Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

'Mutually assured destruction' would be inevitable

By Stephen Cheleda - posted Tuesday, 4 November 2008


Hans Blix (the UN inspector who could not find evidence of a nuclear program or any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq), recently stated in the Financial Times magazine that, “The basic thing that drives proliferation, I think, is not the possession of (nuclear) fuel or spent fuel but fear and perceived security risks”. These perceived security risks apply as much to the Five Permanent Members as to the lesser nuclear powers, as well as to aspiring nuclear powers like Iran.

We have to devise a security system, based on effective, enforceable international law that guarantees trading patterns and adequate development of all nations, without the “threat” or false security of nuclear weapons.

This will not happen overnight. It will have to be the result of complex negotiations to radically revise the Charter of the United Nations, which is the bedrock of international law. At present the Charter is interpreted to favour the five Permanent Members (the major nuclear weapon states). It ignores or subverts the need for security of every other nation.

Advertisement

Only when there are a significant number of individuals who are aware of the way their own security is made subservient to the need of the major powers, will the reform of the Charter, and hence, the reform of international law be adequately negotiated, so that we may look forward to a world safe from nuclear threat.

There is a further, recent development. Because of the present turmoil in the financial markets, (the so called “credit crunch”), there is a move to re-negotiate global, financial institutions. As one of the major reasons for the present financial difficulties is the amount of money nations (especially the USA) spend on their military, is this also an opportunity to re-negotiate the global security arrangements?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

2 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Stephen Cheleda was born in Budapest in 1938 and has lived in the UK since December 1956. After working in industry, he became a teacher of Mathematics in 1971. Stephen did an MA in Peace Studies at the University of Bradford. He retired in 2003.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Stephen Cheleda

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 2 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy