|
US must destroy its nukes first
The Herald, 24 August 2004
By Fortious Nhambura
"WHEN an American President sneezes, the rest of the world is supposed to catch a cold," the late president of Tanzania, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere once said.
This statement aptly sums up the complexities of modern international relations, in which national decisions made in the United States of America (USA) have far reaching implications for the rest of the world.
Thus the US foreign policy of overhandedness is having adverse effects on international relations.
US foreign policy is predicated on the assumption that Uncle Sam is a global policeman.
Consequently, whenever Uncle Sam blunders the world suffers, when he cries, we also cry. This is the world that has been foisted on us, as we have been told in no uncertain terms that, "either you are with us or against us".
America blundered on Vietnam and today many more families are crying, and in Palestine there is no peace, while in Iraq, thousands are perishing not forgetting Afghanistan where bombs are still maiming innocent children.
What does "great America" have in store for us?
The answer lies in US President, George W. Bush’’s chilling brag, "I am a war president," and true to form he is planning to export his "gun-slinging democracy" to Iran.
Ironically, his hands are already full in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In a recent report carried by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Bush was quoted saying, "Washington can not rule out the use of force against Iran."
This statement was made in the wake of the Islamic State’’s decision to resume suspended nuclear conversion programmes three weeks ago.
Long viewed as a threat to American influence in the Middle East region, Iran has lived with threats of US invasion since the time of Hazrat Imam Khomeini.
The resumption of the nuclear enrichment programme has provided Bush with an excuse to point his guns at Iran.
Iran revived its uranium conversion facilities in the central city Isfahan shortly after the international nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (AIEA), finished installing surveillance equipment at the site.
Highly enriched uranium can be used to make weapons; uranium enriched to lower levels is used to produce electricity.
According to Bush, the US wants to send a clear message to Teheran, but we wonder whether all messages should be threats.
Analysts argue that the US message is to tell Iran that it should never jeopardise US interests.
An armed and influential Iran would pose a threat to US satellite states in the Middle East.
Since the oil crises of the 1970s, America has seen it fit to keep countries of the Middle East under close scrutiny, for strong and united Arab nations would threaten unfettered US oil supplies.
This is why the US feels that Iran, one of the few remaining truly independent Islamic nations, should be kept in check.
Moreover, the US has always regarded Iran as a source of Islamic resistance, which is why Uncle Sam armed Iraqi during the Iran-Iraq war.
The western world reacted warily when new Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, believed to be a hard-liner, swept to victory in June, with most Western nations expressing worries about Iran’’s nuclear programme.
The European Union (EU) has been negotiating with Iran to persuade it to shelve its nuclear project in return for incentives but Teheran rejected the offer.
The EU, Britain and the USA had hoped that the next president of Iran would be a moderate who they could manipulate in their planned conquest of the oil-rich Middle East.
While most countries in the west have urged Iran to respond to "international concerns" about the programme, Russia
said it is willing to keep working with Iran on the nuclear power plants.
As usual, the West led by the USA and its sidekick, Britain, are demonising the Iranian civilian nuclear programme, despite the fact that the west has the heaviest nuke arsenal in the world.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw claimed that the Iranian presidential election was "an unfair election where the people were given a limited choice".
The West always castigates all nations that go against its line of thinking. US threats against Iran should be viewed in the same context.
As should Straw’’s so called advice to President Ahmadinejad to "take early steps to address international concerns about its (Iran’’s) nuclear programme and policies towards terrorism, human rights and the Middle East peace process."
Unlike the US that is using threats, Russia has chosen to engage Iran to encourage accountability.
France and Germany have been negotiating with Iran on its nuclear programme, and offering economic incentives in the hope of persuading Teheran to put a permanent halt to uranium enrichment.
What is ironic here is that Iran says it is developing nuclear energy for civilian purposes, yet the US that has stockpiles of warheads wants Iranians to stop the civilian programme.
It is easy to see the source of US discomfort, for just like Iraq, Iran has vast resources of oil that Uncle Sam would want to exploit, and an Iran with enriched uranium can easily defend herself by developing a nuclear bomb if threatened.
Iraq was invaded on the pretext that it had weapons of mass destruction, but up to now more than two years after that sacrilege, no weapons have been found.
But the question is who made the US/UK union a watchdog of the world; doesn’’t that role lie with the United Nations (UN)? Does Iran need the United States’’ approval in order to make progress?
It is clear that Iran’’s peaceful technology is the outcome of its own scientific achievements, and is for energy, medical and agricultural purposes and national scientific progress.
Iran’’s chief nuclear negotiator Mr Hassan Rowhani said that since Iran’’s suspension of some of its nuclear activities was voluntary, there is nothing illegal about resuming them.
The US has threatened to convene, "in the next few days," an emergency meeting of the IAEA’’s 35-nation board of governors in Vienna.
This is the body that would send the Iranian nuclear dossier to the United Nations Security Council.
Earlier this month, White House spokesman Scott McClellan described Iran’’s threat to resume uranium enrichment as "an unnecessary and damaging step".
"We’’ve made it clear that if Iran is going to violate its agreement and restart uranium reprocessing
and enrichment activities, then we would have to look to the next step and we would be talking with our European friends about the next step."
"The "next step" would be to
refer the matter to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions," he said.
Yet, even before the case has been taken to the Security Council the US is already issuing threats to Iran just as it did to Iraq.
Since the invasion of Iraq, Britain and the US have failed to prove allegations that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which was the cover under which they invaded Iraq in March 2003.
In November last year, Iran agreed to suspend the production of enriched uranium following assurances that the European Union would work with the Iranians to develop their project.
Surprisingly, instead of co-operation, Iran is receiving threats.
As the world waits and ponders on the next US move and as we continue to lack adequate muscle to confront American aggression, our only hope remains the proposed reforms to the UN Security Council.
There is need for more strong voices to counter US excesses.
To date North Korea, which has also been threatened by Uncle Sam, has not been attacked because the Asian giant, China favours dialogue.
On the Iran issue, Germany has so far demanded the removal of the war option from the table.
We hope that many other countries will back the stance taken by Germany.
If other countries are to stop producing nuclear weapons, the US should destroy its stockpiles first, for these are the very weapons it uses in treating other nations with contempt.
No nation is ordained to have an unfair advantage over others, since all nations are deemed equal in international law.
Back to homepage |
