Topic: New World Order
Nuclear Politics: Western leaders asinine game of brinksmanship To date they failing grades on all counts.by robertjb
(centrist liberal)
Monday, September 28, 2009
To date they get failing grades on all counts.
Paging through press reports it is less than comforting to hear the chorus of Western leaders indulge in their asinine game of brinksmanship with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.
Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper is well scripted when he says Canada would back:
"whatever actions are necessary to deal with what is a tremendous threat to international peace and security."
Harper would have us believe that Iran's nuclear ambitions are a "tremendous threat" and offensive, when in fact they are most certainly defensive and to do with its sovereign right to protect itself in a very dangerous neighborhood.
The arrogant G-8 countries like to heap disdain on Iran's position but let's play the devil's advocate and look at the situation from the Iranian viewpoint. Its neighbor Iraq has just been destroyed by a decade of sanctions and a war that made it a colony of the US. Yet another neighbor, Afghanistan is being pummeled into submission by the US and its ever so accommodating NATO allies, all, supposedly, in the name of establishing a democracy but only those living in la la land would believe this. Iran's leaders realize their one hope to escape a similar fate is to establish a nuclear deterrent.
This really is jackboot neo-imperialism. Colonization is the game and resources and strategic positioning are the booty.
Leaders, such as the ever astute Mr. Harper, fail to consider that Iran is clearly in Israel's nuclear sights and that the West has an enduring bias toward Israel so much so that that the accusation has been made that Israel runs US foreign policy. Outlandish as this claim may appear to some there is considerable truth to it. Iran is clearly motivated in its nuclear ambitions to offset the nuclear threat that looms over it from Israel. If the West had a more even handed foreign policy in this region this in itself would do much to appease Iranian nuclear ambitions.
Indeed, when the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad goes before the UN and shouts down the West and Israel it would never occur to the diplomats scurrying for the exits that he is really appealing for a more even-handed foreign policy and something called a fair shake- and; for them to show some spine.
The behavior of Western leaders is insolent and reader's comments in the pages of the online press bear testimony to the hypocrisy and intellectual cowardice of Western leaders. Readers easily see through the transparent deceptions at play.
This game of brinkmanship is being played out against a larger tapestry where the US is indulging in serial warfare in the region, where security threats are promiscuously exaggerated to justify compulsive militarism, and where NATO and Western leaders are mere toadies to US imperialism. The credibility of Western leaders is in tatters as they resort to clichd brinksmanship when a more resolute, enlightened and balanced diplomacy should be embraced.
"We are committed to demonstrating that international law is not an empty promise, that obligations must be kept and that treaties will be enforced."
So says US President Barack Obama even though the US has a long history of defying and breaking international law, and scraping arms limitation agreements. It is currently renewing its own nuclear arsenal (as is Britain on the verge of doing so) when the need for nuclear weapons is more questionable than ever. Nuclear weapons are not going to win the spurious War on Terror, nor are they going to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan nation. The question then arises who are they going to be used against? Are the regional wars we see now mere prelude to larger wars against Russia and/or China? Then too this might just be a compulsive addiction to a hugely obscene military redundancy and a wholesale squandering of resources urgently needed to be directed elsewhere.
The current slate of Western leaders has failed to internalize one of the great lessons of the Cold War and nuclear politics of the 20th Century. Nuclear weapons can only be used as a deterrent. To actually use them risks an uncontrollable and potentially catastrophic chain of events. Yet we continue our addiction to the wholesale production of these weapons that can never be used in quantities capable of blowing the earth off its axis.
We also overstate the threat of so called rogue states possessing such weapons. Where they are portrayed as wanting to have them for aggressive purposes they most certainly want them for defensive purposes. Rogue states can no more use nuclear weapons than the major members of the nuclear club. For a rogue state to use nuclear weapons would be a death wish as the retaliation would be devastating and replete. A major power using nuclear weapons risks MAD- Mutually Assured Destruction.
Nuclear weapons will continue to dog our existence as long as those most responsible fail to take responsibility for their dubious existence. They are a relic of the 20th century which we have failed repeatedly to come to grips with.
