INTRODUCTORY
India and Pakistan to the East, and Israel to the West, of Iran, as well as other nuclear powers, are all in possession of nuclear weapons. This gives rise to the question posed above. Iran is unlikely to use its nuclear weapons against India or Pakistan. If it were to use its nuclear weapons against Israel, that is likely to hurt its own allies in the region, including the Palestinians and those in Lebanon. Secondly, as global winds blow from the West to the East due to the West – East movement of the planet Earth around its axis.[(In fact there are two forces at work: (i) the uneven spread of the sun’s energy over the globe and (ii) the fact that the earth is rotating around its axis from the West to the East. The warm air rises at the equator and then flows towards the poles (cooling down on the way)and polar’s cold and heavy air flows away towards the warmer areas of the equator, gradually heats up, then rises and changes direction towards the poles (as found out by George Hadley in 1735).In 1835 Gustave- Gaspard de Coriolis (a French mathematician and mechanical engineer) discovered that air flowing towards or away from the equator invariably follows a curved path that swings to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere (see Maria Costantino, Weather Handbook(2006)at pp.62-63.] Iran would be exposed to radioactive fallout from its own bombing of Israel in addition to the risk of possible nuclear bombardment by Israel. Consequently by attacking Israel by its nuclear bombs Iran would be bombing itself. On the other hand if Israel feels that it is militarily threatened , it is more likely to use its nuclear weapons against Iran assuming that it would not be exposed to the radioactive fallouts from the explosion of its nuclear bombs ( although this assumption might not be entirely correct as the fallout from the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident of 1986 proved).
For this reason Israel is more likely to use its nuclear weapons than Iran in the event of a war. Yet the West is exerting its pressure, including economic sanctions, against Iran and not against other nuclear powers in the region. The U.S.A. is now using the familiar tactics “of divide and rule” policy against the Muslim world. It was reported towards the end of 2011 that the U.S.A. was to sell Saudi Arabia the most advanced military aircraft worth $30 billion (F – 15 deal) for use against Iran.
All these go to show that the view that the nuclear weapons of Iran pose a greater threat to international peace and security than those of other nuclear powers is a non-issue.
OTHER NUCLEAR POWERS
(a) INDIA AND PAKISTAN
The question naturally arises: which country or countries possessing nuclear weapons poses a greater nuclear threat than Iran. The answer seems to be that apart from Israel, the nuclear weapons of India and Pakistan could pose such a threat so long as the outstanding dispute between them over Kashmir remains unresolved. However recent developments in Pakistan seem to present a greater threat. The report entitled TALIBAN AND AL-QUAEDA ‘TARGETED PAKISTANI NUCLEAR ARMS BASES in the Daily Telegraph of 12 August 2009 at page 14 is relevant to the point. The report mentions three such attacks: (1).of November 1st 2007, (2) of December 10th 2007 and (3) of August 20, 2008.According to the same report Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal was estimated to be about 100 warheads. According to the recent press report headed "New warheads fuel terror fear" India and Pakistan increased their nuclear warheads by nearly ten percent in 2012. Thus, the (London) Times report of 4 June 2013 at p 33 stated "Britain has expressed fresh concern about the threat of nuclear terrorism in South Asia after a news study showed that Pakistan and India boosted the size of their stockpiles of nuclear warheads by nearly 10 percent [in 2012]. Pakistan, which ranks second to Iraq as the country worst affected by terrorist violence, added about ten new warheads during 2012, taking its total to between 100 and 120, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said. India also added about ten, bringing its total to 110, SIPRI said. The increasing number of warheads in a region with a history of conflict and terrorism has provoked mounting concern. In August last year terrorists attacked the Minhas air force installation, near Islamabad, where some warheads are believed to be stored. A spokeswoman for the British High Commission in Islamabad said the UK believes that the threat of nuclear terrorism 'remains serious and real' - a view that she said was shared by the Pakistani Government. The study said that Russia trimmed the size of its arsenal from 10,000 to 8,500, and the US from 8,000 to 7,700. The warheads controlled by France held steady at 300, while Britain's remained at 225 and Israel's at 80." Furthermore Pakistan is an unstable country. The fall of that country could result in the nuclear weapons coming in to the wrong hands thereby posing a grave threat to international peace and security THIS IS A FAR GREATER THREAT THAN THE TERRORIST THREAT AS COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD. Therefore it calls for urgent actions to deal with the problem. However there is no military solution to this problem to be pursued by outside powers and certainly not by the Western Powers. There has to be a political solution. In fact even in Afghanistan there has to be a political solution via political engagement between the Government of Afghanistan and the Afghan Taliban. However, in Pakistan there is no possibility of such engagement between the Government and the Pakistani Taliban. The problem there is far more complex .For this reason my proposal is along the following lines.
