The dolphin is supposed to be among the most intelligent of
mammals. That was the "cute" euphemistic name chosen for the most
expensive investment in Israeli naval history. Three advanced
Dolphin submarines commissioned from the German government will
cost about $1 billion. According to reports in the foreign press,
Dolphin-class submarines can carry Cruise missiles, and Israel may
use the new subs to build a "second strike" capacity: the ability
to hit back in case of a nuclear attack. The arrival of the first
Dolphin sub, paid for by Germany, which was celebrated in the
Israeli media with colorful human interest stories and distorted
censored imagery on Israeli TV, may have brought the Middle East a
step closer to the nuclear edge.
Since the 1991 second Gulf war, when 39 Iraqi Scud missiles were
fired in the general direction of Tel Aviv, Haifa and the Negev
(Dimona?), Israeli security experts have believed that long-range
ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) with the possibility of
bearing non-conventional warheads are the primary existential
threat to Israeli security. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of
Staff Shaul Mofaz recently declared that "Syria's ground-to-ground
Scud missiles are the greatest potential threat to Israeli
security" (Yediot Aharonot, August 2, 1999). Others focus on
potential threats emanating from Iran, Iraq or Pakistan, whose
nuclear capacity was graphically demonstrated over a year
ago.
Israel's Nuclear Option
Everyone in the region assumes that Israel has a nuclear potential,
with estimates varying from 100 to 200 nuclear warheads. Israel's
official position is that it "will not be the first to introduce
nuclear weapons into the Middle East." Professor Shai Feldman, head
of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University,
used to argue that Israel publicly declare its nuclear capacity, so
that it could afford to trade territory for peace, backed by a
nuclear deterrent. Today he says that it is no longer necessary to
change the policy, because in the wake of Mordechai Vanunu's
revelations and various public statements by government and
security officials, Israel's nuclear option is "three-quarters
public."
In December 1998, the Jaffee Center published the results of a
survey that indicated that 92 percent of Israelis believe that
Israel should continue to develop its nuclear arsenal, up from 72
percent a decade earlier (i.e., before the Gulf war). Over 70
percent also accepted the idea that nuclear arms should be used in
retaliation for a non-conventional weapons attack against
Israel.
Such public opinion surveys are seriously flawed, because they are
based solely on the current monopolistic reality, where Israel is
the only factor in the Middle East with a presumed nuclear
capacity.
However, the idea of a possible second-strike capacity is really
playing with apocalyptic fire. Some months ago, we commemorated the
54th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945,
which incapacitated two cities at the immediate cost of over
100,000 lives with relatively primitive nuclear weapons. Today, it
is estimated that two medium-sized nuclear weapons detonated over
metropolitan Tel Aviv, and one over Haifa, would destroy Israel's
industrial potential. So of what value is a second-strike capacity,
other than what is known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD),
i.e., the guaranteed destruction of Baghdad, Teheran, Damascus,
Cairo, and Islamabad as well, with an estimated 12 well-placed
nukes.
Israeli authorities have denied that the Dolphin subs will be
equipped with a second-strike capacity, while Professor Ephraim
Inbar, head of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at
Bar-Ilan University, told the German press that Israel's
neighboring states have no cause for concern about the Dolphin "as
long as they support peace" (Yediot Aharanot, July 30, 1999).
But Meir Steiglitz, one of Israel's most respected commentators,
warns that if the Dolphin becomes the third pillar of Israel's
presumed nuclear delivery system, alongside the Jericho missiles
and advanced long-range bombers, it would have severe
repercussions. "It is virtually certain that if the Dolphins become
operational" (with a second-strike capacity - H.S.), "the Egyptians
will respond with great anger. Such a development would not only
endanger the peace process, it would also cause Egypt to rethink
its current abandonment of a potential nuclear option," with all of
the potentially extreme repercussions (Yediot Aharonot, July 27,
1999).
Freeing the Region of Nuclear Arms
During the first stages of Prime Minister Ehud Barak's new
government, he has focused his initial (still-unclear) moves on the
Palestinian and Syrian-Lebanese tracks, so it is clearly premature
to evaluate his attitude towards regional security and the
non-conventional weapons arms race. Egypt, the primary spokesperson
for the general Arab position concerning the frozen multilateral
negotiation frameworks, says that the multilateral talks will not
be resumed until "substantial progress" will be made on the
bilateral Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Syrian tracks. The arms
control talks originally broke down in 1995 because of Egypt's
insistence that the nuclear issue be placed on the agenda, while
Israel insisted that the subject be postponed until after the
achievement of comprehensive peace.
Israel's policy-makers sometimes tend to forget that they are not
operating in a vacuum. For example, noted military commentator
Ze'ev Schiff wrote in Ha'aretz (July 2, 1999) that the
international "chemical clock is ticking." On May 4, 2002 which
will be five years since the international Chemical Weapons
Convention went into effect, sanctions will be expanded against all
nations that will not have signed or ratified the treaty, and many
chemicals vital for civilian use will become outlawed from trade
with countries that will have refrained from joining the treaty.
