Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Hypocrisy on North Korea: Let's Talk About Israel's Nukes
President Obama's administration is pressing for diplomatic retaliation, perhaps in the form of more sanctions against North Korea, after Pyonyang launched a rocket into space. There are conflicting reports about the success of the launch. North Korea says the rocket carried a satellite, which is now orbiting the earth. That's according to state-run media in North Korea, which reportedly broadcast patriotic songs and images of Kim Jung Il, praising him for the launch. The US, meanwhile, said the launch failed to reach orbit, landing in the Pacific Ocean. According to The New York Times, "Officials and analysts in Seoul said the North's rocket, identified by American officials as a Taepodong-2, flew at least 2,000 miles, doubling the range of an earlier rocket it tested in 1998 and boosting its potential to fire a long-range missile."
There is disagreement at the Security Council over whether North Korea violated any UN resolutions with the US on one side and Russia, backed by China, on the other. The Obama administration has called the launch a "provocative act." "We think that what was launched is not the issue; the fact that there was a launch using ballistic missile technology is itself a clear violation," said UN ambassador Susan Rice, who is pressing for more sanctions against North Korea at the Security Council. Chinese officials said North Korea, like other nations, had a right to launch satellites. "Every state has the right to the peaceful use of outer space," said Russia's deputy U.N. envoy, Igor N. Shcherbak.
Obama used the launch in his major address in Prague, which has been characterized as an anti-nuclear speech. "Rules must be binding," he said of North Korea's launch. "Violations must be punished. Words must mean something."
Many countries around the world certainly see hypocrisy in the Obama administration's position on North Korea. Israel has repeatedly been condemned by the UN for its occupation of Palestinian lands. Moreover, it has hundreds of nuclear weapons with estimates ranging from 200-400 warheads. What's more, Israel and the US are in league with North Korea in the small club of nations that have refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Other nations include: China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, and Pakistan. In his Prague speech, Obama said his administration "will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification," saying, "After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned."
All of this must be kept in context as the "crisis" with North Korea continues to unfold. US hypocrisy on the nuclear issue takes away credibility the US has in its condemnations of North Korea, or Iran, for that matter. "Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies," Obama said in Prague. Obama used Iran to justify a controverisal central European missile system, saying, "As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward... with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven." Obama did not mention Israel once in his speech and has never acknowledged its nuclear weapons system. Perhaps Obama should ask Arab and Muslim nations in the region what country they see as the biggest nuclear threat.
And this historical fact, which to Obama's credit he acknowledged, should never be forgotten: One nation in the world has used nuclear weapons-the United States.
In a statement, Peace Action, cautiously welcomed some of Obama's positions outlined in Prague, but said, "President Obama's statement that [a nuclear weapons-free] world might not be achieved in his lifetime is very disappointing. Obama can and should announce the initiation of negotiations on the global elimination of nuclear weapons. Similarly, his promotion of nuclear power, missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic and his escalation of troops in Afghanistan are all moves in the wrong direction."
- Posted in
57 Comments so far
Show AllAn important thing to remember about test bans is that once you have performed a certain number of tests, and built a reliable computer model, you no longer need to perform actual tests to develop new nuclear weapons - you can develop them using the computer models.
The US has reliable computer models and no further need of actual tests. So this talk of comprehensive test bans is a bit disingenuous coming from the US.
No quite true. The computer programs are good for modeling blast and emission effects. They are, however, useless in determining yields and security issues of new designs.
One of the main reasons for the test ban is to stop new design work, not just validation of an existing armory.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
Oh, but Jewish State Israel is such a responsible member of the 'international community' while NK is not! The North Koreans won't even allow the US to store troops there like they do in SK. PLUS, they might even use White Phosphorus and DIME weapons in an irresponsible manner since they do not have such responsible leaders like Israel does with its Avigdor Lieberman.
Talking about Israels nukes is Anti_semetic!
I wonder if that is the point ???
Perhaps there is International Extortion going on instead of Anti-Semiticism......If we could only get into AIG and their relationship with the Mossad or Bernie Madoff's relatioship with Larry Silverstein, World Trade Center owner.........Or the Greenberg family and their relationship with the CIA and George H. Bush or Frank Wisner who was CIA and replaced Hank Greenberg at AIG........Where does Jerome Hauer of Kroll Associates, a subsidiary of AIG and responsible for the security at the World Trade Center Complex, get his prior knowledge concerning the atacks of 9/11 and the Anthrax mailings? .........Yes, why were 4 Mossad agents celebrating the demolition of the twin towers in New Jersey? Yes, why were Mossad Agents living two blocks from Mohammed Atta in Florida? (Andreas Von Bulow, "La CIA y 11 de Septiembre.")
