Before I met Jonathan Schell, I already knew him
in the best way possible: on the page. Even in his days as a neophyte journalist
in Vietnam, he committed a writer's greatest act of generosity. First in the
pages of The New Yorker, and then in his books, he took readers to places
most of us never could have gone on our own – to The
Village of Ben Suc, for instance, as American troops cleared it of its
3,500 peasant inhabitants and destroyed it in what was, in 1967, the largest
military operation of the Vietnam War to date; and, not so long after, in The
Military Half – from the back seats of tiny Forward Air Control
planes – to two South Vietnamese provinces where Americans were wreaking
utter havoc. (In that book, he offered a still-unmatched journalistic vision
of what war looks like, up close and personal, from the air.) In the 1970s,
Time of Illusion, he would seat us all front-row center at the great
Constitutional crisis that preceded our present one, the Nixonian near coup
d'état that we now call "Watergate."
Unconquerable World (for which I was the editor), looking back from
a new century, he considered several hundred years of growing state violence
that culminated in a single weapon capable of destroying all before it –
and the various paths, violent and nonviolent, by which the people of this planet
refused to heed the wishes of a seemingly endless series of putative imperial
masters. I needed to know no more to feel sure, in March 2003, that the shock-and-awe
fantasies of the Bush administration would be just that. In other words, he
made me seem prophetic at Tomdispatch.
But if one subject has been his, it's been the nuclear issue. Like me, he
came into this world more or less with the Bomb (a word which, back when it
represented the only world-destroying thing around, we tended to capitalize)
and its exterminatory possibilities have never left his thoughts. In his bestselling
Fate of the Earth, as the 1980s began (and an antinuclear movement grew),
he approached the subject in print, beginning famously: "Since July 16, 1945,
when the first atomic bomb was detonated, at the Trinity test site, near Alamogordo,
New Mexico, mankind has lived with nuclear weapons in its midst." And so, sadly,
we continue to do, despite his best efforts. He returned to the subject (when
critics claimed he had no "solution" to the nuclear conundrum he had so vividly
laid out) in The
Abolition in 1984, and again in the post-Cold War 1990s, in The
Gift of Time, The Case for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, when the vast
arsenals of the two superpowers were still sitting there like great unmentionable
embarrassments, mission-less and yet going nowhere fast. (It was, of course,
a time when people largely preferred to pretend that the nuclear danger was
a thing of the past.)
Now 62 years old, the bomb (which, long ago, lost its capital B) is no longer
an embarrassment, no longer mission-less. The old Cold War arsenals are being
updated; possession of the weaponry has spread; and the Bush administration,
which drove the American people to war partly with nuclear fantasies, has made
such weapons, whether real or imagined, the heart
and soul of its imperial policies – and again, there is a Jonathan
Schell book to guide us. Think of The
Seventh Decade: The New Shape of Nuclear Danger as a brilliant intervention,
an essential guidebook to a world gone mad in a new way.
It begins: "The nuclear age has entered its seventh decade. If it were a person,
it would be thinking about retirement – reckoning up its pension funds, weighing
different medical plans. But historical periods, unlike human lives, have no
fixed limit, and the nuclear age is in fact displaying youthful vigor." From
there on, short as it is, it never slows down. So consider Jonathan Schell's
latest on nuclear Pakistan below and then pick up The Seventh Decade,
which is officially published today. Tom
Are You With Us… or Against Us?
The Road from Washington to Karachi to Nuclear Anarchy
By Jonathan Schell
The journey to the martial law just imposed on
Pakistan by its self-appointed president, the dictator Pervez Musharraf, began
in Washington on September 11, 2001. On that day, it so happened, Pakistan's
intelligence chief, Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed, was in town. He was summoned
forthwith to meet with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who gave
him perhaps the earliest preview of the global Bush doctrine then in its formative
stages, telling him, "You are either one hundred percent with us or one hundred
percent against us."
The next day, the administration, dictating to the dictator, presented seven
demands that a Pakistan that wished to be "with us" must meet. These concentrated
on gaining its cooperation in assailing Afghanistan's Taliban regime, which
had long been nurtured by the Pakistani intelligence services in Afghanistan
and had, of course, harbored Osama Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda training camps.
Conspicuously missing was any requirement to rein in the activities of Mr.
A.Q. Khan, the "father" of Pakistan's nuclear arms, who, with the knowledge
of Washington, had been clandestinely hawking the country's nuclear-bomb technology
around the Middle East and North Asia for some years.
