Weapons of mass destruction

The applause is quickly fading for Russian President Vladimir Putin as questions are raised about the way his troops ended the siege in a Moscow theater. The last time people were gassed to death en masse was during the Holocaust, in the Nazi gas chambers.

For many years there has been an international ban on the use of chemical and biological weapons, so you can understand why Putin refuses to say exactly what was used to knock out both the Chechen rebels who had taken over that theater and their hostages. Yesterday the Russians would only say that it was not sarin, the nerve gas released in a Tokyo subway by a cult of loonies a few years back, but an "anesthetizing" substance. The report last night was that US authorities believed an opiate similar to morphine had been used.

Russia is one of the few countries known to have stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, including anthrax spores. The biggest fear in the West is that terrorists would get their hands on those weapons-grade biological and chemical substances, or on the nuclear weapons and components now carelessly stored in several areas throughout the former Soviet Union.

* * *

The other countries suspected to be in possession of those banned substances, as most of you know, are two of the three members of the "axis of evil" – Iraq and North Korea. In the past, neither had admitted possessing weapons of mass destruction. But last Oct. 3, Pyongyang cheerfully admitted that it was developing nuclear arms and even "more powerful" weapons. Was Pyongyang referring to anthrax and botulinum toxin?

This puts Washington's hawks in a quandary. Why push for war against Iraq on suspicion that it is developing weapons of mass destruction, but not against North Korea, which has admitted doing what Iraq keeps denying?

I happened to attend a dinner the other day hosted by British Ambassador Paul Dimond, whose country is the United States' staunchest ally in the war on terror and the actions against Iraq. We asked Dimond: Why Iraq and not North Korea? He said it was because Baghdad had a record of using its weapons for external aggression while Pyongyang did not. I guess that's also Washington's line as "Dear Leader" Kim Jong Il sits backs smugly and tells the West, "Okay, we’ve confessed. So what are you going to do about it?"

Also, Dimond emphasized that the US and Britain are not pushing for war on Iraq – not yet, anyway – but disarmament. Of course if you listen to the speeches of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W. Bush, you would sense that they both gave up a long time ago on Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein ever opening his arsenals to international inspectors or allowing genuine disarmament.

* * *

There are those who say that the US is taking on the "axis of evil" one at a time, and that North Korea will be dealt with – after Iraq. In the meantime, Washington is still trying to make diplomacy work, hoping to get a resolution from the United Nations that will exert stronger pressure on Iraq to disarm.

But do you really think Saddam will disarm? Give it three to four months – for the UN process to run its course, for the US elections and the change of officials to be over, for Ramadan and Christmas and the worst of winter to pass. Then weíre bound to see war.

How will the Muslim world react? Among the guests at the dinner was the ambassador of Saudi Arabia, Saleh M. Al-Ghamdi. He said they would like nothing less than to see Saddam taken out immediately. Their main worry, Al-Ghamdi said, was the toll of any war on the civilian population of Iraq.

There have been numerous news features recently about the new defense technology developed by the Americans, which supposedly could make the next war unbelievably accurate and quick, with minimal casualties on both sides (but especially on the US side). The new smart bombs are supposed to be smaller and lighter (and cheaper so more can be made) but deadlier in their range and precision. Their targets would be Saddamís arsenals, not the people of Iraq.

* * *

Since the new generation of weapons is untested, however, the US may have to work a bit more on Saudi Arabia and the other Muslim nations in justifying a war on Iraq. The Muslims are still smarting over Bush's use of the word "crusade" when he vowed to hit back at the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Al-Ghamdi pointed out that the West could not even give a clear definition of terrorism. To which the main guest at Dimond's dinner, Farhan Ahmad Nizami, said it was not an inability but an unwillingness of the West to define terrorism.

Nizami is the director of the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies in the UK, and he was in town for an interfaith dialogue at the Asian Institute of Management. At our table he was seated beside President Arroyo's adviser on the peace process, Eduardo Ermita.

Few people are in the mood to talk peace with separatist Muslims when bombs are going off from Metro Manila to Mindanao and Muslim extremists are being blamed, and when Chechen Muslims (including veiled women) take hundreds of people hostage in a Moscow theater.

Ermita, however, seemed genuinely optimistic about peace. He pointed to himself, a retired military general, now seating across the table from another guest, Parouk Hussin, a former Muslim rebel who now heads the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. There is no perfect peace, Ermita conceded, but he insisted we have to keep giving peace a chance.

That line not only sounds like an old, boring song, but a quixotic quest in this era of terror. I wish Ermita luck. But across the globe, peace has become the biggest luxury.

* * *

INFO FOR TERRORISTS? I hope our ordnance experts don't get carried away and give out too much information when briefing security guards, barangay officials and other groups about the detection and handling of bombs. Security officers could talk too much and inadvertently teach potential terrorists or plain mischief-makers the mechanics of bomb making. Crude bombs can be fashioned out of easily obtainable materials.