Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWe Lie and Bluster About Our Nukes -- and Then Wag Our Fingers at Iran
By failing to disarm and breaking the rules when it suits, nuclear states are driving proliferation as much as Ahmadinejad
What is the Iranian government up to? For once the imperial coalition, overstretched in Iraq and unpopular at home, is proposing jaw, not war. The UN security council's offer was a good one: if Iran suspended its uranium enrichment programme, it would be entitled to legally guaranteed supplies of fuel for nuclear power, assistance in building a light water reactor, foreign aid, technology transfer and the beginning of the end of economic sanctions. The US seems prepared, for the first time since the revolution, to open a diplomatic office in Tehran. But in Geneva, 10 days ago, the Iranians filibustered until the negotiations ended. On Saturday President Ahmadinejad announced that Iran has now doubled the number of centrifuges it uses to enrich uranium. A fourth round of sanctions looks inevitable.
The unequivocal statements Barack Obama and Gordon Brown made in Israel last week about Iran's nuclear weapons programme cannot yet be justified. Nor can the unequivocal statements by some anti-war campaigners that Iran does not intend to build the bomb. Why would a country with such reserves of natural gas and so great a potential for solar power suffer sanctions and the threat of bombing to make fuel it could buy from other states, if it accepted the UN's terms?
Those who maintain that Iran's purposes are peaceful clutch at the National Intelligence Estimate published by the US government in November. While it judged that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, it saw the country's civilian uranium programme as a means of developing "technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so". The latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency notes that no fissile material has been diverted from Iran's stocks, but raises grave questions about some of the documents it has found, which suggest research into bomb-making (Iran says the papers are forgeries). Those of us who oppose an attack on Iran are under no obligation to accept Ahmadinejad's claims of peaceful intent.
Nor do we have to accept the fictions of our own representatives. The security council's offer to Iran claimed that resolving this enrichment issue would help to bring about a "Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction". But like every other such document, it made no mention of the principal owner of weapons in the region: Israel. According to a leaked briefing by the US Defence Intelligence Agency, Israel possesses between 60 and 80 nuclear bombs. But none of the countries demanding that Iran scraps the weapons it doesn't yet possess are demanding that Israel destroys the weapons it does possess.
This subject is the great political taboo. Neither Brown nor Obama mentioned it last week. The US intelligence agencies provide a biannual report to Congress on the weapons of mass destruction developed by foreign states, which covers Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan and others, but not Israel. During a parliamentary debate in March the British defence minister Bob Ainsworth was asked whether he thought that Israel's nuclear weapons are "a destabilising factor" in the Middle East. "My understanding," he replied, "is that Israel does not acknowledge that it has nuclear weapons." Does Mr Ainsworth really buy this nonsense? If so, can we have a new minister? If Iran builds a bomb, it will do so for one reason: that there is already a nuclear-armed state in the Middle East, by which it feels threatened.
But we make the rules and we break them. The non-proliferation treaty (NPT) obliges the five official nuclear states, of which the UK is one, to work towards "general and complete disarmament". On Friday, the Guardian published the notes for a speech made last year by a senior civil servant, which suggested that the decision to replace the UK's nuclear missiles had already been made, in secret and without parliamentary scrutiny. Since then defence ministers have told the Commons on five occasions that the decision has not yet been made. They appear to have misled the House.
At the Geneva conference on disarmament in February, one delegate pointed out that the "chances of eliminating nuclear weapons will be enhanced immeasurably" if non-nuclear states can see "planning, commitment and action toward multilateral nuclear disarmament by nuclear weapon states" like the UK. If the nuclear states "are failing to fulfil their disarmament obligations", other nations would use this as an excuse for maintaining their weapons. Who was this firebrand? Des Browne, the secretary of state for defence. A man of the same name is failing to fulfil our disarmament obligations.
Browne claims that Britain must maintain its arsenal because of proliferation elsewhere, just as those proliferating elsewhere say that they must develop their arsenals because the official nuclear nations aren't disarming. With the exception of France, none of the other European states feels the need to deploy nukes. But the UK keeps preparing for the last war. Of course, no one is refusing to disarm; it's just that the task keeps getting pushed into the indefinite future. Opponents of British nuclear weapons maintain that a new generation of warheads would survive until 2055.
The permanent members of the UN security council draw a distinction between their "responsible" ownership of nuclear weapons and that of the aspirant powers. But over the past six years, the UK, US, France and Russia have all announced that they are prepared to use their nukes pre-emptively against a presumed threat, even from states that do not possess nuclear weapons. In some ways the current nuclear stand-off is more dangerous than the tetchy detente of the cold war.
The danger has been heightened by the US government's current offensive. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, is demanding that other countries accept her plans to destroy the last remaining incentive for states to abide by the NPT. The treaty grants countries which conform to it materials for nuclear power on favourable terms. It's a flawed incentive - as the spread of civil nuclear programmes makes the proliferation of military material more likely - but an incentive nonetheless. Now Rice insists that India should have special access to US nuclear materials despite the fact that it has not signed the NPT and has illegally developed nuclear weapons.
