EU shelters from nuclear reality

By Ilana Bet-El

Date: 03/11/05

Where have all the European anti-nuclear marchers - the other warriors of the Cold War - gone? It was a question posed with absolutely no nostalgia for demonstrations or public conflict, at a recent conference on Germany 's army and society. And it is relevant to all of Europe.

As the international community ponders Iran's incitement to "wipe Israel off the map" at the same time as it considers that state's refusal to discontinue its nuclear programme, the question becomes somewhat pressing. For while the threat of 'conventional' terrorism has become the focus of all discussions since 9/11, it is nuclear terrorism that is probably the true danger lurking, since the global nuclear balance is now nearly double that of the Cold War.

As against the five declared nuclear powers known up to 1991 (the US, Russia, China, the UK and France), there are now seven, since India and Pakistan joined the club in 1998. And besides assumptions that Israel has its own capability, there are the very public ongoing programmes in Iran and North Korea, which has probably already exploded a device.

It is the latter two states that cause deep concern as potential sources of nuclear terrorism. Iran is thought to be more ideologically driven and would therefore be somewhat more cautious in arming any terrorist or insurgent group with a nuclear device. North Korea, on the other hand, has proven it would do anything for hard cash - and is therefore considered to be the bigger threat.

Both these states are a real danger to Europe. Not because either of them could or would lob a nuclear missile onto Paris or Berlin, but because they would allow a malicious group to drive a device into them.

A nuclear bomb is not large, but it is highly explosive. It is known as a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) both because it can destroy masses and because it is only relevant when used on masses: there is no need to go nuclear in order to destroy a few targets. This being the case, the only relevant targets are cities: masses of people concentrated in one place.

So far the only indication that the EU is aware of this threat has been in its leadership on negotiations with Iran. The troika of France, Germany and the UK, in co-ordination with the EU and a somewhat reluctant US, has attempted to offer economic packages to Iran against a promise to discontinue its nuclear programme. These negotiations have apparently failed and it seems the issue will be referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions. Hardly a conclusive outcome, if it comes to that. Equally however, the US making more belligerent sounds is hardly convincing: the Iranian nuclear project is spread throughout the country. It cannot simply be bombed away in a single attack, or even a display of "shock and awe".

The EU, and its member states, have also been curiously silent on disarmament. Since the end of the Cold War neither the US nor Russia has done much on reducing their respective arsenals, while the failed UN conference on non-proliferation some months ago showed a deep-seated lack of will on behalf of anyone to disarm.

This is all a puzzle: the nuclear threat is much greater today than it was 15 years ago - yet there is little public outcry on the matter, probably because the removal of the Soviet threat has been misconstrued as a removal of all nuclear threats. And while the EU and its leaders should not strive to panic the population, it sometimes seems as if they have adopted the same interpretation. That is a misconception none of us can afford.

• Ilana Bet-El is an academic, author and policy adviser based in Brussels.

Commentary feature in which the author warns against underestimating the nuclear threat 15 years after the end of the Cold War.

• Primary Source