Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Will Nuclear Disarmament Be on Obama's Agenda?
Thalif Deen Interviews Jacqueline Cabasso
UNITED NATIONS - As President-elect Barack Obama marshals his transition team before he takes office on Jan. 20, some of his political supporters are wondering how much of his campaign promises will receive priority during his first hundred days in the White House.
Jacqueline Cabasso at a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty preparatory committee meeting in Geneva in May 2008. (Credit:Steven Starr) With a recession-hit
U.S. economy ranking high on the domestic political agenda, he will
also have to gradually deal with a slew of international issues,
including climate change, multilateralism, human rights, free trade,
weapons of mass destruction, and war and peace.
Will Obama, who was once quoted as saying that "America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons," place a higher priority on nuclear disarmament than previous U.S. administrations?
"Obama has repeatedly stated that he will set and pursue the goal of a world without nuclear weapons," says Jacqueline Cabasso, a U.S. advocate of nuclear disarmament who was recently awarded the annual 2008 Sean MacBride Peace Prize by the Geneva-based International Peace Bureau, a former Nobel Peace laureate.
"But that statement is immediately followed by a disclaimer that as long as nuclear weapons exist, the U.S. will maintain a strong nuclear deterrent," she said.
"Packed into that short sentence is a massive and extraordinarily powerful military-industrial complex which has successfully perpetuated the central role of nuclear weapons as the 'cornerstone' of U.S. national security policy since 1945 -- despite the end of the Cold War nearly 20 years ago," said Cabasso, in an interview with IPS U.N Bureau Chief Thalif Deen. Excerpts from the interview follow.
IPS: Will nuclear disarmament, under an Obama administration, be another good try in a lost cause?
JC: Plans are well underway to invest tens of billions of dollars in modernisation of the U.S. nuclear weapons research and production complex. With or without the "reliable replacement warhead," every weapon type in the U.S. nuclear arsenal is being revamped under the ongoing "stockpile life extension" programme, and just two weeks before the election, the Air Force released a detailed "roadmap" for "reinvigorating the Air Force nuclear enterprise."
Obama has made encouraging sounding promises: to keep the U.S. commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of U.S. nuclear weapons; and to seek a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons.
But it's not clear where he stands on the provocative U.S. missile defence programme, and both he and Vice-President-elect [Joseph] Biden recently voted for the proliferation-provocative U.S.-India nuclear sharing deal.
I also find it worrying that Obama is surrounding himself with advisors who served in the [Bill] Clinton administration. It was the Clinton administration that turned its back on the historical opportunity that appeared at the end of the Cold War to take decisive steps towards the elimination of nuclear weapons.
I'd like to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt, but if he's serious about getting rid of nuclear weapons, he's going to have to make a major break with the policies of both the [George W.] Bush and the Clinton administrations, and take on some of the most powerful and entrenched forces on earth.
IPS: What is your reaction to sceptics who say that nuclear disarmament is an unreachable goal -- considering also the fact that the world meekly accepted three more nuclear powers, India, Pakistan and Israel -- and perhaps North Korea -- in the last three decades?
JC: I'm not sure I agree that the world meekly accepted India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea as nuclear powers. Beyond the limited sanctions imposed on India, Pakistan and North Korea, I think that governments didn't know what to do. They didn't want to do provoke deep strategic divides, and in the case of North Korea, a devastating military conflict that could lead to a possible nuclear weapons use.
The nuclear weapon states and their strategic allies couldn't effectively demand that these new nuclear weapon states unilaterally disarm. After all, it is the original five nuclear weapon states that, by virtue of their permanent seats on the Security Council, have made nuclear weapons the currency of global power.
But civil society and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) knew what to do. We understood that the global elimination of nuclear weapons is an imperative for our collective survival. And we know that the "ultimate" elimination of nuclear weapons will never happen unless we demand it now.
I am proud to be a "founding mother" of the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons, which came together at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference to demand the immediate commencement of negotiations for the elimination of nuclear weapons, within a time-bound framework. We even drafted a Model Nuclear Weapons Convention that has been circulated as an official United Nations document. The call has now been taken up by the "Mayors for Peace 2020 Vision Campaign".
