Iran Gone Nuclear? Who Decides? Who is Afraid, Why? (I)
By Paul I. Adujie
Saturday, 29 September 2007
New York, United States
There are those in this world who still believe that America’s opposition Iran’s nuclear power ambition is altruistic and benevolent. There are equally those who share in America’s view, that leaders of Iran are irremediable lunatics who would annihilate and obliterate the world, as soon as Iran obtain nuclear arms.
But are these positions above tenable? Is it a mere coincidence that every developing country that aspires to attain nuclear capability is suddenly hounded by America and America’s loose "coalition" of an exclusive nuclear power club? It is no coincidence at all.
The post World War II world order which gave monopoly of power to America and a few European countries to dominate the world has become painfully outdated and outmoded. This is why I advocate the abolishment of veto power that is currently reserved by America and a few European countries in the United Nation’s Security Council. The United Nation must be democratized.
There is continued inequality in the world, and in particular, at the UN. Bush pointedly ignored UN activities in New York regarding world environment, only for the Americans to have side conference in Washington DC at US State Department
Nigeria is frequently relied upon by the UN to engage in peacekeeping worldwide, and in Africa and West Africa in particular, and yet, Nigeria is not a member of the UN Security Council, and no African country is a member of the veto wielding group. And only this week, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Department of State, Jendayi Frazer had on Thursday pointed out that countries applying to become members of the Council must meet certain criteria such as being fully democratic, responsible and stable. This position is just nonsensical!
China is not an epitome of democracy, but it has always been a member of the UN Security Council, as well as happy owner of abundant atomic -nuclear arms. As President Yar’Adua rightly pointed out in New York this week, it is only logical, to include Nigeria at UN Security Council, Nigeria is an African representative and a major role player, in world affairs. It makes perfect sense to have an African representative, especially when African issues are discussed.
America stampeded the United Nations into resolutions against Iraq before the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. America engaged in outright deceptions and unmitigated lies, as precursor to invading and occupying Iraq. Iraq has since turned into a debacle, a quagmire and an unending inferno. The American people in majority opposed President Bush and his administration on the march to war in Iraq. A majority of the peoples and governments of the world opposed Bush’s Iraq war policy to no avail.
Notable among governments of the world that opposed America, was France which in fact, led the pack.Now however, that was then, during the administration of Mr. Francois Mitterand, the new government of President Nicolas Sarkozy, is a different animal. Sarkozy and his foreign minister, Mr. Kushner, are both very vocal, aggressive and public in their support for President Bush’s regime change program against Iran. France has recently ratcheted up the rhetoric of punishments for Iran with sanctions and with the extreme measure of even a war.
The current government of France has stridently opposed President Bush and his wrong-headed invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, that was during the former President Mitterand of France.
Now, France’s new President Sarkozy seems to be in a mad-rush, mad-dash to kiss-and-make-up with President Bush and the war mongers, who are again beating war drums against Iran, as it was against IraqThe new leaders of France are unabashed and unalloyed in their support for Bush anti Iran policies.President Sarkozy of France and his foreign minister, at times, sound more aggressive and belligerent than the Bush everyone else among those against Iran aspirations to membership of the exclusive nuclear club. France vehemently oppose Iran’s efforts at nuclear capability acquisition, at least, in harshest words
The average American was lied to regarding the WMD excuses Mr. Bush used to invade and occupy Iraq or the untenable nexus between September 11, 2001 attacks and Saddam Hussein or his government. Iran will be invaded and occupied, based on lies and false pretexts. It is truly dejavu.
History of 2003 is about to repeat itself! Iran’s oil is about to be commandeered; And the cornering and commandeering of oil resources in Persian Gulf would be complete! For those who never believed what some of us have said all along, Mr. Alan Greenspan, a prominent, high profile Republican of long standing, confirmed, corroborated and gave more credence to the fact that oil was the reason for President Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq.
We asserting here as well, that the invasion and occupation of Iran, when it occurs, will be because of oil in Iran. Owning or controlling the oil resources and the Persian Gulf, will confer strategic advantage on America and it "coalition" of allies. It should be clear to all now, that the next world struggle is for the reapportionment and reallocation of energy resources and the command and control of the Persian Gulf for military and strategic superiority.
President Bush of the United States would have the world believe that he is against nuclear proliferation in the mode of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, SALT or Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, START reminiscent of the Détente and Deterrence era of more than 20 years ago.
The truth of the matter is that the USA and its allies have jointly and severally created the impression that they are selectively anti nuclear proliferation. In words, actions and collusions or silence at times, America and its supporters have demonstrated a selective opposition to the acquisition of nuclear capability by say, North Korea, Libya, South Africa, Iraq and now, Iran.
