Russia and the U.S.: Nuclear Examples to the World

Former director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency Hans Blix visited Moscow to participate in the Luxemburg International Forum on averting nuclear catastrophe. In an interview with “Nezavisimaja Gazeta” correspondent Nikolai Surkov, he spoke about the prospects of nuclear disarmament and of solutions to the Iranian nuclear problem.

“Nezavisimaja Gazeta” (NG): Do you think reaching a new agreement on SORT* will contribute to the progress of nuclear disarmament and to strengthening the non-proliferation regime? Could it influence other countries?

Hans Blix (HB): Yes, this will help strengthen the non-proliferation regime, taking into account that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty requires states that possess nuclear weapons to conduct negotiations about disarmament. The new agreement on SORT will require that they accept these obligations and they achieve results. I do not, however, think that this will immediately affect the talks with Iran or North Korea. The signing of this new treaty on strategic offensive reductions will strengthen the moral base on which the discussions about non-proliferation rest; the countries that already possess nuclear weapons are sometimes accused of hypocrisy. They are told that they cannot lecture others about the threat associated with nuclear weapons, while declaring that for themselves, these weapons are a necessity. Naturally, other countries then wonder why nuclear weapons are not vitally necessary for them. Now Russia and the U.S. are moving towards decreasing the quantity of warheads. This number will, nevertheless, remain very large, but it is important in which direction they move. The new treaty on SORT – it is not the end of the story. Discussions will continue. This is why I place great significance on the current reduction of tensions in the Russia-U.S. relationship.

NG: Is Obama a significant figure in your opinion?

HB: Yes, he’s actually changed a lot of things. Now there is much criticism regarding him being awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize. They say Barack Obama has not achieved anything yet, that he only talks. Likewise, Albert Gore has not stopped global warming; he only talked about it. However, he is the one who introduced this problem to the world. Obama has already done a lot. For example, he’s made concessions and contributed to the renewal of the Conference on Disarmament. He has announced to China that the U.S. is ready to discuss space armaments. In return, the People’s Republic of China agreed to discuss the treaty on the prohibition of the production of split materials for nuclear weapons. In case of Iran, Obama has renewed negotiations, as opposed to the Bush administration’s refusal to open up a dialogue with Iran until it ends enrichment. Of course, he’s also begun negotiations with Russia regarding a new agreement on START II.** This process is progressing very slowly, particularly because of the different opinions on mutual control. However, this new agreement has great value for the strengthening of mutual confidence. Obama met with Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow in July and they nudged the process forward. It is obvious that this agreement is necessary for both leaders.

NG: Do you think Barack Obama is sincere in his intentions toward nuclear disarmament?

HB: I think he is very sincere. He took a certain risk when he began to talk about it during his election campaign. We also know that he was dealing with nuclear disarmament problems even before he became president.

NG: You mentioned Iran earlier. What non-military measures can be used in order to put pressure on the country?

HB: I think new economic measures for putting pressure on Iran are possible, but we must be careful. If we resort to actions that are too strict, then this can cause resentment among the Iranians and they will support the ruling regime. Their pride will be hurt. The same will happen in the case of conducting military actions. If Iran is attacked, then the entire population will be united in a patriotic movement to resist this attack.

NG: The European Union has proposed a package of incentives to Iran, but this did not help, did it?

HB: This is true. This was a package proposed by the Europeans; the U.S. did not participate in it. If the U.S. had participated, they could have proposed the renewal of diplomatic relations in exchange for an agreement to halt uranium enrichment. That’s what they did in North Korea. In the case of Iran they did not do it. They could have also proposed guarantees of non-aggression and promise to end the allocation of assets to subversive activities. However, they did the opposite and allocated about $80 million more to subversive activities in Iran. These are cards that can be laid out on the negotiating table. It is possible to go even further. It is possible to widen the spectrum of discussion and to discuss the role of Hezbollah, the role of Iran in Gaza and Iran’s aid to Afghanistan. An even wider spectrum is possible – reviving the idea of creating a zone in the Middle East free from nuclear weapons and the enrichment and processing of nuclear materials. This requires Israel’s participation, which would want to be the only country in the region that possessed nuclear weapons. It is likely, however, that Israel will agree with the fact that it’s better not to have states that possess nuclear weapons than to have two or more that do.

NG: Is the solution to the Iranian problem going to help solve other problems in the Middle East that are related to nuclear non-proliferation?

HB: The Israelis, certainly, can declare that the creation of the nuclear-free zone is impossible without a peace treaty; however, on the other hand, an agreement about the creation of such a zone could contribute to the strengthening of mutual confidence. It is a long and complex process.

NG: What do you think of the danger of a possible preventive Israeli attack against Iran?

HB: This course of events cannot be excluded. I hope Israelis will not go for it.

NG: What can be the consequences?

HB: The Iranians will launch a retaliatory attack. They have already repeatedly warned about it. The Israelis are developing antimissile systems and the U.S. helps them with it. The Iranian program has worried not only Israel, but also many Arab countries. They are not interested in Iran becoming a nuclear power. If Iran creates the A-bomb, uneasiness in Egypt and Saudi Arabia will grow sharply.

NG: Are there any connections between the Iranian nuclear program and the intentions of a number of Arab countries to develop nuclear power engineering?

HB: It seems to me that it can be explained more by their need for electric power. The Arab countries, for example Abu Dhabi or Jordan, realize that in the near future their need for electricity will grow sufficiently. The countries that have oil stockpiles understand that it will soon become more expensive; therefore, they would prefer to manufacture the necessary electric power and to sell the oil. This argument was used by the Iranians.

NG: What do you expect from the conference on the observance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is supposed to take place in May 2010?

HB: We cannot allow ourselves to fail at this conference. 2009 was very difficult in this sense. If a new agreement on SORT is signed, it will help. It would be even better if the U.S. ratified the treaty prohibiting nuclear tests. However, this is highly unlikely.

*Editor’s note: SORT is also known as the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions or the Moscow Treaty, which was signed on 24 May 2002 by U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

**Editor’s note: START II is also known as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which was signed on 3 January 1993 by U.S. President George H. W. Bush and Russian President Boris Yeltsin.