Perhaps the U.S. support is blind towards Israel's Nuclear Weapons, murder, and agression because Israel has helped the U.S. in many "False Flag Attacks".
How can a rocket for ballistic missile use and one for peaceful space (and national prestge) use be distinguished?
Alan Sheppard went up atop a Redstone missile.
The other Mercury astronauts went up a Atlas ICBM missile.
The Gemini astrunauts went up in the Ttian II ICBM missile - 54 of them, carrying high yeild H-bombs were deployed in silos all around the US south until the 1980's.
Only the Saturn rockets were built for the predominantly use in the lunar program.
Even the space shuttle was initially concieved to be largely a military vehicle.
I think Obama recognizes all the contradictions so well explained in this article, but he is holding the Israel tiger by the tail.
My audacity of hope is that Obama is keeping all options open while he tries to resolve problems doing what he's good at, negotiation, and dealing from a position of strength.
But I have to say that his support for nuclear power and it's increasing cancer forever really disappointed me. I can understand some of his other regressive actions but not this one.
It would be wonderful if Obama were using some subtle strategy that escapes me, as I am a human of little brain. Maybe he is picking his battles and trying to shore up some place where he can stand. But I doubt it. It looks like he is a supporter of the free marketeers, the carbon industry and the war machine.
I humbly await being proven wrong.
Joe
Could someone please explain to me the reason why US policy makers and diplomats still persist in doing a silly dance around acknowledging the mere existence of Israel's nukes?
Helen Thomas asked President Obama about this in the very first public news conference after his inaugeration point blank: are you aware of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons? Obama danced away, just like Bush II, Bill Clinton, Bush I, and I think even Ronald Reagan did (along with all their respective Secretaries of State).
What is the origin of this ridiculous, self-imposed myopia?
Why does it continue on, as a bizarre bipartisan feature of official US foreign policy?
It is obviously perfectly okay to talk openly about North Korean nukes, Pakistani nukes, Indian nukes, Russian nukes, the possible threat of Iraqi or Iranian nukes, and everybody else's real or wannabe nukes. But not the state of Israel's.
Why the double standard? Or are there other nation states out there who have a genuine, existing nuclear arsenal but (like Israel's) it is something never talked about?
Bill from Saginaw
"Could someone please explain to me the reason why US policy makers and diplomats still persist in doing a silly dance around acknowledging the mere existence of Israel's nukes?"
Maybe because their nukes are our nukes. National security and all that.
I don't know the answer, but it occured to me tonight (I wrote about it above) that maybe this is just a story, a piece of well-crafted misinformation designed to give Israel and its supporters a sense of security, and to strike fear into Israel's neighbors?
It is a simple sleight of hand.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
.
Re Israel
google the "samson doctrine"
Israel doesn't have any nukes. How do I know this? Easy, they said so...LOL :) :)
Huh? They are very careful not to say that because it would damage their deterrent. Listen to their pronouncements.
I think you missed my tongue-in-cheek sarcasm - of course Israel has nukes. It is one of the worst kept, least discussed "secrets" on the planet. :)
Jeremy Scahill has hit the nail on its head for sure - these are my sentiments as well.
"The Obama administration has called the launch a "provocative act."" But setting up missiles in Poland ISN'T a "Provocative Act"? Hm, interesting way of thinking Mr. Obama.
I guess it is only okay for America to go to preempted Wars - and It's Okay for Israel to cause Genocide.
And of course it's also okay for israel to have nukes - and to more than likely be the nation that is going to star WWIII.
When are we going to get these Evil War Mongering Bankster Elites out of power?!
Well, until we do, we are ALL F***ed!
So Much For CHANGE We Can Believe In!
http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com
'In his Prague speech, Obama said his administration "will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification," saying, "After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned."'
Yeah, well good luck Obomber. Ratification needs the signature of Congress, and Congress on many occasions has expressed it's dissatisfaction of the CTBT. Clinton signed the CTBT in 1996, but the Republican-controlled Congress walked away from it, citing "national security" concerns. I expect we will get the same song-and-dance from the Democrat-controlled Congress, which will then clearly demonstrate, by virtue that Congress is the "voice of the people", that Americans want to retain nuclear weapons.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
"As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward... with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven."