If she is successful, this effort - and the concomitant US demand that India is recognised as an official nuclear power - will blow the NPT to kingdom come. The treaty which survived the cold war, and which remains the most important of the wilting guarantees against global annihilation, is being nuked for the sake of a few billion dollars of export orders.
Here's where it gets really depressing. The Bush administration's proposal has been supported by both John McCain and Barack Obama. The contrast between Obama's position on India and his statements on Iran could not be greater, or more destructive of the inflated hopes now vested in him.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's insistence that Iran enriches its own fissile material, and the guessing game he is playing with Israel, the atomic energy agency and the UN security council is irresponsible and staggeringly dangerous. But if I were in his position I might be tempted to do the same.
www.monbiot.com
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
25 Comments so far
Show AllSo George Monbiot is saying that India should not be recognized as a nuclear power?
Monbiot made a total Ass-clown of himself trying to "Citizen arrest" Bolton...
Why would anybody take him seriously here?...on ANY subject?
Whoa!
Monbiot lost me at the very point he stated "proliferation as much as Iran."
Hello? Iran? Proliferation? Maybe they would, if they could, but then, it is hard to proliferate weapons of mass destruction when ... you don´t have any.
Perhaps he should have stated the obvious truth instead:
It is the US regime, the Israeli regime, and their willing western european curs pretending to be sovereign states upholding the rule of impartial law, as well as Russia, India, Pakistan, and China... who are the PROLIFERATORS.
Period.
The FACT is that there is no rule of law on this planet at this time.
There are only criminal corporate despots and a vast majority of the planet who are their bleating sheep, too stupid to even realize they are being led continuously towards the proverbial slaughter...for the profits of a few criminals.
On the outer edge of that human bell curve you have the misfits, (homo supericus I like to call them)those individuals who place faith in our ability to rise above the psychopathic criminals that are always found, in every culture, in every generation.
At the very top.
So it has always been. So it will always be, on this dimension.
They never ultimately win, and we never ultimately lose.
This is the only country to fly its flag on a double standard.
Recently it was reported that that old Fascist Henry Kissinger along with other prominent elitists , spoke of De_Nuclearization where, in the interests of peace ,treaties be entered into where all nations disarm their Nuclear weapons.
So easy to see through these guys. Without Nukes small nations lie at the mercy of the Countries willing to spend 500 billion a year on arms.
An Iran or North Korea which these same nations "claim" secretly developing Nuclear weapons can be invaded or sanctioned at will by the "peace Loving" nations of the World.
No doubt certain nations would be exempt and allowed to possess such horrific weaponry if in the interests of "Research" so as to design counter measures against these god awful weapons with that exclusive club limited to a small handful of nations that have demonstrated they are peaceful.
Such as an Israel or a United states as example.
Other nations would automatically be in contravention of treaties subject to the full and legal wrath of the leaders of the "Free World" should they merely possess the potential to build such weaponry.
PK
As I understand it, Iran has it's own radioactive ore and it sucks. Thats the reason for their enrichment problems.
"The latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency notes that no fissile material has been diverted from Iran's stocks, but raises grave questions about some of the documents it has found, which suggest research into bomb-making (Iran says the papers are forgeries). Those of us who oppose an attack on Iran are under no obligation to accept Ahmadinejad's claims of peaceful intent."
Forgeries!?! But I thought it was proven that Iran tried to buy yellowcake from Niger.
"The Bush administration's proposal has been supported by both John McCain and Barack Obama."
Now I am Obama supporter, because I like his slogan.
"YES WE CAN .... build more nukes"
"YES WE CAN .... spy on Americans"
"YES WE CAN .... continue funding the war"
"YES WE CAN .... kill more Afghani civilians"
"YES WE CAN .... blindly support Israel's imperial, racist and genocidal policies"
Oh yes, we indeed can. Gotta love Obama.
The US and Israel are mad at Turkey for buying gas and oil(via a pipeline) from Iran.
They keep warning about the 'possible disruption' of those supplies. hmmmmmmm
Coupled with the fact that both Iran and Turkey are fighting Kurdish terrorists, armed by the U.S., makes one wonder.
The US and Israel are mad at Turkey for buying gas and oil(via a pipeline) from Iran.
They keep warning about the 'possible disruption' of those supplies. hmmmmmmm
who beats the war drum ISRAEL yet it to has nukes by the boat load. Pls vote AMERICA FIRST and not what some foreign country wants.
The first practical windmills were the vertical axle windmills invented in eastern Persia by the Iranian geographer Estakhri in the ninth century..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill
"Why would a country with such reserves of natural gas and so great a potential for solar power suffer sanctions and the threat of bombing to make fuel it could buy from other states, if it accepted the UN's terms?"
Iran has been experiencing a growth in wind generation in recent years, and has a plan to substantially increase wind generation each year....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Iran
Capitalism and nuclear weapons don't mix. America is #1 proliferation pimp. When future survivors study who blew up the world... the word "America" will be synonymous with the word "Megadeath".