IPS: Do you think the five declared nuclear powers -- the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia -- have a moral or legitimate right to call for the abolition of nuclear weapons when they arrogate to themselves the right to retain their own weapons?
JC: It is both immoral and illegal for the original nuclear weapon states to call for the selective abolition of nuclear weapons while retaining and threatening to use their own nuclear arsenals. It makes me crazy when I hear U.S. officials declare that we need to keep nuclear weapons from falling into the "wrong" hands. Whose hands are the "right" hands? The only hands that have, so far, dropped atomic bombs on civilian populations, for which no apology has yet been made? No one should have nuclear weapons.
The NPT was one of the central bargains of the 20th century, but it is in jeopardy now, in large part due to the lack of good faith evidenced by the nuclear weapon states regarding their compliance with the disarmament obligation embedded in Article VI and affirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1996. While the term "good faith" may sound vague, the nuclear weapon states' good faith obligation to disarm has a precise meaning in law.
If the most powerful military force that has ever existed on the face of the Earth premises its national security on the threatened first use of nuclear weapons, why shouldn't we expect less powerful countries to follow suit? This is simply an unsustainable situation. It is time to throw away the outdated notion of "national" security premised on overwhelming military might, and replace it with a new concept of universal "human" and ecologically sustainable security.
With the global economy in collapse and the worldwide surge of hope in response to the election of Barack Obama as U.S. president, the time is ripe for another massive surge of public opinion -- from the bottom up -- calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. But this time, we must understand that demanding nuclear disarmament is not enough, and that we can't achieve it alone. This time we must insist that nuclear disarmament serve as the leading edge of a global trend towards demilitarisation and redirection of military expenditures to meet human needs and save the environment.
- Posted in
29 Comments so far
Show AllThe genie is out of the bottle and he ain't going back in. One reasonable solution is to give the UN power over ALL nukes in every nuclear country, including US.
Another apt mythological parable is the Greek myth of Pandora's box. This problem is truly one of the most vexing of our time, and of the future as long as nuclear radiation is deadly.
www.wunderman-comics.com
The hope of a nuke-free world is about as fanciful as the promise of a sovereign State of Palestine or life after death.
The boys of this world need their toys, big, powerful toys, ones that inflate their egos, perhaps make up for deficiencies in what nature gave them.
Given that most humans are little more than primitive savages, the fact that some have nuclear weapons is a recipe for disaster. Look at Israel, a country run by religious fanatics, a country which has already said it will use nukes if it believes it to be necessary. Look at America, a country that already has!
The world sits on the edge of a bottomless precipice. It only takes one nutter to start the dominoes falling and extinction is ours.
Read more at:
www.dangerouscreation.com
Will Nuclear Disarmament Be on Obama's Agenda?
I think it's too late.
Olmert wins US backing for Iran war
Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:19:29 GMT
Israel's prime minister says Washington has not rejected a request by Tel Aviv to take any action it deems "necessary" against Iran.
Ehud Olmert, the outgoing premier, said Tuesday that he had extensively discussed Iran and its nuclear program with "Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the (US) president".
"There is a basic, deep understanding about the Iranian threat and the need to act in order to remove the threat," Olmert told reporters.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=76534§ionid=351020104
Bush/Cheney/Rice and Olmert are going to close the Strait of Hormuz...indefinitely.
Israel has hundreds of nukes, the U.S. has tens of thousands, and Iran has none. But isn't it interesting that Israel and the U.S. governments both agree that Iran is the "threat." Just as Iraq was a "threat." Is the world really going to allow these criminals to attack Iran?? Unbelievable!
There will be more countries with nukes soon.
His Imperial Majesty Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia
Addresses the United Nations
October 6th, 1963
I would mention briefly today two particular issues which are of deep concern to all
men: disarmament and the establishment of true equality among men.