------------------------
I notice Obama's rhetoric has changed.
He's now saying the missile defense system is proven.
I remember he used to say "if" it is proven.
Can Obama site the research he's seen since his last comments that demonstrate its workability? Or is that asking too much?
Cygnus-X1-isaHole,
Don't we know by now that Mr. Obama is a sock puppet of the real owners of this nation, the financial elite?
We only get to bitch about the state of the nation, but don't try and change it.
Are you aware that on April 21, 2009 the 5th year of restrictions that deny Mordechai Vanunu the RIGHT to speak to non-Israelis and the RIGHT to leave Israel expire?
On Jan. 25, 2006, the whistle blower of Israel's WMD Program's FREEDOM OF SPEECH TRIAL began the same day as the Palestinian’s democratically elected Hamas.
On July 2, 2007, an Israeli court sentenced Vanunu, to six more months in jail for violating the unenforceable bans imposed in 2004 ever since his release from Ashkelon Prison on April 21, 2004.
The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is binding on "all countries of the world". The statehood of Israel was contingent upon upholding it.
EQUAL human rights are declared as UNDERSTOOD at the outset of the document as "inalienable" and therefore can not be denied by any government. Israel's statehood was contingent upon upholding it!
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." -Article 19.
"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."-Article 13:2
Phone calls and Faxes are being sent to Obama and Hillary to be a friend of democracy and human rights and FREE VANUNU NOW!
White House Comment Line: (202) 456-1111 9-5 EST
Fax: (202) 456-2461
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Department of State
Washington, DC 20520
State Department Public Information Line:
(202) 647-6575 you can leave a message.
Eileen Fleming, Author, Founder WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Producer "30 Minutes With Vanunu" and "13 Minutes with Vanunu" freely streaming VANUNU ARCHIVES @ http://www.wearewideawake.org
thank you -
... peace ...
Israel, with their Spies in America, AIPAC, Zionists, Shumer, Lieberman are
a bigger threat to the USA then No Korea.
I wake up every day happy to know that my friends and family members in Israel, most of whom are moderate and left wing Israelis who desire peace with their neighbors, are protected against annihilation by virtue of Israel's likely possession of a nuclear weapon and the fear of god that this induces in the minds of strategic planners in Iran.
""Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies," Obama said in Prague. "
Is someone going to dispute that? I don't. In your response be sure to cite the specific neighbor of Iran that says it looks forward to the building of an Iranian bomb.
"Obama used Iran to justify a controverisal central European missile system, saying, "As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward... with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven." "
Well that sounds like a good argument... if Iran did successfully deliver and detonate a nuclear weapon over Tel Aviv, it would bring nuclear retaliation. So think of that shield as potentially protecting Iran from itself. But don't wait up for the thank you note from Iran.
"Obama did not mention Israel once in his speech and has never acknowledged its nuclear weapons system. Perhaps Obama should ask Arab and Muslim nations in the region what country they see as the biggest nuclear threat."
Asking one side or the other won't resolve the truth of the matter will it? All we'll get is more screaming that misses the point - finding a path to mutual recognition of mutual legitimacy for two nations in one land.
Yes Israel's policy toward the Palestinians is an abomination - I oppose it as much as you do - but until we do sort that one out, there is no other nation on earth that is more realistically threatened in the near term by the possibility of a nuclear attack that could effectively kill its entire population. A little nuclear deterrence is just the thing that any rational state, or mother with children, would want to have under those circumstances. (I suppose the Palestinians can also thank Israel for its nuclear deterrent umbrella... they'd die under that Iranian bomb also... but I definitely won't wait for that thank you note. :-) )
Yeah yeah, I get it, you don't like Israel. The fact that you don't like Israel is one more reason for me to be glad they've got a bomb.
When you get over your fundamental objection to the very idea of Israel existing (I won't hold my breath), then we can have a nice little chat about peace and world wide nuclear disarmament and all the good stuff. For now, objecting to the nuclear program is objecting to the existence of Israel.
"A little nuclear deterrence is just the thing that any rational state, or mother with children, would want to have under those circumstances."
Which is exactly why Iran may want to build a nuclear bomb. You would say that Israel would never attack Iran with nuclear weapons, but try to convince the Iranians of that. The US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which has nuclear weapons. Notice that the United States does not invade North Korea but rather prefers to negotiate. Israel might try a little diplomacy instead of threatening Iran.
