava il mondo seduto al centro del contesto geopolitico più instabile del pianeta e rinfacciare a chi ci ha liberato della sua presenza di non aver ancora trovato nel suo giardino interi arsenali di armi chimiche e biologiche. Semplicemente incredibile. Ieri i nostri Bush-bashers scoprivano e citavano un Andrew Sullivan molto critico nei confronti del comportamento dell’amministrazione sulla questione WMD. Ma la differenza tra loro ed Andrew Sullivan si chiama ancora una volta onestà intellettuale. E’ la cronica assenza di quest’ultima che ha impedito loro per esempio di continuare la citazione fino in fondo. Un peccato, perchè Sullivan diceva tutto quel che c’era da dire su questa guerra che il terrorismo ha scatenato contro un’idea di civiltà (sì, civiltà) e sul senso della nostra risposta. A JUST WAR: And it is in the context of such an argument that the president should clearly restate that this was nevertheless a just war. It was never incumbent on the world community to prove that Iraq had dismantled its WMD program before the war. It was incumbent on Saddam to show otherwise. He refused - either because he was being lied to and wanted to conceal weapons that did not exist, or because such an admission of impotence would have been terribly damaging to the dictator's reputation, both internally and with regard to Iran, or because he was slowly going nuts and his regime was collapsing from within. But what matters is that he refused. The responsibility for the war therefore lies squarely with the dictator. Moreover, we know that if Saddam had been left in power and sanctions lifted, he would have attempted to restart such programs - and indeed Kay has found a vast apparatus of components, scientists and plans to achieve exactly such a result. Kay has now told us that Saddam was working on a ricin-based biological weapon right up to the eve of the invasion. We know now something else: his tyranny was worse, more depraved and more brutal than we believed to be the case before. The moral and strategic case for his removal appears stronger now than ever. We also have a chance to move one part of the Arab world toward some kind of open, pluralist society. Since the appeal of Islamo-fascism is deeply connected to the backwardness and tyranny of so much of the Arab world, this is a fundamental and critical part of the response to 9/11. Iraq was and is a critical component of the war on terror. It's an attempt to deal with the issue at its very roots. I believe the victims of 9/11 deserve nothing less. THE WAR AS DEMONSTRATION: I also believe that the war itself - and the Herculean task afterward - was and is a critical symbol of the West's resolve to fight back against Islamist terror. It showed we were willing to fight broadly, rather than narrowly, against regimes that sponsor terror and violate WMD restrictions. The critics that harp on the notion that Saddam was not integral to the murderers of 9/11 don't understand that that that was always part of the point. We have given the world notice that we are not returning to pre-9/11 notions of fighting terror as a narrow crime enforcement enterprise. Iraq was proof we were serious. If we had caved, we would have suffered a terrible loss of clout and credibility. and we have removed a potential source for WMD programs in the hands of terrorists. If we end with Iraq, of course, this will be meaningless. But if the administration succeeds in disarming Libya (a direct Saddam-war consequence); if it can successfully prevent the Saudi government from subsidizing and exporting Wahhabist fanatics; if it can deal with the real source of terror in the Middle East - the mullahs in Tehran; if it can bring democracy to a united Iraq; then the administration will have proven itself up to the most important task we currently face. Certainly, none of the Democratic candidates seem to me right now to come even close to grasping what we are up against and how we can keep on the offensive. But this doesn't and shouldn't let the administration off the hook. Part of leadership is also integrity. The administration has to grapple with the fact that it was wrong about the actual existence of stockpiles of WMDs in Saddam's Iraq. Not with dismissals; not with further calls for more study; not with quibbles - but with honesty, candor and determination to keep the flaw in this battle from undermining the vital case for the war as a whole. |
A Fabio.
A Luisa.   
 Asia e dintorni Normblog |