Disarmament has become the urgent imperative of our time, I do not say this because
I equate the absence of arms to peace, or because I believe that bringing an end to
the nuclear arms race automatically guarantees the peace, or because the elimination
of nuclear warheads from the arsenals of the world will bring in its wake that change
in attitude requisite to the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations.
Disarmament is vital today, quite simply, because of the immense destructive capacity
of which men dispose.
Ethiopia supports the atmospheric nuclear test ban treaty as a step towards this goal,
even though only a partial step. Nations can still perfect weapons of mass destruction
by underground testing There is no guarantee against the sudden, unannounced resumption of
testing in the atmosphere.
The real significance of the treaty is that it admits of a tacit stalemate between the
nations which negotiated it, a stalemate which recognizes the blunt, unavoidable fact
that none would emerge from the total destruction which would be the lot of all in a
nuclear war, a stalemate which affords us and the United Nations a breathing space in
which to act.
Here is our opportunity and our challenge. If the nuclear powers are prepared to declare
a truce, let us seize the moment to strengthen the institutions and precedures which will
serve as the means for the pacific settlement of disputes among men.
Conflicts between nations will continue to arise. The real issue is whether they are to
be resolved by force, or by resort to peaceful methods and procedures, administered
by impartial institutions. This very Organization itself is the greatest such institution,
and it is in a more powerful United Nations that we seek, and it is here that we shall find,
the assurance of a peaceful future.
Were a real and effective disarmament achieved and the funds now spent in the arms
race devoted to the amelioration of man's state; were we to concentrate only on the
peaceful uses of nuclear knowledge, how vastly and in how short a time might we
change the conditions of mankind. This should be our goal.
When we talk of the equality of man, we find, also, a challenge and an opportunity;
a challenge to breathe new life into the ideals enshrined in the Charter, an
opportunity to bring men closer to freedom and true equality. and thus, closer to a
love of peace.
The goal of the equality of man which we seek is the antithesis of the exploitation of
one people by another with which the pages of history and in particular those written
of the African and Asian continents, speak at such length.
Exploitation, thus viewed, has many faces. But whatever guise it assumes, this evil
is to be shunned where it does not exist and crushed where it does. It is the sacred
duty of this Organization to ensure that the dream of equality is finally realized for
all men to whom it is still denied, to guarantee that exploitation is not reincarnated in
other forms in places whence it has already been banished.
As a free Africa has emerged dunng the past decade, a fresh attack has been
launched against exploitation, wherever it still exists. And in that interaction so
common to history, this in turn, has stimulated and encouraged the remaining
dependent peoples to renewed efforts to throw off the yoke which has oppressed
them and its claim as their birthright the twin ideals of liberty and equality.
This very struggle is a struggle to establish peace, and until victory is assured, that
brotherhood and understanding which nourish and give life to peace can be but
partial and incomplete.
In the United States of America, the administration of President Kennedy is leading
a vigorous attack to eradicate the remaining vestige of racial discrimination from this
country. We know that this conflict will be won and that right will triumph. In this
time of trial, these efforts should be encouraged and assisted, and we should lend
our sympathy and support to the American Government today.
Last May, in Addis Ababa, I convened a meeting of Heads of African States and
Governments. In three days, the thirty-two nations represented at that Conference
demonstrated to the world that when the will and the determination exist, nations and
peoples of diverse backgrounds can and will work together. in unity, to the achievement
of common goals and the assurance of that equality and brotherhood which we desire.
On the question of racial discrimination, the Addis Ababa Conference taught, to those
who will learn, this further lesson:
That until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally
and permanently discredited and abandoned:
That until there are no longer first-class and second class citizens of any nation;
That until the colour of a man's skin is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes;
That until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race;
That until that day, the dream of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of
international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained;
And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes that hold our brothers in Angola, in
Mozambique and in South Afnca in subhuman bondage have been toppled and destroyed;
Until bigotry and prejudice and malicious and inhuman self-interest have been
replaced by understanding and tolerance and good-will;
Until all Africans stand and speak as free beings, equal in the eyes of all men, as
they are in the eyes of Heaven;
Until that day, the African continent will not know peace. We Africans will fight, if
necessary, and we know that we shall win, as we are confident in the victory of
good over evil.