While 124 nations have already signed and ratified the treaty,
Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Libya are among those that have not, while
Israel and North Korea are among those that have signed but not
ratified the treaty.
The international community is also far from indifferent to the
threat of nuclear proliferation. As we near the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference, which will take
place under UN auspices in the year 2000, foreign ministers David
Andrews of Ireland and Anna Lindh of Sweden have declared that "all
NPT member states have made a commitment to the goal of abolition
of nuclear weapons." Speaking also on behalf of Brazil, Egypt,
Mexico, New Zealand and South Africa, the New Agenda Coalition for
a Nuclear Free World, they noted that "only Cuba, India, Israel and
Pakistan remain outside the nonproliferation treaty. The
international community demands no less than their prompt accession
to the treaty as it stands" (International Herald Tribune, May 20,
1999).
The Middle East is teetering between an accelerated
non-conventional weapons arms race and moves towards a regional
security arrangement. What will it be - MAD or a Nuclear Weapons
Free Zone (NWFZ)?
While a NWFZ will probably only be finalized within the context of
a comprehensive peace treaty, it is critical to move forward
towards both goals simultaneously. At the international Hague
Appeal for Peace Conference in May 1999, Bahig Nassar of Egypt,
head of the Cairo-based Arab Coordinating Center for NGOs, said
that Egypt's insistence that Israel sign the NPT was not meant as a
threat, but was being posed within the context of the peace
process. Since Israeli public opinion considers the nuclear card to
be the ultimate existential deterrent, it would be very helpful if
concerned Egyptians and other members of the international
anti-nuclear community would present the case for non-conventional
weapons arms control and a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone directly to
the Israeli people.
The Hague Appeal for Peace
In May 1999, believing that peace is too important to leave to the
politicians alone, hundreds of individuals and organizations
representing civil society throughout the world joined together to
initiate The Hague Appeal for Peace Conference on the eve of the
new millennium. The goal was to create a peace and justice agenda
for the 21st century.
"We are gathered together, representatives of governments, or
international organizations, Nobel laureates, but above all mere
mortal citizens, for a shared responsibility," said Cora Weiss,
president of the conference and one of the driving forces behind
the initiative. "As long as $789 billion a year is spent on the
military, while only $13 billion is spent on basic health and
nutrition, as long as three-fifths of the world's 4.4 billion
people live on less than $1 a day, we will continue to have
violence and war."
Among the themes emphasized at the conference were:
• The need to adhere to, reinforce and implement
international law;
• The need to redefine security in terms of human and
ecological needs rather than solely in terms of national
sovereignty and borders;
• The need for early warning about brewing crises and the
importance of peace initiatives before crises get out of
control;
• The need to further democratize the United Nations and
other multilateral institutions;
• The importance of "soft power" paths for conflict
resolution, utilizing negotiation, coalition building and New
Diplomacy methods of settling disputes rather than "hard power"
dictates of major powers, militaries and economic
conglomerates;
• The need to develop effective and speedy methods of
humanitarian intervention, according to the UN Charter, when
civilians are threatened with genocide, war crimes, crimes against
humanity and extreme natural disasters;
• The need to reallocate resources to ensure funding for
peace activities, while reducing the arms trade and military
budgets.
Initiatives
Among the major initiatives launched at the conference were:
• Nuclear Weapons Convention - the launching of an
international campaign to conclude a convention to abolish nuclear
weapons as mandated by Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) and the International Court of Justice;
• International Action Network on Small Arms - the launching
of a global network of NGOs dedicated to preventing the
proliferation and unlawful use of small arms, whether in the Third
World or in the inner cities and suburban schools of the
U.S.A.;
• Stopping the Use of Child Soldiers - it is estimated that
more than 300,000 children under 18 are currently participating in
armed conflicts throughout the world. To combat this travesty, an
international coalition was formed in May 1998 to end the military
recruitment and use as soldiers of all children under 18 years of
age. The Hague Conference was used as a platform for
consciousness-raising and organization around this issue;
• International Campaign to Ban Landmines - building upon one
of the first successes of the New Diplomacy, the Ottawa Mine Ban
Treaty, a campaign was launched for the universalization,
ratification and implementation of the treaty;
• Global Ratification Campaign for the International Criminal
Court - building upon the signing of the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court, a campaign was launched to reach the
60 national ratifications necessary to activate a permanent court
for bringing to justice individuals accused of genocide, war crimes
and crimes against humanity;
• Global Campaign for Peace Education - since systematic
education for peace in the schools and universities is a key to
promoting support for non-violent conflict resolution, human rights
and cultural diversity, the Hague Conference called for a campaign
to support the United Nations Decade for a Culture of Peace and
Non-Violence for the Children of the World, scheduled to start in
the year 2000.
More information about the Hague Appeal for Peace agenda can be
found at .
The final word belongs to Nobel Peace Prize laureate Prof. Joseph
Rotblat, who, after working on the Manhattan Project, became a
thoughtful, passionate and outspoken opponent of nuclear weapons.
"Remember your humanity," he says, a phrase that captures the
essential spirit of the 1999 Hague Appeal for Peace.