Substitute flint spears for all references to nukes here & you get a perspective on how ancient is this nose-to-nose growling. The human beast is inherently violent, stupid, vicious, unforgiving. 'My nuke is bigger than your nuke'. Gimme a break!!
"Why would a country with such reserves of natural gas and so great a potential for solar power suffer sanctions and the threat of bombing to make fuel it could buy from other states, if it accepted the UN's terms?"
I think the above question has been answered ad nauseum by various writers.
The US is spending 400 million a year (approved by congress) on terrorist attacks in Iran. This diminishes greatly the credibility of US negotiators.
Additionally any promises of fuel deliveries from countries that are contemporaneously contemplating the nuking of Iran don't hold much water.
Oil is Iran's big export. They want to make money by selling it instead of using it for domestic consumption.
Nuclear technology is pervasive in many fields of endeavour. The Iranians want their scientific infrastructure to be second to none.
What else can you say? It is not the fault of Iranians that they are facing the declining superpower intent on grabbing control of the world's oil supplies. Solar power? Why doesn't the US develop solar power and lose it's place as the "world's number one polluter" as Mr. Bush says.
Just because the US government are a bunch of liars, does not mean the rest of the world is the same. Monibot should stop projecting his disaffections on leaders of other countries. Fact is, the governments that the US goes after are often far more truthful and have a great deal more integrity than the US does. Ahmadinejad again (yesterday's NBC interview) said categorically that they are not going to build the bomb - and there is no reason to doubt him, given his prinicpled background.
It was a Native American who some centuries ago realized that the US governmental figures have no honor, and are without any integrity and speak with forked tongues. That is not necessarily how the rest of the world speaks (US puppets, of-course, excepted, that is why they are US puppets.)
Read the 3rd paragraph again. This George Monbiot should have read Scott Ritter's piece before he wrote his.
israel, india and pakistan have not signed the NPT. hence they should not benefit from the supply of nuclear fuel from the suppliers group. but isnt their development of nuclear weapons legal, for that very fact? how is the pssession of weapons by the original 5 countries legal, and illegal for everyone else?
but ezflyer, in his quoting wallerstein, notes the essential fact. aggressive military actions cannot be carried out against nuclear wepons states.
"The real threat to U.S. military power is nuclear proliferation, because if every little country has nuclear weapons it becomes very tricky for the United States to engage in military action."
Immanuel Wallerstein
ah but how we love our "mutually assured destruction" fantasies.
if you didn't think the world might end tomarrow (why not today?) you might get a little too complacent and take this life for granted.
common, loosen up a little. the edginess of life in these fast-lane times would turn to a bland oatmealish existance (not to cast aspersions on oatmeal), were it not for some good old fashioned saber rattling. and face it, if you've got sabers, how do you expect to get anyone's attention if you don't rattle, and by golly sometimes even use the suckers.
this will all play out as it should. we could be going at it for a while, or we could go out in a hurry. what a rush!
The NPT is dead. Has been for a while now. It was a good idea, but one that - like communism - had no chance of surviving in a real world. The Iranians would be mad not to be building a nuke, just as the UK, USA or Russia would be mad to disarm. It's kinda loopy that we keep weapons that will result in our extinction if they're used too. The whole world is mad, even me.
Well said. If the world told the USA to disarm we would tell the world to go to hell. OUR WMD inventory gives us the ability to erase an attacking nation. We kinda like that. Obviously other nations might use their "envy" of us as motivation to acquire their very own "erasers". Seems pretty common sensical, doesn't it?
These clowns in the White House are extremely ignorant when it comes to foreign issues. George Bush for example never travelled outside of the U.S. until he became president. Instead they take their leads from corporate America, which unfortunately finds an unstable world and the proliferation of WMDs very profitable.
Meanwhile the American electoral system has been effectively high jacked as well, with both mainstream parties acting as corporate mouth pieces while any serious attempt by a third party is immediately silenced or ignored by the corporate controlled MSM.
I hope Mr. Monbiot doesn't seriously think that the American public has any control over the country's nuclear ambitions.
Article 6, section 2 of the US Constitution is a great one to cite to Conservatives. It states that all international treaties ratified by Congress and signed by the President are now "the supreme law of the Land."
This means that the UN Charter, UN Convention Against Torture, 4th Geneva Convention- all laws that have been broken by the Bush Administration- are all "the supreme law of the Land."
And all the talk about what Ahmadinejad says is sort of moot. He has no say over his nation's foreign policy, nor their nuclear policy. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran. Sayyid Ali Khamenei is. Ahmadinejad must take orders from Khamenei. Khamenei has issued a fatwa (religious edict), stating that for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is haram (forbidden). These people are mostly Shia, they believe that Ayatollahs are holy, like Catholics and the Pope. His word is law. Iran has not done ANYTHING illegal, according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). We, however, do not follow article 6, which makes disarmament the law. In fact, nuclear disarmament is "the supreme law of the Land."
The truth is that BOTH Obama and McCain have called for reductions in our nuclear arsenal.