Oakknot
Well Quoted.
The problem with a Nuclear free world is that the Countries of the World CAN NOT TRUST the largest and most aggressive Military force in the world from attacking them.
GW Bush showed that the United States of America is willing to use its conventional military to attack and overthrow the sovereign governmnet of a nation, that is absolutely no threat to the United States in order to impose the will of the USA upon said nation.
The United States of America did so without UN Sanction and using evidence that was fabricated.
Given the fact that the US is a rogue nation claiming the right to attack whomever it pleases when it pleases, any nation with Nuclear weapons would be foolish to give them up .
pk
Sean Hannity is all worried about Iran having a nuke ! Hell Hannity what about Pakistan who have thirteen nukes and the Taliban about to take control of them. Huh ? SHUT THE FUCK UP HANNITY ! http://www.wisecountyissues.com
"The media should be a sanctuary for dissent. It is our job to go to where the silence is."-Amy Goodman
“As president, I will set a new direction in nuclear weapons policy and show the world that America believes in its existing commitment under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to work to ultimately eliminate all nuclear weapons. I fully support reaffirming this goal, as called for by George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, and Sam Nunn, as well as the specific steps they propose to move us in that direction.”-Senator Barack Obama's response to ACT. [1]
ACT/Arms Control Today is a leading journal devoted to nonproliferation and global security issues. ACT asked the presidential candidates questions on arms control and nonproliferation; from Russia to Iran, in regards to U.S. policy on cluster munitions and nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. Senator McCain's responses have not yet been received, but he is on the record for renewing American commitment [on paper] to nuclear disarmament through strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, created in 1968, maintains that nuclear weapons proliferation can only be curtailed if nuclear countries make moves toward disarmament and the rest of the world is allowed to access civilian nuclear technology.
If the media were a sanctuary for dissent the candidates would have been grilled on America's record regarding the NPT; and why the silence about Israel's still un-inspected underground WMD facility and refusal to sign onto the NPT in light of the fact that we the people of America who pay taxes provide Israel with $7 million per day: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html
From Ashkelon prison in 1987, Mordechai Vanunu wrote:
The passive acceptance and complacency with regard to the existence of nuclear weapons anywhere on earth is the disease of society today…
The rest:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1078&Itemid=211
Eileen Fleming, Author, Citizen Journalist and Founder WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu" and "13 Minutes with Vanunu"
You know, with Iran developing the the bomb, and Syria attempting too before Israel stopped them, and now with the Russians helping Venezuela get one, maybe now is not the right time to talk about US nuclear disarmament. The focus should be on stopping unstable countries from acquiring WMD's. The world doesn't need anymore more situations like the India/Pakistan stand-off.
You don't really believe that these smaller countries would attack the U.S. or Israel now, do you? They know better than that. And where is your proof that Iran is "developing the bomb?"
There is very little dispute that Iran is developing the bomb (although I suppose Iran disputes it), otherwise they wouldn't be under UN sanctions. Do you haveany proof they aren't making a bomb? And no, I don't think that a smaller country would attack us. But they might sell weapons to terrorists who would.
After America's "faulty intelligence" regarding Iraq and its supposed threat to the world, weapons of mass destruction, etc. etc., you're going to, with a straight face, tell people that Iran is another threat?? Give me a break. Iran hasn't attacked anyone for 800 years. It's obvious you're a Ziocon Israeli supporter who is lusting for Iran to be obliterated. Are you really Joe Lieberman hoping for war with Iran?
What is your solution, GreenIs? To let any country develop any WMD's they want? How will that make the world a safer place?
Now let's be fair, I don't think we're going to be invaded by Iran, don't be silly. But it would be foolish to assume on that basis that they are not dangerous. There is no greater threat to Israel — or to the peace and stability of the region — than Iran. We didn't tolerate such a threat during the Cuban Missile Crisis (and JFK is considered a hero for it), why should Israel?
