Poor Man’s Equalizer

We in the peace movement must distinguish ourselves from likes of Shultz, Perry, and Kissinger.


Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Poor Man’s Equalizer
by Shapoor Vali
05-Aug-2008
 

I admire Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), for his tireless effort to promote a nonviolent resolution of US/Israel-Iran conflict. But solution offered in his recent joint article at IHT (and reprinted at this site), is at best temporary and does not address the root cause of the current global divide.

It is clear that the big powers, the permanent members of UN security council, have violated the terms of NPT by ignoring many of its provisions, including Article VI:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

The current framework of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is almost non-performing. It may not be dead, but it is non-functional. This, as many other totally unpleasant outcomes, is another by-product of the Iraq war. In “post Iraq” world, an overwhelmingly majority of nations learned that the Bush administration invaded Iraq not because the administration “thought” Sadaam had weapons of mass destruction; it invaded Iraq because the administration “knew” Sadaam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. In this regard we must recognize the two years UN inspection of Iraq and destruction of its weapons as part of military strategy of the United States.

The lack of effective international arrangement for control of new and deadlier military nuclear technologies allows countries who constantly use "language of force" to increase and advance their nuclear arsenals. At the same time, these countries use the excuse of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to demonize nuclear activities of other nations and promise to take military action, if necessary, to eliminate sources of “mushroom cloud” and “existential threat”. The rest of the world response to this theatric is somehow reflected in a resolution currently being circulated among members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), consisting of almost 118 countries (including India and Pakistan). The resolution partially reads:

"The rich and powerful countries continue to exercise an inordinate influence in determining the nature and direction of international relations, including economic and trade relations, as well as rules governing these relations, many of which are at the expense of developing countries". NAM countries oppose "unilaterally imposed measures by certain states ... the use and threat of use of force, and pressure and coercive measures as a means to achieving their national policy objectives”.

Is nuclear proliferation the only threat to the peace and stability of the world? Unfortunately not!

Currently no country in the world can match the sophistication and power of United States “conventional” weapons. Russians, fearful of losing control of their country following Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Yukos affair, are progressively devoting larger part of their newfound wealth from oil and gas revenue to modernizing their military. Their target is to reach some degree of conventional military parity with the United States in about 10 years. The only other country with an outside chance is China. But China could achieve parity in about 20 to 25 years. No other country in the world has a chance ever to reach a level of “conventional” military fire power similar to the United States and its allies.

The disturbing reality of “post Iraq” world is that the most cost-effective military strategy for countries faced with threat from nations with superior conventional military power (and willingness to use it) is for them to go “nuclear”. From back of the envelope estimates to computationally more complex economic analysis point to the fact that development of a full fledged nuclear industry for generation of energy and nuclear deterrent devices are the least costly approach to achieving “security through strength”1.

The A-bomb has become the poor man’s equalizer. No wonder George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn in an article "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons" published in the Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2007, advocate a global “nuclear disarmament”!

We in the peace movement must distinguish ourselves from likes of Shultz, Perry, and Kissinger. We must push for both nuclear and conventional disarmament. In “post Iraq” word, a word characterized by rape of Geneva Convention and total disregard for the United Nations Charter, smaller nations are not going to trust non-proliferation and rhetoric of nuclear disarmament. We must advocate “total disarmament”. NPT was adopted 40 years ago. Interestingly enough Article VI of the treaty also calls for general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

ABOUT
Shapoor Vali teaches Economics at Fordham University in New York. He is a member of Princeton chapter of Coalition for Peace Action.


Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
default

Equalizer or misdirection?

by yinzer (not verified) on Wed Aug 06, 2008 03:40 PM PDT

There is no proof that Iran is building nuclear weapons, yet that possibility seems to be the central assumption of this topic.

I think it's entirely possible that Iran, Saudi Arabia and other gulf state will have nuclear weapons pointed at each other within the next decade.

But I'd ask another question, in the mixed of the nuclear discussion are we forgeting about the "smaller issues"? Namely, the plight of the Baha'i and for that matter, any legitimate journalism in Iran?

It's not all that long ago that Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi was beaten to death in police custody. The beating did not take place in a remote village, it took place in Teran Iran.

Regardless of your position on Iranian nuclear weapons, do not let the Iranian government off the hook on human rights.


