"The South Africans decided that they would like to prove to the world they did not have any nuclear weapons and their decision was not doubted because it was the end of the Cold War, it was also the end of apartheid"
About this Quote
Blix’s sentence has the clipped, procedural calm of a man used to standing in rooms where everyone is lying and everyone knows it. He points to South Africa as a rare case where disarmament read as plausible not because inspectors suddenly got smarter, but because history made the claim legible. The subtext is almost impolite in its simplicity: credibility is political. Verification matters, but it rides on the back of context.
His phrasing folds two endings together - the Cold War and apartheid - as if the world needed a double sunset to believe a country could give up the ultimate weapon. That pairing is doing the real work. At the end of the Cold War, nuclear prestige stopped paying the same dividends; at the end of apartheid, South Africa was trying to re-enter the moral and economic mainstream. Disarmament becomes less a technical choice than a rebranding of sovereignty: a signal that the state being born wants recognition more than deterrence.
Blix also smuggles in a quiet critique of how “proof” functions internationally. South Africa “decided” to prove it had no weapons; the world “decided” not to doubt. This is diplomacy’s uncomfortable truth: trust is rarely earned in a lab. It’s granted when the story aligns with what powerful audiences already want to believe.
Read against Blix’s later Iraq-era scrutiny, the line sharpens. It’s an implicit reminder that inspectors don’t operate in a vacuum; they operate inside narratives. When the narrative is redemption, disarmament looks like progress. When it’s suspicion, the same facts can look like theater.
His phrasing folds two endings together - the Cold War and apartheid - as if the world needed a double sunset to believe a country could give up the ultimate weapon. That pairing is doing the real work. At the end of the Cold War, nuclear prestige stopped paying the same dividends; at the end of apartheid, South Africa was trying to re-enter the moral and economic mainstream. Disarmament becomes less a technical choice than a rebranding of sovereignty: a signal that the state being born wants recognition more than deterrence.
Blix also smuggles in a quiet critique of how “proof” functions internationally. South Africa “decided” to prove it had no weapons; the world “decided” not to doubt. This is diplomacy’s uncomfortable truth: trust is rarely earned in a lab. It’s granted when the story aligns with what powerful audiences already want to believe.
Read against Blix’s later Iraq-era scrutiny, the line sharpens. It’s an implicit reminder that inspectors don’t operate in a vacuum; they operate inside narratives. When the narrative is redemption, disarmament looks like progress. When it’s suspicion, the same facts can look like theater.
Quote Details
| Topic | Peace |
|---|
More Quotes by Hans
Add to List