Should we ignore that the Security Council has thus far failed to act since Iran missed a May deadline to comply with U.N. Resolution 1747 and suspend its uranium enrichment activities? It should be obvious that continuing to delay will only bolster Iran’s hope to get away with continuing its nuclear program. They are already seeking to have 8,000 centrifuges running by year’s end. That would allow Iran to amass enough highly enriched uranium for three nuclear weapons a year. Any sane person can see why that's unacceptable.
Of course, I'm not advocating war.
We must isolate Iran until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. Israel's security is sacrosanct. The Iranian regime funds violent extremists and seeks hegemony over the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and our goal should be to eliminate this threat. The problem is, instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. This has only led to Iran strengthening its position. Iran is now enriching uranium and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased.
And let me remind you, those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and we should refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure. Sometimes we are offered a false choice: stay the course in Iraq, or cede the region to Iran. I reject this logic because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran — it is precisely what has strengthened it. It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. What Obama has proposed is a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We should get out as carefully as we were careless getting in.
We should also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran and prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a cleareyed understanding of our interests.
We have no time to waste. We shouldn't unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead. Truman, and Kennedy, and Reagan understood that diplomacy backed by real leverage was a fundamental tool of statecraft. Obama understands this as well.
I don't know why the Holocaust is an issue in this discussion. And why does only Israel "have the right to exist" when apparently the Israelis believe the Palestinians don't have that same right?? The speech that Iran's president gave regarding Israel being "wiped off the map" was conveniently misinterpreted by Israelis who are dying to wipe Iran off the map. He made a mistake by even mentioning Israel at all. He made a statement clarifying it recently when he said Iran has no plans to attack Israel and does not want war.
The Israelis will now do a false attack on themselves (without killing any Israelis of course) and blame it on the Iranians for an excuse to nuke Iran with America's help. The Israelis bombed the USS Liberty in 1967 and killed 34 American servicemen and then tried to blame the Arabs for it. They are full of dirty tricks like that. They were never held accountable for it, and the U.S. government covered up for them.
I can't think of a more unstable country than America. It's always starting a war somewhere or funding terrorists.
America should be the second last country to be allowed to have nukes. Israel is the first!
www.dangerouscreation.com
A world free of nuclear dangers... Must happen, and we can do it, yes we can. The other option is unthinkable.
No more nuclear weapons, and no more nuclear plants.
In a word: NO!
Obama's increasingly belicose statements regarding troop buildup in Afghanistan, the US's continuing commitment to Israel, and his selection of Hawks in his transition cabinet are indicative of the path toward war that he's opted for - not peace as his naive, myopic political supporters misguidedly believe!
Joe Hope:
FYI: The most unstable government in the "Middle East" is Israel with their 3,000 plus WMD nuke missiles and which is THE REAL THREAT to the stability of the ME, not Iran!
Jackie,
i just want to thank you for talking to these guys. I was thrilled to see this article.
I ran Shundahai Network for about 3 years. I met you at the UN NPT in 2005. I think I tried to have a disgraceful conversation with you after I'd had some wine. I recall saying something dumb, like "I cower beneath you brilliance", or "I grow beneath your grow lamp", or something in that neighborhood.
Either way, I was moved to comment on this article. So here goes, starting with you:
JC: I'd like to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt, but if he's serious about getting rid of nuclear weapons, he's going to have to make a major break with the policies of both the [George W.] Bush and the Clinton administrations, and take on some of the most powerful and entrenched forces on earth.
Pete: I just want to pull Jackie's sentiment out and amplify it as much as I could.
JC: The nuclear weapon states and their strategic allies couldn't effectively demand that these new nuclear weapon states unilaterally disarm. After all, it is the original five nuclear weapon states that, by virtue of their permanent seats on the Security Council, have made nuclear weapons the currency of global power.
Pete: The UN Security Council has made nuclear weapons the currency of global power. It's so simple and easy to understand, why is it not in our grade school civics textbooks, in exactly these words?