  •  
default

Fred your Mussad was wrong then

by XerXes (not verified) on Wed Aug 06, 2008 08:56 AM PDT

And it's wrong now. Your Israeli intelligence sucks. Nothing could be said as simple as this.
Now I will speak Fred:

The Zionazis sympathizers try to force their One party zionist ideology down everyones throat. The Zionazi anti Islam and anti Christ with their chicken followers are being caged by the public opinion.

The Zionazis anti Islam would give their own parents to kill and destroy all neighboring women and children for their ideology.
with lies:

didn’t the Islamist republic begin its clandestine full cycle dual purpose nuke work some twenty years ago way before “ the reality of post Iraq” ?


  •  
farokh2000

What if they were after the real Nukes!?

by farokh2000 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 07:14 AM PDT

First of all no one has proven that Iran's Nuclear activities are for Military purposes, not UN not U.S..

Second, even if they were, would that be wrong when they are circled by the U.S. Military might and the Countries around them have been occupied by the "Super Power"?

Are they not after Iran's land(Geography) and resources?

Can you ignore this "Fred", or blame them even if they were to protect themselves from the Wolves?

I have no love lost for the Mullahs and wish they could be gone for good from Iran and would not miss seeing any Turbans or Robes in the streets of Tehran, but these people were put in charge by the "Super Power", no?. How do you expalin the fact that it was CIA that protected and hid Khomeni in Iraq for 20 years, safe from the Shah's hands, for a rainy day when they needed him to carry their orders back in Iran. Sadam was their man at the time, carrying their orders in Iraq.

Is this not true "Fred"?

The only reason U.S is so worried about Iran's activities these days is the fact that the Mullah's are not following their orders anylonger, at least it seems that way.

According to the UN inspectors, Iran has not violated any of the NPT's rules. Have they "Fred"?

Meanwhile, U.S. is the only Country on Earth that has used its Nukes to destroy millions of human beings, ever, and have spread/shared their Nuclear knowledge with Israel and other Countries under their wings, against all International Laws. Is this not true "Fred"?


  •  
soufi

To: FRED (Re: A shocker, Islamists have been lying )

by soufi on Wed Aug 06, 2008 07:06 AM PDT

If that is what it takes to defend the Iranian nation, let it be ! I am all for iran having nuke weapons for deterent and defensive purposes.

History of Iran shows that iranians HAVE NOT started a war over the last 200 years. What other guarantees are needed? Bloodsuckers in tel Aviv have started many wars just over the last 50 years and  fyrthermore in their occupation have killed many innocents and they have over 100 nuke weapons stockpiled. What gives?


  •  
default

When evidence is lacking, Fred substitutes sloganeering

by AnonymousWashingtonian (not verified) on Wed Aug 06, 2008 05:00 AM PDT

Fred,

The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which represents the views of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, stated that Iran does not have any active nuclear weapons program (it declared that Iran had stopped its weaponization program in 2003--though the evidence it adduced for the existence of such a program was rather thin). Moreover, I am not aware of the IAEA ever having found evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

Does the Fred Intelligence Estimate have information that it wishes to pass on to the U.S. intelligence agencies and the IAEA? Moreover, Iran's nuclear program started under the "Islamist" Shahanshah Aryamehr Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In fact, it was halted for some time by Khomeini before it was resumed. Do the NIE and IAEA embody "Islamist/Anti-Semites and their likeminded lefty allies"?


  •  
Fred

A shocker, Islamists have been lying

by Fred on Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:04 AM PDT

“Indeed it is necessary for a nation to figure out what CAN happen if they are not self sufficient in military defense. “

So after all the jazz about its civilian nature it is true as alleged that in conjunction with their offensive intercontinental missiles the Islamist republic is after “military” application of full cycle nuke program.


  •  
soufi

Re: Islamist nuke way before "post Iraq" (To: Fred)

by soufi on Tue Aug 05, 2008 09:10 PM PDT

The nuke program may have started after Iranians noted during the war with Iraq that their over $2B military equipment order given by the shah for Iran was not delivered by the US on the ground that "US does not agree with Iran" !!!. Indeed it is necessary for a nation to figure out what CAN happen if they are not self sufficient in military defense.


  •  
Fred

Islamist nuke way before "post Iraq"

by Fred on Tue Aug 05, 2008 03:41 PM PDT

“The disturbing reality of “post Iraq” world is that the most cost-effective military strategy for countries faced with threat from nations with superior conventional military power (and willingness to use it) is for them to go “nuclear”.”

 

Didn’t the Islamist republic begin its clandestine full cycle dual purpose nuke work some twenty years ago way before “ the reality of post Iraq” ?


  •