6. Nuclear weapons in Iraq

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10, 2003 – Questions about the whereabouts of weapons of mass 5. destruction possessed by former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein may be answered within a much-anticipated report, the U.S. national security adviser said here Sept. 9.

That the deposed regime "had used and continued to pursue weapons of mass destruction" was backed up by U.N. accounts and the accounts of foreign intelligence services.We can depose regimes that support terrorists, yet the vulnerability of our society enables small groups of people to inflict tremendous harm on us.

7. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

The centerpiece of international efforts to stem the spread of nuclear weapons is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed in 1968 and entered into force (for a term of twenty-five years) in 1970. The NPT's central provisions contain pledges by the nuclear weapons states – defined as nations having exploded a nuclear device prior to 1967 – not to transfer nuclear explosive devices to any non-nuclear weapons state (Article I), and by the non-nuclear weapons states not to acquire such devices (Article II). Two other key provisions of the NPT have been the subject of perennial controversy: Article IV, pledging support for international cooperation regarding peaceful nuclear energy, and Article VI, promising "good faith" efforts toward nuclear disarmament by the existing weapons states.

8. International Inspections and the iaea

One way to increase confidence in commitments made by NPT states is to improve the international inspection system of the IAEA. The IAEA safeguards system was originally designed to account for nuclear material that was voluntarily identified by each member state. Every non-weapons NPT state must negotiate a "safeguards agreement" with the agency, part of which includes an initial declaration of its nuclear materials and nuclear facilities; periodic inspections are supposed to confirm that declared materials have not disappeared. IAEA's nonproliferation mission is, therefore, changing in the direction of a more intrusive, more investigative approach to inspections.

9. War Talk: Bellicose statements from Azerbaijan and Turkey obstruct the search for peace over Nagorno Karabakh

The peculiarity of the current stage of the search for ways of resolving the Karabakh problem is the fact that the term “peaceful” is applied less and less often to the question of settlement. It has been replaced by other notions such as “speediest settlement” or, more dangerously, “settlement by any means”. The last phrase suggests a military resolution of the problem and, as a rule, was voiced only by official Azerbaijan.

The instigative activities of Turkey, which, by the way, rendered to Azerbaijan not only financial, but also military and technical assistance during the years of the Karabakh war, must be condemned by the international community, political analyst Armen Poghosyan argues. “Especially in recent times, Turkish figures have issued very dangerous statements that ‘encourage’ Azerbaijan and may act as catalysts in the possible renewal of hostilities.”