So too is this asinine game of brinksmanship a relic of the 20th Century. The stand off with Iran is testimony to the belligerence of the West and the utter failure of Western countries lead by the United States to pursue more enlightened and balanced foreign policy. The designation of so called rogue states is no more than a fabrication for obsessive militarism-a lame excuse for uninspired and corrupted foreign policy all in the name of a ruinous neo-imperialism. There is a huge peace dividend to be rendered yet blinkered Western leadership refuses to pursue such a conspicuous notion.
Western leaders now face multiple challenges: economic reform, the ravages of excessive militarism and a need for more enlightened multilateral approaches in international relations. To date they get failing grades on all counts.
Robert Billyard 2009
Robert Billyard is an artist and writer living in the bucolic hinterlands of British Columbia Canada. He reads widely on history, politics and social issues, and has at various times been politically active.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1 thumb so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of robertjb only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. robertjb is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Robert- You fail to mention the fact that although not admitting they have nukes, Israel has not denied Iran's right to exsist, nor have they claimed that they should be wiped from the map. Iran has called the U.S the "big satan" and Israel the "little satan", denies Israel's right to exsist, denies the Holocaust, and says that they (Israel) should be wiped from the map. While stating this, they have moved forward with their nuclear program against the wishes of the international community and against the wishes of those in the middle east, and have tested short and middle range missles that have the ability to deliver a nuclear payload. Why do you think Saudi Arabia has, thru diplomatic channels, given Israel the ok to use their air space to take out the nuclear facilities? Your whole argument foolish and naive and does not look at the situation in the middle east honestly.....it is hard to take someone like you seriously.
Good article, interesting. However, I agree with Richard's comment, and would also note that Israel is NOT a signatory of the NPT (non-proliferation Treaty) so at least Israel is transparent about their "nuclear" possessions. Iran however, IS a NPT signatory, and therefore, they are obligated by Treaty to NOT develop nuclear technology for weapons. It certainly is however, a double standard for the world, the US and its allies to sanction Iran while India, Pakistan and Israel- although not NPT signatories, are "allowed" to possess nukes. (although India and Pakistan at the time of their "explosions" of nuclear weapons had temporary sanctions which have long been lifted).
I would assert however, that Iran's ambition for nukes did not come directly as a result of the potential Israeli threat, but rather directly from the United States. To my knowledge, at the time, Iran's decision to aggressively obtain a nuclear weapon came as a result of the first Gulf War, when America threatened Iraq with a "nuclear" retaliation if Saddam used chemical or biological weapons against US forces. Iran believed, in this case, if America, having already used nuclear weapons in 1945, is now extending its nuclear first strike use to the middle east, then there is NO way to defend themselves except by having a nuclear capability of its own. In a January 9 1991 conference with Tariq Azziz, Baker was quoted as saying, and he later acknowledged it was so, that biological or chemical weapons used against US forces would bring a nuclear retaliation by the USA. (cite: Plague War- interview with James Baker Frontline- PBS 1995).
So, actually, it was this confrontation and statement of "policy" by the US, James Baker III, that actually "induced" Iran to take the policy of obtaining nuclear weapons as a priority and it was from this time that Iran begin an aggressive nuclear weapons technology program.
( I would note that according to the NPT, it " IS " acceptable to retalaliate or use nuclear weapons if you are threatened with weapons of mass destruction- which include bio and chemical weapons) so Baker's threat was NOT a violation of the NPT.
In reply to your comments you might want to read Robert Fisk's book : The Great War for Civilization, The Conquest of the Middle East. Fisk, if you don't already know of him, is a British journalist who has spent his entire career living in and reporting on the Middle East. Once you have read his book you might find you have a very different perspective on what is happening there. I can also supply numerous other references if you don't find Fisk credible.
Posted By: Edu Montesanti
Date: 2009-10-04 04:57:29
Congratulations for your arguments, good exposition to a good debate - it is not "politically right" to put things the way you did here, exactly for our arrogance in the West as you mentioned (and corrption). I'm totally against war, but world reality in not so...
I just suggest you, Robert, to mention your full name, OK?
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
