The Iran nuclear deal and world peace

The nuclear pact between Iran and six major powers which had just been concluded, has been the subject of intense criticism. The main objection is on the ground that Iran did not give up its capability to make nuclear weapons ; the agreement merely defers Iran’s program to make such weapons.

 “ Nuclear Peace “ has actually been maintained because the five major powers with nuclear arsenals, China, France, Great Britain, the Russian Federation and the United States, had among themselves worked out an informal rule governing the control of nuclear weapons. As usually happens, an informal arrangement works much better than a formal treaty since such agreement is observed in good faith. The informal rules for membership in the Nuclear Club are as follows:

1) No export of nuclear technology;

2) No export of nuclear weapons;

3) No first use of such weapons;

4) Control of the use of such weapons must be at the highest level of government;

5) Possession of nuclear weapons must be at the hands of an effective government.

 One should note that violations of some of the above rules in the past had endangered world peace.

The Cuban nuclear crisis in 1962 occurred because Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader at that time, violated Rule No. 4. Khrushchev authorized the commanding general of the Russian forces in Cuba to use nuclear weapons as the latter sees fit, to protect Soviet troops in the country. Had the US Marines invaded Cuba, the Soviet Commander could have used the nuclear weapons under his control to smash the US invasion force. This act could have escalated into nuclear war. This act of Khrushchev led to his eventual ouster on grounds of “adventurism,” by the Soviet Politboro. This crisis also led to the creation of the Hot Line connecting Washington DC and Moscow. The purpose of this line is to minimize the first use of nuclear weapons by the two super-powers.

 The Cuban crisis has been characterized as the worst nuclear face off in the world. Less publicized but equally dangerous, was the Russo- Chinese crisis in 1969 when Mao’s forces attacked the Soviet border troops in the Ussuri River. The Soviets were caught unprepared with the bulk of its armed forces in Europe facing the NATO forces in Europe. The USSR in response, threatened to launch a pre-emptive strike to wipe out the Chinese nuclear facilities.

In the Davidov Affair, one of the murky incidents of the Cold War, Boris Davydov , the KGB resident diplomat in Washington DC, sounded the CIA about the US reaction if the USSR launches a preemptive strike on China’s nuclear facilities. The issue is, was the Davydov message a mere bluff to intimidate the Chinese, or do the Russians really mean business? ( The CIA as expected, passed the information to the Chinese ). It appears to have worked because the Chinese backed down leading to the eventual settlement of the Ussuri River dispute. But what if the Chinese had not backed down, would the Russians as they had threatened, taken down the Chinese nuclear facilities? 

 One should note that in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the conflict could have been confined in Cuba, thus : The Russians knocked out the US Marine invasion force with nuclear weapons, the US retaliates with tactical nuclear weapons and eliminated the Soviet missiles and troops in Cuba. This could have devastated Cuba, but it could have been a limited nuclear war. In the Ussuri River crisis, the Russians were proposing to take down China’s nuclear capability, meaning, it would have meant an all out nuclear war. The USSR could take this stand because in 1969, China had very limited capability to launch a nuclear war. Until such time that the archives of the defunct USSR and the CIA are made public, it will not be known if the Ussuri incident posed a far greater threat to world peace than the Cuban Missile Crisis

Rule No. 1, No export of nuclear technology, was not observed in two instances with dire consequences for world peace. In the fifties, the Soviet Union by its own admission, exported nuclear know how to the Chinese. This allowed China to join the nuclear club in 1964, sooner than expected. In 1958, the French assisted the Israelis in establishing its nuclear facilities in Dimona and Bar Sheeba. This allowed Israel to join, albeit clandestinely, the Nuclear Club.

The starting point for discussion of Rule 5 is Gunnar Myrdal’s characterization in his book Asian Drama among others, of India and the Philippines as “soft states,’” meaning, countries which cannot effectively enforce its own laws. When India and Pakistan became nuclear powers, the Nuclear Club suddenly has two “soft states” among its members. The problem this posed in limiting nuclear proliferation became evident when a rogue Pakistani scientist reportedly sold nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea. Pakistan had laws prohibiting export of nuclear know-how; but it could not effectively enforce this rule.

As matters stand now, there are nine countries with nuclear weapons, namely, Britain, China, France, the Russian Federation, the United States ( the original members of the Nuclear Club), and the new comers : India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. The four new comers to the Club will be the most likely violators of the above cited rules on the control of nuclear weapons. All four would most likely not hesitate to violate Rule 3, No first use of nuclear weapons. The fear of most critics of the Iran Nuclear Pact is that once in possession of the weapons, Iran may give some to terrorist groups which it has been supporting. This step will also automatically violate Rule 4, that use of such weapons must be under the control of the top most level of government of the nuclear power. The issue of war or peace could thus be in the hands of a terrorist.

 The reader of this article can write his own scenario and figure out which of the above rules will be in further jeopardy, if Iran ends up possessing nuclear weapons. It may even be possible to identify the places and occasions wherein Iran-made nuclear weapons may be used.— Ambassador (Ret.) HERMENEGILDO C. CRUZ, Philippine Ambassador to the United Nations in 1984-86.