Hans Blix Faced Searching Questions
Ahead of the UK’s Iraq Inquiry, ex Chief Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix spoke in Brussels at an event organised by the European Policy Centre and presented his thoughts on the Iraq war and nuclear disarmament. He said that the early ’90’s saw some reduction in weapons stockpiles but in the second half of the decade, the will to limit weapons diminished and today China is building a blue sea navy, the UK is looking to replace their Trident nuclear submarine fleet and major states have not ratified the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
However, he saw optimistic signs, saying that one of the consequences of the Iraq war is that “faith and reliance on military power has weakened, it may have peaked”. He also praised President Obama’s detailed proposals for Russia and the repeal of the missile shield. However, he said that “disarmament doesn’t take place in a vacuum, it needs detente” and that he hoped that “Russia would take a ‘good neighbour’ policy towards the Baltic states, which would do much to improve relations with the US and the EU”.
According to Blix, the UN has a central role in promoting limitations and disarmament and the “verification regime is almost 100% in place”, but there was much the nation states could do, including,”more effective verification, be more positive towards export control regulations” and he advocated a withdrawal of NATO nuclear weapons from Europe, stating that there was “no need for them and the US military has little objection to their removal, but this should be matched by a withdrawal of Russian tactical weapons.” In this regard, he felt that President Obama had made important steps but it was important for US public opinion that these moves met with a positive response from Russia and China.
On North Korea he stated that “nobody wants the regime to collapse” as this would cause regional instability, with the prospect of millions of refugees moving North and South. China is also concerned that South Korea might take over the failing state. He was uncertain about claims that North Korea was proliferating weapons saying that “I haven’t seen any evidence of them selling nuclear technology beyond some photos of the Damascus reactor, but somebody provided enriched uranium”.
He asked “Who would be the buyers? Iran gets its technology from Pakistan, but they might learn reprocessing from North Korea, but their reprocessing methods are very antiquated. There are risks that they are providing plutonium but most technical people I know are very skeptical, but it is a risk.”
Regarding Iran, he said the US’ dropping their demand that Iran stop enrichment as a precondition helped extract talks from a dead end, but he cautioned that “talks are no guarantee of an agreement”. Blix maintained that it was essential to understand why Iran might want a nuclear program as a “life insurance” policy, in response to perceived threats from Israel and the US, whose warships patrol off Iranian waters.
Whist there is talk of Israel, with tacit support of the US, bombing Iranian reactors, he said that the UNSC would never condone bombing and that “with a bombing campaign, the beginning may be known, but not the consequences” and suggested that such an attack could have devastating consequences for the region.
Iran remains very suspicious of Western intentions, but they need fuel, but if they can’t buy 20% enriched uranium they will be forced to produce it themselves, breaching the 4% limit they set themselves. Blix suggested that one way out was for Turkey to act as a mediator and middle man.
When asked by New Europe what evidence he would present to the UK’s Iraq Inquiry he asked “What good would it do? What different results would it produce to previous investigations?”. “In 2002, I was very suspicious about the Iraqi programme, but as we proceeded we became more skeptical that they has any weapons. This grew when we investigated sites given to us by intelligence services and found nothing at all”.
He defended the Weapons Inspection programme, “Here are instruments, paid for, that can see papers, talk to people, visit sites, examine satellite images and so on. These are different streams of information than from intelligence sources, but important. governments should pay more attention to inspectors”.
He described the Iraq war as “illegal” and noted that “It didn’t matter to the US if military action was legal. The US presented studies for a preventative war but the UK stuck by the UN Charter, they wanted to comply but the US didn’t care about the Charter.” He said then US Secretary of State, Condeleezza Rice was “shameless” when she said that the US would uphold the Security council. He described the UK claim of legality as “flimsy” and quoted the UK Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith as saying he wasn’t sure if their argument would win in a court or tribunal.
He finished by saying that “Today’s real WMD are small calibre weapons. the Bush administration was negative about tackling this. Bolton didn’t even want to do anything about the illegal trade in weapons. Industry will continue to sell while they are permitted to do so. the military-industrial complex is enormous, a formidable factor, not just in the US but also in other countries. As citizens we should try to counteract that.”
