Nonproliferation nonsense
Today in Prague, President Obama made a vague commitment to work towards a world without nuclear weapons. While he acknowledged the difficulty of such a campaign — underlined by North Korea’s launch of a Taepodong-2 intercontinental ballistic missile, which could be armed with a nuclear warhead, last night — the president criticized “fatalists” who say that a no-nuke world is unrealistic:
For if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.
Um, what? Does anyone want to explain why? And shouldn’t we be clear about the fact that the spread of nuclear weapons is not the only alternative to their complete elimination? Like, isn’t the maintenance of a system that has basically eliminated great-power war something that’s worthwhile? Shouldn’t we be more interested in strengthening those regimes that help to secure nuclear weapons under the control of those governments that can be held responsible for their use or proliferation to terrorist groups and other non-state actors?
Hostage-taking as an emerging tactic in Afghanistan
UPDATE: This entry has been picked up by The Issue’s July 31st edition. More details here.
Several months ago I blogged an article about the return of an Italian journalist who had been held hostage in Afghanistan. The Prodi government orchestrated the exchange of five jailed Taliban for Daniele Mastrogiacomo, much to the dismay of the U.S. government. Speculation was rife that such exchanges would further endanger westerners in Iraq and Afghanistan by increasing their value as potential targets of kidnapping, and it seems that the Taliban have taken a lesson from the whole affair.
Twenty-three South Korean aid workers were abducted in Afghanistan over a week ago, and one has turned up dead. Entreaties by the Seoul government for its citizens’ safe return have been ignored, though a deadline for prisoner exchange set by the Taliban captors came and went without incident.
