THE B52s are on their way, the weapons inspectors have gone, and debates about UN resolutions have given way to other concerns. How many civilian casualties will there be? How long will the conflict be? And what, when the bombs stop falling, will this pre-emptive use of force have done to world security?
To answer these questions accurately you would need either a crystal ball or a degree of military foresight that this magazine does not claim to possess. But one long-term question does fall in our court: the conflict鈥檚 impact on the future effectiveness of technical and scientific inspections designed to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
There are three ways in which such inspections can succeed. They can secure actual disarmament, or evidence that the weapons no longer exist; ensure that dual-use technologies are limited to civilian uses; or demonstrate such bad faith on the part of the regime being inspected that the international community agrees to back military action. Whichever way it goes, inspections require time and the backing of a credible threat of sanctions or force. Hans Blix and his team in Iraq were given the force. They were not given the time.
Advertisement
The Bush administration seems to have decided months ago that what was needed to keep what it sees as 鈥渞ogue states鈥� in check was a timetabled show of strength and toughness, not a flexible, sustained attempt to build international backing for a pre-emptive strike. The response of the likes of Iran and North Korea, Bush鈥檚 other two 鈥渁xis of evil鈥� states, will be vitally important.
For now, both are stepping up their nuclear programmes rather than stepping back from them. North Korea already has a secret uranium enrichment programme and an active nuclear reactor and processing plant (see 鈥淎 struggle for nuclear power鈥�). It has also withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and kicked out inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran is building one reactor, has plans for five more and is constructing a uranium-enrichment plant that could be used to make fuel or bombs or both. It is still cooperating with inspections aimed at ensuring the technology is limited to civilian uses 鈥� but for how long?
It is just possible that the use of force in Iraq will persuade Iran and North Korea to curb their nuclear ambitions. A more likely outcome is that it will make them ever more suspicious of inspections, resentful of American power, and resolved to fast track the technology. On this as on so much else Bush and his advisers are taking a huge gamble. Militarily and socially, Iraq is weaker than Iran and North Korea, and is being hit first. The others may conclude that the best defence now is to get as strong as possible as fast as possible.
And that is not a recipe for global stability.