In my website article entitled “How to avoid a nuclear war between India and Pakistan” (available on www.angelfire.com/ok/mafazal/index.html), I have proposed a federation/confederation of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Under this proposal the federal government will assume the jurisdiction over defence including nuclear weapons. IN THIS WAY THE PAKISTANI NUCLEAR WEAPONS WILL BE PUT IN SAFE HANDS THEREBY ENSURING BOTH THE REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY. MIGHT I INVITE THE UK AND US GOVERNMENTS SUPPORTED BY THE EUROPEAN POWERS TO PURSUE MY PROPOSAL WITH THE GOVERNMENTS OF INDIA, PAKISTAN AND BANGLADESH. I have recommended in the above website article that the process should begin with an attempt to solve the dispute over Kashmir between India and Pakistan. My proposal is based on the federal model constructed in my book entitled “A Federal Constitution for the United Kingdom – an Alternative to Devolution” (Dartmouth 1997). This provides for the maximum possible autonomy / independence to the federating units, their role in foreign affairs including, where appropriate, their membership of the United Nations and other international organisations and machinery for the removal of economic disparities between the regions of the federations. This model might conceivably provide a framework for the re-unification of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
The actual mechanic of distribution of powers and functions between the federal government and the federating units is discussed in Chapter 7 of this book . At pp 148 – 150 of the book, I have stated as follows :
“The distribution of powers and functions between the Commonwealth and the States in the United Kingdom Federation would be dictated by the choice of the federal model. Our chosen model is that of specified powers for the Centre and the residue for the Regions. Furthermore it will carry with it the division of economic power so that the Regions will have power to develop their own resources and industries and this will remove the regional backwardness and disparity. We will try to reconcile this principle of the division of economic power with another principle, viz. the ability of the Centre to manage the economy. This is similar to the Canadian model where the Dominion has the extensive regulatory power over economic activities through its jurisdiction over currency and coinage (B.N.A. Act 1867,S.91 (14); banking, incorporation of banks and the issue of paper money (S.91 (15)); savings banks (S.91(16)); bills of exchange and promissory notes (S.91 (18));Interest (S.1 (19));legal tender (S91 (20));weights and measures (S91 (17)); bankruptcy and insolvency(S91 (21)); patents of invention and discovery(S91 (22)); copyrights (S 91 (23)); and criminal law (S91 (27)) which has been used to regulate mergers, monopolies and restrictive practices. On the other hand, the Provinces enjoy considerable economic power through the jurisdiction over proprietary rights over natural resources (S 91 (5)); property and civil rights within the Provinces (S92 (13)); the incorporation of companies with provincial objects (S92 (11)); generally all matters of local or private nature within the Provinces(S92 (16));local works and undertakings with some exceptions (S92 (10));and the right to issue licences (S92 (9)).”
“While we are not advocating the particular technique(…by specifying both provincial and federal list of subjects ) adopted in the Canadian Constitution Act for dividing functions and powers, the Canadian model is of interest to us because it seeks to combine federal management of the economy, by providing the tools of economic management to the Centre, with the division of economic power. In conformity with our chosen model we will assign to the Commonwealth matters that are normally appropriate to the Centre under a federal system plus the tools of economic management. This would mean establishing federal jurisdiction over foreign affairs, defence, currency, banking, credit …. If the Federal Government wants to deflate or reflate the economy or control prices or incomes this could be achieved not by direct legislation (aimed at the States’ undertakings) but by fiscal (taxation),monetary and credit policies . If the Federal Government wants to control consumption and public expenditure this would have to be done by way of co-operation with the States (private consumption could be controlled by the Centre by means of economic tools available to it).”
