ZUL-QA’ADAH 9 1430 A.H.
WEDNESDAY OCTOBER . 28 2009.
Print This Page 
Politics of weapons and terrorism (II)
By KABIRU INUWA DUKAWA
BANNING THE USE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
There has been much international debate about whether banning the use of weapons of mass destruction would ever work indeed, whether bans works at all’. But the problems about these debates is that in many parts of the world, Africa and other third world countries, the people either do not have access to information technology or they are information shy. In any case the debate on this important issues is likely to remain within the confines of a small group and only partly representative of the world opinion. Nevertheless, the idea of holding several conferences is great and is bound to throw up fresh ideas about whether or not banning weapons of mass destruction is necessary.
It is important to get the conditions of disarmament right, because it maintained that elimination of weapons of mass destruction can not be suddenly achieved. As long as a single weapon of mass destruction remains, the threat of its use would remain, therefore, we have to look at disarming not in terms of numbers but in terms of use. By banning their use the world can make them redundant. This would however amount to sacrificing the special status states who possess them presently enjoys but are they prepare to pay that price?’6
MANAGING POSSESSION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
If weapons of mass destruction cannot be easily iliminated’7 there is great need by the international community to manage crisis as the possession of these weapons might cause in parts of the world, with an eye to avoiding situations where militarily inferior states fear that questioning whether any traditional military, diplomatic, or arms control strategy can obviate weapon of mass destruction threats so long as fundamental non¬violent dispute resolution are unavailable. If the ultimate goal is to avoid the use of weapons of mass destruction by anybody for any reason, then these messy questions, must be given more attention, and not drowned out by a false debate about which type of mass destruction disaster would be worst.
There is no ally positive role that nuclear weapons can play in deterring threats of chemical or biological weapons, by the so-called non-compliance states. The reasons being that these countries acquire and stockpile these weapons of mass destruction to counter perceived threats of nuclear weapons. Developing special nuclear weapons against these weapons of mass destruction would stimulate, these states further to stockpile other Weapons of mass destruction. Instead of developing a nuclear strategy to deter weapons of mass destruction of non-compliance states, there should be more efforts to develop and to seek alternative political strategies. These could be the steps to this end. The international community could seek ways of positive engagement of these states to sign the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons convention and to strengthen the organizations for the prohibition of there weapons. Also all industrial countries should strengthen expert contrOl of sUch weapons — related technology, in the past, the non¬compliance countries all have imported these technologies from different industrial countries. For example countries like Germany have done much to improve the legal bases for such control’8. Efforts should be made break isolation and to stimulate political development of there countries.
POSSESSION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION BY THE PRESUMED TORRORISTS
Possession of weapons of mass destruction is always believed to be in the hands of a recognized political entity (state) under international law. Weapons of mass destruction could sometimes find their ways into the hands of individuals or groups (‘terrorists") such as the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo’. The emergence of these groups has upset the conventional wisdom that possession and use of weapons of mass destruction was the province of governments alone. The shocking attack of 2O~ March, 1995 on a subway was proclaimed the down of a new age of "catastrophic" terrorism involving chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Before long a number of world leaders went on record with predictions that terrorists would harm large numbers of people around the world using chemical and biological agents. For instance, the ll~ September attack on the United States of America~ when "terrorists" this time did not use chemical or biological agents but used air crafts as weapons of mass destruction. Saturation coverage of scay, hypothetical, unconventional terrorism scenarios along with the ominous forecasts from around the world have taken their toll on the world. According to a council on foreign relations survey published in the United States of America in 1999, the world citizens perceive international terrorism and chemical and biological weapons as the two serious threats facing the world20. As the report’s title indicates, there is confusion about the gravity of this threat and lack of order in the international community’S response to it. Therefore, this report endeavors to put the threat in to proper perspective and suggest ways, the international community might use their resources more wisely to ~enhance front-line preparedness.
In the years ahead, domestic preparedness must graduate to a program that puts as much emphasis on public health and hospital preparedness as on disaster scene rescue capabilities. Readiness for large scale chemical and biological events are necessary regardless of whether "terrorists" ever strike. Among the many possible lesson from the Aum experience in Japan is that the worst case scenario is not always what unfolds. "Terrorists" might look at Aum’s troubles and see that acquiring and using these weapons is -a- hard rather than as easy preposition. Moreover, "terrorists" could well see the Aum cult’s attack, which resulted in a severe police clampdown and domestic legal reform, as having backfired against "terrorist" near and long term objectives21. In short, Aiim cult has often been portrayed as a beacon for "terrorists" to follow, but it could be just the opposite. If the past is any predictor of the future, weapons of choice for "terrorists" will remain truck bombs and other conventional tools that are markedly less technically demanding resource intensive, and dangerous for the perpetrators. As a sound long term preparedness, countries around the world having providing resources for any possible attack by "terrorists" for example the United States of America has in 1999 and 2000, an estimated $148 and $222 million respectively, from the unconventional "terrorist" preparedness budget was allocated to hospital preparations, the public health infrastructure, and biomedical research. Also a combined National infectious’, disease and
Bioterrorism medical research budgets total $1.08 billion. This appreciable Chunk of money should be viewed, however, in the context that on average, it cost $500 million to bring a single new drug on line. Despite this huge amount of money spent on preparedness against terrorist attack their have been reports of anthrax terrorist attack on a number of citizens of the United States of America.
CONCLUSION
The task of eliminating weapons of mass destruction is a great one. A gradual approach to elimination of it will be ineffective, because of proliferation by several States and groups around the world and a more radical approach involves questioning whether any traditional military, diplomatic or arms control strategy, can obviate Biological and chemical weapons - threats, so long as fundamental disparities of power and wealth exist and authoritative procedures for non-violent dispute resolution are unavailable.
It is humbly submitted that there is no any positive role that nuclear weapons can play in deterring threats of chemical or biological weapons by the so¬called non-compliance state. The very reason being that these countries acquire and stockpile these weapons of mass destruction to counter perceived threats of nuclear weapons. Developing special nuclear weapons against these weapons of mass destruction would stimulate these states. Further to stockpile other weapons of mass destruction. Instead of developing a nuclear strategy to deter weapons of mass destruction under the control of non-compliance states. However there should be more efforts to develop and to seek alternative political and diplomatic strategies.
Further more efforts should be made to break isolation and to stimulate political development of these countries and also the international community, should make constructive engagement with certain political groups and not to categorizes all of them as "terrorists", this is because if some of their grievances are not adequately addressed the threats of terrorist activities will for a foreseeable future continuous even after the present suspected are wipe out there will be another sets of terrorists and the world to live under the threat of "terrorist" attack.
Concluded
Dukawa resides in Kano.
