On Monday, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton of the British House of Lords argues against an attack on Iran in a letter to the Financial Times of London.[1] -- "[W]ould it not be possible to announce that if Iran restrained its efforts in regard to nuclear weapons we for our part would look for a new policy leading eventually to general (not of course unilateral) and complete nuclear disarmament, which would cover all the nuclear powers -- Iran's neighbors of course included. -- That was a goal the U.S. as well as ourselves and other Western countries had during much of the Cold War, and we could and should return to it (Iran or no Iran). -- Some of the old plans put forward in those years by able statesmen could be re-examined including -- why not? -- the immensely imaginative Baruch plan of 1946 for the complete international direction and ownership of all nuclear 'activities.' That may seem hopelessly idealistic in the present international climate. But without some element of idealism we risk catastrophe in the long run." ...
1.
Comment & analysis
Letters
WITHOUT AN ELEMENT OF IDEALISM WE RISK CATASTROPHE
By Lord Thomas of Swynnerton
Financial Times (UK)
April 17, 2006
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/53b934fc-cdae-11da-afcd-0000779e2340.html
Sir,
Richard Haass ("It is too soon to talk of attacks against Iran", April 12) made a strong case for not taking any kind of armed action against Iran because of its apparent commitment to manufacture nuclear weapons. All the same, diplomacy, even economic diplomacy, would be more effective if we were able to insist that we -- the West, that is - were genuinely concerned not only about the "spread" of nuclear weapons but also about their existence. Could we not perhaps link our desire to prevent the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon with a new version of traditional United Nations policies such as in the past all the main parties in this country supported?
For example, would it not be possible to announce that if Iran restrained its efforts in regard to nuclear weapons we for our part would look for a new policy leading eventually to general (not of course unilateral) and complete nuclear disarmament, which would cover all the nuclear powers -- Iran's neighbors of course included.
That was a goal the U.S. as well as ourselves and other Western countries had during much of the Cold War, and we could and should return to it (Iran or no Iran).
Some of the old plans put forward in those years by able statesmen could be re-examined including -- why not? -- the immensely imaginative Baruch plan of 1946 for the complete international direction and ownership of all nuclear "activities". That may seem hopelessly idealistic in the present international climate. But without some element of idealism we risk catastrophe in the long run.
Hugh Thomas,
House of Lords
|