It really is so easy for the average American to understand. Why is it so obscured, hidden, marginalized, sidelined in American discourse?
The American people aren't actually dumb. They're just assumed to be so by the suppliers of this type of information- the owners of the major media, (energy and military comanies) and thereby are regarded and treated as dumb.
Again, from Jackie:
JC: "After all, it is the original five nuclear weapon states that, by virtue of their permanent seats on the Security Council, have made nuclear weapons the currency of global power."
PL: I agree. Therefore, hypocrisy needs to be made the order of the day. How do we make that the driving force?
JC: And we know that the "ultimate" elimination of nuclear weapons will never happen unless we demand it now.
PL: Great. Keep up every oppositional front, at full bore. Demand abolition NOW! What next? Tell every reader to call a list if names to contact, and give them the means to do it? There's nothing in place to guarantee that.
However, there is something will actually yield something that will make those of us who are tossed far and wide not feel like we're wasting our pearls before swine.
I come from rural, conservative, Mormon, Utah. It's not the easiest place to be with this perspective. Heal Utah www.healutah.com, is a great place to start.
JC: "It makes me crazy when I hear U.S. officials declare that we need to keep nuclear weapons from falling into the "wrong" hands. Whose hands are the "right" hands? The only hands that have, so far, dropped atomic bombs on civilian populations, for which no apology has yet been made? No one should have nuclear weapons."
PL: Without question. This statement is undeniably moving for its compassion and it's wisdom.
Nuclear disarmament needs to have a high priority. But so does getting rid of NATO , that relic of the past, which surely lived out its usefulness with the fall of the East bloc. Supposedly Moscow's "terrible communist" government was a part of plot to carry out conquest of the West. Though George Kennan, a hard liner on Moscow at the time never backed the idea of NATO in the first place.
AD
For nuclear disarmament to be achieved, two matters need be considered in the discussion: 1) substantive to complete unilateral nuclear weapons cutbacks by the U.S. as a way of dispelling the nuclear security fanatasy and creating greater political parity among nations; and 2) as importantly, the acknowledgement that expanded nuclear energy production globally is a sure-fire way to guarantee nuclear weapons proliferation.
In other words, closure of the nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel cycles, beginning in the U.S., may be the only way to limit the destructive potential of the fissioned atom that has already been set in motion globally.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!--LOLROTFL--When pigs fly, maybe! Except for growing food (and that will be drasticly reduced once petroleum prices resume their skyrocketing rise) all we know how to do anymore is to make weapons and wars--I mean we are talking economic stimulus here folks--get real!
Poet
Disarmament could happen if there were an agreement for 1--every nuclear country to grdually, in tandem, destroy their weapons until all are gone, and 2--all nations agree to be wide-open to inspections to guarantee compliance.
But this could only happen if we could somehow overcome the real problem, which is that in modern humans, wisdom and power repel each other. Those who gravitate toward power, and fight their way successfully to the top, are those with selfish, egotistical, short-sighted worldviews. Those capable of reasoned, far-sighted judgment and possessed of the desire to guide the world toward a harmonious, egalitarian, peaceful world rarely seek power and can't posibly win the battle for it, encumbered as they are with scruples. Thus we are inevitably led by moral midgets who seek primarily to use their power to keep themselves, their families, and their friends in situations of luxury and continued power. They work with their counterparts in other parties and other countries to maintain the status quo that allows them to live as bloated ticks on the lifeblood of the public. I call them "internal parasites" as they are not external but internal to the human race. It's an age-old problem that has plagued us at least since we started building cities--but now that it threatens to push us (and our siblings in the animal and vegetable kingdoms) into extinction, it is more urgent than ever that we find a vermicide to cure this ailment at last. But maybe that's a bad metaphor--the ticks are not a separate breed, and it would not be possible to eliminate them by killing the individuals who happen to exemplify the problem in this generation. Somehow, we need to cure the disease of short-sightedness, destroy the myth that one may benefit at the expense of another--which is true only in the short run and short view.