“Divisions of economic power would mean federal control over inter-state and international (or multinational) concerns and the states’ control over undertakings confined within the boundaries of state. If the existing nationalised industries (such as those dealing with gas,coal,electricity etc) are unwilling to provide their services to the states’ undertakings it would be within the competence of the states to set up these bodies for their own purposes. The states would have power not only to set up statutory corporations but also to make laws in relation to the incorporation of companies with objects limited to the states,i.e. to incorporate state companies. Federal companies (i.e. those created under federal laws and operating on inter-state basis ) would be subject to the laws of the states of general application (such as laws imposing taxes, licences, relating to mortmain or as to forms of contract) but the states would not be permitted to impair the status or capacity of the federal companies nor to prevent them from exercising powers conferred on them by federal legislation. Any of the existing nationalised industries (other than those which relate to to the specified federal subjects such as defence, currency etc.) which is confined in its operations within England, Scotland or Ireland would be transferred under the Constitution to the State concerned. This would enable the States to develop their industries and resources, free from federal interference. The States would have, under the constitution, proprietary rights over the natural resources of the State and a fair amount of regulatory power over the economic activities within a state. Possible criticisms of our model would be (a) that it would cause friction between the Commonwealth and the states; (b) that it would induce overlapping of services between the governments;(c) that it would hinder effective governmental action in dealing with economic problems; (d) that there would be lack of unformity of returns required from companies doing business in several States; (e) that governmental costs would be increased by the duplication of work of examining and checking these returns;(f) that the cost of compliance by the companies with a number of differing statues would be large and that annoyance would be caused by the investigation and audit by officials representing several jurisdictions. We accept the validity of some of these criticisms. However most of these difficulties could be overcome by means of federal-state co-operations. As for instance it would be possible to adopt a common form of company return on which all information requested by any government could be tabulated… This is why we advocate adoption of the model of collaboration between Bund and Länder in Germany.”
(b) RUSSIA
Another country that is likely to pose a nuclear threat is Russia. That is due to the U.S.A. attempting to install missiles in Poland and other East European countries along the border with Russia. Russia could retaliate militarily with its nuclear missiles. Mass protests against the regime in Russia during the latter part of 2011 and subsequently and their political consequences have added a new dimension to the nuclear threat from Russia. At this point of time (2012) it is not clear as to what kind of regime could come into power in Russia and what their policies vis a vis international peace and security would be. I have proposed a solution to that threat in my website article entitled “HOW TO AVOID A NUCLEAR WAR BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE WEST”.
(c) THREAT FROM CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS
The world is now facing the threat not only from nuclear weapons but also from conventional weapons including in particular missiles. The West intervened militarily in Libya thereby overthrowing a stable government (which could have been held to account by the world for its actions). The stockpile of arms possessed by the regime has fallen into wrong hands including the radical groups which are already engaged in internal strife. The INDEPENDENT of 12 November 2011 at page 2 reported “the scope of the escalating strife, inside the country as well as throughout the wider region, is highlighted by the caches of weapons abandoned by the regime and subsequently looted. These include shoulder- launched surface to air missiles known as Manpads, capable of bringing down commercial airlines. The report of the the. Secretary General of the United Nations on the U.N. support mission in Libya states ‘Libya had accumulated the largest known stockpile of Manpads of any non -producing country’”.
This demonstrates the gravity of the problem. The West bears the responsibility for bringing about this situation and ought to play its part to put that right. Every effort ought to be made to recapture the Manpads missiles from private hands and radical groups so as to restore peace and security throughout the world.
CONCLUSIONS
It seems that the world has entered into a disturbing and somewhat dangerous period of time. This requires the adoption of appropriate measures to safeguard international peace and security. Recommendations made above in this work have been designed for this purpose. Therefore appropriate actions for consideration and implementation of these recommendations are urgently called for.