We would disagree on what the circumstances are. I see the circumstances of explicit threats to wipe out the Israeli state and to justify such actions by delegitimizing its very existence. These would not be idle threats with even the Iranian possession of a few nuclear weapons.
Even if Israel had 200 nuclear weapons it could not completely destroy Iran. There is no "victory" that Israel could ever win at that strategic distance... merely destruction and enmity that would assure its ultimate demise.
So while Iran is reasonable to consider the possible use of nuclear weapons against it, the threat can not reasonably be considered analogous - it is not existential. I suppose you will disagree, but that's how I see it.
Arab propaganda and anti-Israeli propaganda has spent years ginning up Israel as a "strategic" threat in the middle east, as if Israel had the remotest chance of occupying anything beyond the immediate border countries. Such fears are conflated with the unjustifiable policy toward the Palestinians and general floating antisemitism into a lurid story about "zionist pricks" (see comment above) who are the devil incarnate and must be wiped from the map.
Israel has done itself no favors in its treatment of the Palestinians, and we're all hoping for American action to resolve this terrible situation as quickly as possible, so that all this talk of nuclear weapons is rendered less relevant. But the real Israeli threat to the lives and well being of Palestinians bears no relationship to the fervid imaginings of some about Israel's larger ambitions in the Middle East - it couldn't pursue such ambitions even if it had them, and I'm pretty confident that the irrationality of such ambitions is a pretty good guarantee that they don't have them.
On the other hand there is nothing "impossible" about an Iranian dream of simply putting an end to the state of Israel and most of its population with a few well placed nuclear weapons.
So, as I said, we disagree on what the circumstances may be.
As Israel confiscates land, destroys homes, bulldozes farms, steals water, imposes closures, bombs a captive target,blocades humanity in a starving ghetto and that has the arrogance to state that they are victims and suffering from and existential threat pushing them into the sea.
Those are the circumstances.
All of the circumstances? Really?
Mike, you had better check the actual translation of what Iran's president said. He certainly did not say "wipe Israel off the face of the earth" although this bungled translation is only what appears in the west - much more convenient. What he said was he would like to see Zionism as currently practised end (there is no room for a Palestinian State so Palestinians can rot) - and many, many others would like that too. Let us be very clear, Iran does not have the capacity to invade Israel and Israel does not have the capacity to invade Iran. Yes, they can use their air forces but, what's the point? A lot of hot air on both sides.
name me the country that practices pre-emptive strikes on a regular basis based on dubious intelligence? Let me give you a clue, it is not Iran nor Iraq. It is Israel. If any country in the ME that us looking for deterrence, it should be Israel's neighbours NOT Israel. Israel terrorizes its neigbors NOT the other way around you stupid zionist prick!
You sound angry. If we met in a dark alley I'd be glad I had a nuclear weapon in my pocket.
I'm afraid you'll have to calm down a little if we're going to talk about peace.
""Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies," Obama said in Prague. "
Allies? Like which ones?
uh, like, Israel? Turkey? Saudi Arabia? What's the question?
Anger? Tell me -did the Jews have a right to feel angry towards the Nazis?
Why don't you ask a Palestinian not to be angry and a growing number of Americans are increasingly angry realizing they are being played, that the truth is being suppressed, that unspeakable crimes are ongoing in our name and on our dime.
You should be ashamed of yourself and instead of your smug act and endless exploitation of the Holocaust to impose guilt to silence the outrage, you should know what is boiling right beneath the surface.
I wouldn't dispute anyone's right to be angry - I just don't find dialogue with angry people very productive. Be as angry as you like. I can be angry too. It's fun! You should see how pissed off I can get about stuff! Watch out!
Funny thing, though, I've never found that more than a little anger helped make anything better for anyone.
I would be interested to learn why I should be ashamed of myself.
If you could also point out where I mentioned the Holocaust that would be super helpful, because as you work on that task you'll discover that you are engaged in some kind of paranoid hallucinatory stereotyping.
"impose guilt"? Tell me more.
"Silence the outrage"? No, no, be as outraged as you like. I however will remain well armed as long as that is your preference.
I'm well aware of what is boiling below the surface. Are you?
Vern: "Tell me -did the Jews have a right to feel angry towards the Nazis?"
80% of my family were lost in the holocaust, yet I'm not angry. Nor do I want to see any harm done to any German.
Why the difference? I guess its the education. I wasn't educated for hatred, rage and anger.
Yawn--This perennial wailing of being the victim while being the aggressor is growing thin. It seems Israel is always throwing up roadblocks and lying and killing and destroying homes and lying and threatening and draining US funds and arming and lying and buying our government.