There is an attitude that have been pervasively and demonstrably proven by America and its allies, through their words and actions, to the effect that they are only interested in their self-interests! Which is, their interests maintaining monopoly and domination of possessing of atomic and nuclear powers in addition to WMD, conventional and unconventional weapons superiority. America’s zeal is unsurpassed it its efforts at preventing the acquisition of atomic, nuclear and WMD capabilities by those to whom America and its allies have no favorable disposition; There is a clear double standards in these haphazard determinations. India and Pakistan were once forbidden from atomic-nuclear capabilities, but now? They have it, even though General Pervez Musharaf of Pakistan was disfavored by the US as undemocratic leader of an Islamic republic a few years ago, now, he is an "ally" on the war on terror, his now a good pal
Why is it okay for some countries to possess dangerous weapons of atomic, nuclear and WMD, but some others cannot not? What are the set parameters or criterion for measuring who should and should not have these capabilities? President Bush ignored and disregarded the checks and balances that is embedded and entrenched in the US constitution, lied to the American people and began the war in Iraq. A mid-term elections in America in 2006 by a majority vote cast be the electorate, repudiated Bush’s Iraq policy, to the advantage of Democrats at the expense of Bush’s Republican party. Nevertheless, Bush and his Republican party continues to pursue and push full-speed ahead, their wrong headed policy that had been repudiated by a majority of the American voters and people! What is the essence of democracy and separation of powers, check and balances between the branches of US governmental arms, in light of these development?
Why should I prefer President Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq to the speculation that Iran or North Korea might misuse atomic-nuclear or WMD weapons? Why should I trust America, with dangerous weapons? America, the only country that has actually used or exploded atomic-nuclear weapons in attack against another country; Any more than I can trust country A or Country B? Why should I trust and prefer atomic-nuclear WMD weapons in the hands of , say, Israel, a country that has perennially disregarded UN resolutions for decades as it usurped Palestinian rights, or invaded Iraq and most recently, invaded Syria?I will rather rely on my experience with American and Israeli behavior with the weapons and military advantage that both countries currently possess and not mere conjectures or speculations against Iran.
Why is it somehow acceptable for the US and its friends to have atomic nuclear weapons, WMD and all, despite known, and repeated misuse and abuse of such powers? Conversely, it is somehow, unacceptable for other countries to have this capabilities even though they have clean slate and unblemished record?
It bears repeating that America remains the only country on earth which has ever used atomic or nuclear weapons against another nation as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan during World War II, to obliterate civilians, women and children, citizens of Japan. It was a complete devastation.
And yet, America is the "leader" among the countries with strong objections to any developing country that aspires to join or which becomes a defacto member of the nuclear power club of countries in the world
America’s objections be seen not altruistic or benevolent. Are we to assume that America’s objections arises from its first-knowledge of the true ramifications and magnitude of atomic-nuclear WMD impact, when America used it? Or is America’s steadfast opposition more as a result of, not wanting others to have a competitive edge of the so-called, Mutually Assured Destruction, MAD?
Some believe that America did not invade North Korea but Iraq instead, because North Korea had the conventional army and the nuclear weapons to inflict heavy losses on America. Whereas, Iraq had been decimated , pulverized and crippled since the first Gulf War and imposition of sanctions and no-fly zone.It is also the case, that Israel would not have invaded Iraq some twenty years ago, or Syria, several weeks ago, had it been the case that Iraq and Syria, had the unfettered rights to the acquisitions of atomic-nuclear WMD capabilities as Israel have had. So, who does non-proliferation really protect?
Shall we believe that Americans and their allies are so kind and humane and as a consequence, they oppose Iran, Iraq, North Korea atomic-nuclear WMD capabilities ambitions?
Are we to believe that America and its allies are genuinely concerned and touched by the risks posed by "rogue-nations" which are, in the view of the Americans, these "rogue-nations" are led by persons certified by the Americans as irremediable lunatics, and as such, atomic-nuclear-WMD in the hands of persons determined by America to be incurable despots, tyrants and dictators Perverz Musharaf? Would lead the world into apocalyptic catastrophic Armaggedon end of the world?
Or perhaps we are to believe that America and its allies are motivated by a desire to exclude developing countries from the atomic nuclear WMD exclusive club, it is to keep so, exclusive!
Discerning observance know that possession of atomic nuclear WMD is a deterrence to would be attackers, invaders and war mongers. We also know that this capabilities is a sorts of one-comeuppance against countries that do not possess these prized weapons.
Why should America and its allies, who indeed already have these weapons, be the ones to determine who is insane or fit or not, regarding the leadership of politically independent, sovereign nations with inviolate territorial integrity? Are some countries in the world at the cusp and verge of re-colonization? Or why must America and its allies be the ones to approve whether Iran acquires nuclear power for peaceful or some other purposes?
Israel has enjoyed and continues to enjoy, what it calls "Strategic Ambiguities" regarding whether it possesses atomic nuclear WMD or not.
Israel has been able, enabled and emboldened by its friends and allies, including good old USA, to unilaterally bomb Iraq atomic nuclear facilities in 1981, in clear violations of international law; Israel again, recently violated Syria’s airspace and of course, violated international law as well as Israel audaciously, peremptorily, without provocation, bombed facilities in Syria. All this, give new meaning and credence to the rumor, to the effect that law is meant to restrain the weak and foolish, while the law protects the rich with powerful friends. International law, treaties, conventions and protocols is meant to restrain developing countries from the pursuit of their best national interests; While preserving upward acceleration and ascendancy of already powerful nations and their allies? Israel bombed Syria’s facilities this month, and neither the US, the Europeans or even the UN have held Israel to account, but why is this so?
Israel builds apartheid wall, a wall which has intensified sufferings and immeasurable hardships for bedraggled Palestinians. All this, with a wink, a nod, financing and tacit approval by America. Could another country other than Israel indulged itself and get away with it, scot-free?
To be continued….