Musharraf decided to be "with us"; but, as in so many countries, being with
the United States in its Global War on Terror turned out to mean not
being with one's own people. Although Musharraf, who came to power in a coup
in 1999, was already a dictator, he had now taken the politically fateful
additional step of very visibly subordinating his dictatorship to the will
of a foreign master. In many countries, people will endure a homegrown dictator
but rebel against one who seems to be imposed from without, and Musharraf
was now courting this danger.
opinion poll in September ranking certain leaders according to their popularity
suggests what the results have been. Osama bin Laden, at 46% approval, was
more popular than Musharraf, at 38%, who in turn was far better liked than
President Bush, at a bottom-scraping 7%. There is every reason to believe
that, with the imposition of martial law, Musharraf's and Bush's popularity
have sunk even further. Wars, whether on terror or anything else, don't tend
to go well when the enemy is more popular than those supposedly on one's own
Are You with Us?
Even before the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq, the immediate
decision to bully Musharraf into compliance defined the shape of the policies
that the President would adopt toward a far larger peril that had seemed to
wane after the Cold War, but now was clearly on the rise: the gathering nuclear
danger. President Bush proposed what was, in fact if not in name, an imperial
solution to it. In the new dispensation, nuclear weapons were not to be considered
good or bad in themselves; that judgment was to be based solely on whether
the nation possessing them was itself judged good or bad (with us, that is,
or against us). Iraq, obviously, was judged to be "against us" and suffered
the consequences. Pakistan, soon honored by the administration with the somehow
ridiculous, newly coined status of "major non-NATO ally," was clearly classified
as with us, and so, notwithstanding its nuclear arsenal and abysmal record
on proliferation, given the highest rating.
That doctrine constituted a remarkable shift. Previously, the United States
had joined with almost the entire world to achieve nonproliferation solely
by peaceful, diplomatic means. The great triumph of this effort had been the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, under which 183 nations, dozens quite capable
of producing nuclear weapons, eventually agreed to remain without them. In
this dispensation, all nuclear weapons were considered bad, and so all proliferation
was bad as well. Even existing arsenals, including those of the two superpowers
of the Cold War, were supposed to be liquidated over time. Conceptually, at
least, one united world had faced one common danger: nuclear arms.
In the new, quickly developing, post-9/11 dispensation, however, the world
was to be divided into two camps. The first, led by the United States, consisted
of good, democratic countries, many possessing the bomb; the second consisted
of bad, repressive countries trying to get the bomb and, of course, their
terrorist allies. Nuclear peril, once understood as a problem of supreme importance
in its own right, posed by those who already possessed nuclear weapons as
well as by potential proliferators, was thus subordinated to the polarizing
"war on terror," of which it became a mere sub-category, albeit the most important
one. This peril could be found at "the crossroads of radicalism and technology,"
otherwise called the "nexus of terror and weapons of mass destruction," in
the words of the master document of the Bush Doctrine, the 2002 National
Security Strategy of the United States of America.
The good camp was assigned the job not of rolling back all nuclear weapons
but simply of stopping any members of the bad camp from getting their hands
on the bomb. The means would no longer be diplomacy, but "preventive war"
(to be waged by the United States). The global Cold War of the late twentieth
century was to be replaced by global wars against proliferation – disarmament
wars – in the twenty-first. These wars, breaking out wherever in the world
proliferation might threaten, would not be cold, but hot indeed, as the invasion
of Iraq soon revealed – and as an attack on Iran, now under consideration
in Washington, may soon further show.
…Or Against Us?
Vetting and sorting countries into the good and the bad, the with-us and
the against-us, proved, however, a far more troublesome business than those
in the Bush administration ever imagined. Iraq famously was not as "bad" as
alleged, for it turned out to lack the key feature that supposedly warranted
attack – weapons of mass destruction. Neither was Pakistan, muscled into
the with-us camp so quickly after 9/11, as "good" as alleged. Indeed, these
distinctions were entirely artificial, for by any factual and rational reckoning,
Pakistan was by far the more dangerous country.
Indeed, the Pakistan of Pervez Musharraf has, by now, become a one-country
inventory of all the major forms of the nuclear danger.
*Iraq did not have nuclear weapons; Pakistan did. In 1998, it had conducted
a series of five nuclear tests in response to five tests by India, with whom
it had fought three conventional wars since its independence in 1947. The
danger of interstate nuclear war between the two nations is perhaps higher
than anywhere else in the world.
