Germany Fears New Atomic Age
Pastor Dale Morgan
Germany Fears New Atomic Age*
"The world has entered a renewed and more dangerous atomic age."
by Stefan Nicola
UPI Germany Correspondent
Berlin (UPI) June 16, 2007
Germany's security experts are convinced that the world is heading for a
new and "more dangerous" atomic age as international conflicts take on
further heat. Escalating violence in Afghanistan and the Gaza Strip, the
unresolved nuclear conflict with Iran, surging military spending and
ongoing proliferation are just a few things that have Germany's peace
and security experts concerned.
"Relentlessly, the major nuclear powers modernize their arsenals and
thus undermine the non-proliferation regime and egg on dictators to
protect themselves from forced-upon regime changes with nuclear weapons.
The Iraq war has supported that notion," Bruno Schoch of the Peace
Research Institute Frankfurt said Thursday in Berlin at the official
presentation of the Peace Report 2007, which looks at international
conflicts around the world and is compiled by Germany's five peace
research institutes.
"The world has entered a renewed and more dangerous atomic age."
To defuse tensions over U.S. plans for a missile interceptor system in
Eastern Europe and because both players are affected, the issue should
be discussed "within NATO and the European Union," the experts concluded.
The nuclear conflict with Iran, mentioned already in the past two peace
reports, is far from resolved. As sanctions and rhetorical threats
haven't managed to convince Tehran to give up its enrichment program,
the international community should talk to Iran about "security
guarantees, steps to a nuclear weapons-free zone and a
multilateralization of its uranium enrichment program," the experts
proposed.
However, earlier cooperation offers have been denied by Tehran (Moscow
last year proposed that Iran could enrich uranium on Russian soil), and
some experts believe the leadership in Tehran is determined to acquire a
nuclear bomb, no matter the security guarantees given by Washington.
"Why should Iran trust the United States? If I were in Iran's position,
I wouldn't," Charles Pena, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute
and former director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute,
said Thursday at the German Council on Foreign Relations, a Berlin-based
think tank.
Pena noted that Iran understandably sees a nuclear warhead as a security
guarantee against a regime change forced upon it by the United States.
In Iran's broad neighborhood lies Israel, the Palestinian territories
and the Gaza Strip, where violence has been escalating in the past few
days to a point where observers use the term "civil war" and herald the
looming failure of the peace process.
Jochen Hippler of the Institute for Development and Peace at
Duisburg-Essen University said the United States and the European Union
carry partial responsibility for the unfolding tragedy.
"You can't call for democratic elections and then don't recognize the
winner of those elections," he said. The experts urged the European
Union to speak to Hamas + at least to its moderate members.
Europe and the United States have said they would not talk to Hamas
until it renounces violence, accepts Israel's right to exist and
supports the international "road map" to peace, which now looks in
severe jeopardy.
Besides international conflicts, the report also analyzes Germany's
evolving security position. Since 1994 the country's foreign missions
have drastically increased, with roughly 8,000 German troops currently
involved in NATO, EU and U.N.-led missions. Germany is one of the
biggest contributors to the NATO-led International Security Assistance
Force in Afghanistan and the U.N.-led stability mission UNIFIL in Lebanon.
"What (the German army) must or should do + and what not + remains in
the dark," Schoch said. The report thus urged Germany to develop a set
of criteria to be attached to further military missions. They should:
+ be in accordance with the U.N. charter.
+ have a peacekeeping-related background and not be motivated by "power,
influence or alliance policy."
+ come only after diplomatic options have failed.
+ carry clear goals to be achieved in the foreign country.
+ be evaluated after their completion.
+ include an exit strategy.
The experts said most of these evaluations were absent when Germany
launched its mission in Afghanistan, where some 3,000 troops lead ISAF's
reconstruction efforts in the northern parts of Afghanistan.
Berlin should return to the core purpose of the mandate, which is
supporting the Afghan state and not U.S.-led military interventions, the
experts said.
"Security may be key for reconstruction, but hearts and minds can't be
won with the military," Schoch said. "And the relations are faulty if
the German troops in Afghanistan cost some 450 million euros ($600
million) a year but ... only 100 million euros ($133 million) are spent
on civil reconstruction and police."
Source: United Press International