Why is it after all this that only Israel has the right to defend itself at the expense of everyone else? After what happened in Iraq, Iran would be foolish not to pursue their own nuclear deterrence since the US and Israel only attack the weak and defenseless.
'Obama’s remark in Ankara drew a quick retort from Israeli Environmental Protection Minister Gilad Erdan, who is in charge of relations between the Netanyahu cabinet and the Israeli Knesset. He declared, “Israel does not take orders from Obama... In voting for Netanyahu the citizens of Israel have decided that they will not become the 51st US state.”
Just days before, the US Senate voted for a foreign aid package that will provide Israel with the nearly $3 billion in annual US aid which sustains the country’s economy and government.'
Contempt is the appropriate response to Israel and all his whining supporters. For Israel is truly a he based on an angry fundamentalist vengeful god of war.
"... In voting for Netanyahu the citizens of Israel have decided that they will not become the 51st US state.”
I'm not worried about Israel becoming the 51st state. I'm worried about the United States being a vassal of Israel.
"...are protected against annihilation by virtue of Israel's likely possession of a nuclear weapon and the fear of god that this induces in the minds of strategic planners in Iran."
The power of an idea is amazing, isn't it? The idea on the one hand, convinces us that we are safe, and yet on the other hand, the same idea conjures images of terror amongst those that are different to us.
What if the idea, was not an idea? I.e., it did not exist, and that Israel's supposed nuclear armory is just a story, one designed to give a sense of security to Israelis and their supporters, yet strike the fear of God into Israel's neighbors.
A number of 200 nukes is thrown around, a number that is neither disputed or denied by the Israeli Govt. What if it is just well-crafted misinformation? What if?
It works, dunnit?
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
mike2, you wake up happy every day because the blood-drenched Israel has 200 nuclear weapons and if anything happens to Israel they will happily kill as many Gentiles as hundreds of nuclear warheads are capable of via the SAMSON OPTION?
DO I DISPUTE that idiot comment by BO that Iran's missiles threatent the US? Hell yes I do. That was ZioCrap. A Lie. Comprende? I voted for BO, but I knew AIPAC et al ran DC. If israel's man mccain had gotten in, things would be radioactive already.....you will just have to wait a bit.
If you have a bunch of friends and relatives in Israel who long for peace with Palestinians, they must be lonely ostracized & hated or Arab.
To Joy In Nuclear Weapon!
Blues For Allah.
If there is to be a conversation about Israel's nukes, then so too must Iran's enter into the conversation.
The conversation about Iran's nukes won't last very long because they don't have any nukes. Maybe they are planning to make nukes, maybe they are not but, for now and the foreseeable future - they do not have nukes.
And what about India, Pakistan, China, USA, Russia, France and UK?
Enforce the UN resolutions with whatever bombing is necessary.
If Tel Aviv and Haifa must cease to exist, then that's the price of consistency.
A true progressive reply.
Why stop in Haifa and Tel-Aviv? Let's nuke anyone sneaker feels like nuking.
Can this article ever be printed in the New York Times, the organ of AIPAC?
Freddie Kilowatt hit it on the head. The foxes are in our henhouse...and they tithe to Tel Aviv...
Can't imagine what Obama is thinking---or more likely he's not thinking. Listen---What's going to happen to Iran, North Korea or any other nuclear nation who launches an attack? POOF!, right now, in 5-10 seconds. THERE IS ALREADY A MORE THAN ADEQUATE NUCLEAR RESPONSE IN PLACE for anything Iran or NK could do. So what is all this "fear" and "threat"? It is the same GUILT IN ADVANCE OF IMPERIALISM that we saw everywhere on the American frontier from New England to Vietnam. "We have to attack them now on 'security' grounds, because if we don't, they'll be stronger later when we attack them." Iran is going to attack Israel? POOF! Although they might threaten to hit Europe if and when the U.S. gets more serious about its own nothing-but-greedy intentions. This whole discussion is such a FARCE, such a LIE...Both Iran and North Korea have every reason to expect "bad things" from the U.S., and their wanting to protect themselves is a "threat"? Wake up!
"Violations must be punished. Words must mean something."
I am already tired of this asshole Obama. He is a hypocrite. When will he get around to punishing the violations of domestic law against torture?
Words mean shit to this House Negro.
Until you can tell the difference between a "House Negro" and a politician, you had best keep your mouth shut. I think that being a racist is even worse than being a hypocrite.