*Both Iraq and Pakistan were dictatorships (though the Iraqi government
was incomparably more brutal).
*Iraq did not harbor terrorists; Pakistan did, and does so even more today.
*Iraq, lacking the bomb, could not of course be a nuclear proliferator.
Pakistan was, with a vengeance. The arch-proliferator A.Q. Khan, a metallurgist,
first purloined nuclear technology from Europe, where he was employed at the
uranium enrichment company EURENCO. He then used the fruits of his theft to
successfully establish an enrichment program for Pakistan's bomb. After that,
the thief turned salesman. Drawing on a globe-spanning network of producers
and middlemen – in Turkey, Dubai, and Malaysia, among other countries –
he peddled his nuclear wares to Iran, Iraq (which apparently turned down his
offer of help), North Korea, Libya, and perhaps others. Seen from without,
he had established a clandestine multinational corporation dedicated to nuclear
proliferation for a profit.
Seen from within Pakistan, he had managed to create a sort of independent
nuclear city-state – a state within a state – in effect privatizing Pakistan's
nuclear technology. The extent of the government's connivance in this enterprise
is still unknown, but few observers believe Khan's far-flung operations would
have been possible without at least the knowledge of officials at the highest
levels of that government. Yet all this activity emanating from the "major
non-NATO ally" of the Bush administration was overlooked until late 2003,
when American and German intelligence intercepted a shipload of nuclear materials
bound for Libya, and forced Musharraf to place Khan, a national hero owing
to his work on the Pakistani bomb, under house arrest. (Even today, the Pakistani
government refuses to make Khan available for interviews with representatives
of the International Atomic Energy Agency.)
*Iraqi apparatchiks could not, of course, peddle to terrorists, al-Qaedan
or otherwise, technology they did not have, as Bush suggested they would do
in seeking to justify his war. The Pakistani apparatchiks, on the other hand,
could – and they did. Shortly before September 11, 2001, two leading scientists
from Pakistan's nuclear program, Dr. Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, the former
Director General of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, and Chaudry Abdul
Majeed, paid a visit to Osama bin Laden around a campfire in Afghanistan to
advise him on how to make or acquire nuclear arms. They, too, are under house
If, however, the beleaguered Pakistani state, already a balkanized enterprise
(as the A.Q. Khan story shows) is overthrown, or if the country starts to
fall apart, the danger of insider defections from the nuclear establishment
will certainly rise. The problem is not so much that the
locks on the doors of nuclear installations – Pakistan's approximately
50 bombs are reportedly
spread at sites around the country – will be broken or picked as that those
with the keys to the locks will simply switch allegiances and put the materials
they guard to new uses. The "nexus" of terrorism and the bomb, the catastrophe
the Bush Doctrine was specifically framed to head off, might then be achieved
– and in a country that was "for us."
What has failed in Pakistan, as in smashed Iraq, is not just a regional
American policy, but the pillars and crossbeams of the entire global Bush
doctrine, as announced in late 2001. In both countries, the bullying has failed;
popular passions within each have gained the upper hand; and Washington has
lost much of its influence. In its application to Pakistan, the doctrine was
framed to stop terrorism, but in that country's northern provinces, terrorists
have, in fact, entrenched themselves to a degree unimaginable even when the
Taliban protected Al-Qaeda's camps before September 11th.
If the Bush Doctrine laid claim to the values of democracy, its man Musharraf
now has the distinction, rare even among dictators, of mounting a second military
coup to maintain the results of his first one. In a crowning irony, his present
crackdown is on democracy activists, not the Taliban, armed Islamic extremists,
or al-Qaeda supporters who have established
positions in the Swat valley only 150 miles from Islamabad.
Most important, the collapsed doctrine has stoked the nuclear fires it was
meant to quench. The dangers of nuclear terrorism, of proliferation, and even
of nuclear war (with India, which is dismayed by developments in Pakistan
as well as the weak Bush administration response to them) are all on the rise.
The imperial solution to these perils has failed. Something new is needed,
not just for Pakistan or Iraq, but for the world. Perhaps now someone should
try to invent a solution based on imperialism's opposite, democracy, which
is to say respect for other countries and the wills of the people who live
Jonathan Schell is the author of The Fate of the Earth, among other
books, and the just-published The
Seventh Decade: The New Shape of Nuclear Danger. He is the Harold Willens
Peace Fellow at The Nation Institute, and a visiting lecturer at Yale University.
Copyright 2007 Jonathan Schell