I was reading the latest garbage on the Economist on Iran’s nuclear programme. I say ‘garbage’ because it is the same Economist that fully and unequivocally supported Bush’s unprovoked attack on Iraq in 2003; the same Economist that only grudgingly criticized sanctions against Iraq for over a decade prior to that murderous attack; a sanctions regime that led to half a million deaths among Iraqi children – ‘justifiably’ so, according to Mad Albright.
Now the same Economist is pushing for sanctions and a military campaign against Iran. So what I want to discuss is not so much the details of Iran’s nuclear programme, rather the colonial mindset of garbage producers like the Economist and their ilk.
To do that, let me quote the closing paragraph of the said article (Economist, Dec. 5 2009 issue, p. 29):
So which will it be: a war with Iran or a nuclear-armed Iran? Short of a revolution that sweeps away the Iranian regime – ushering in one that agrees, like post-apartheid South Africa, to give up its nuclear technology – sanctions may offer the only hope of avoiding the awful choice’.
First, let me address the sanctions/war ‘apologists’ amongst us: please note that the proposed sanctions/war would actually apply to any Iranian regime. It is irrelevant who governs Iran. What the Economist is saying is that Iran should face sanctions or war unless it gives up its ‘nuclear technology’. And if there is a regime change in Iran, the requirement that Iran must capitulate to the wishes of the West will remain.
So, let us all realise that we are dealing with a pig, despite her lipstick. This particular pig is saying that Iranians may not have nuclear technology of the kind that many other countries have, including Pakistan, Israel, Germany, France, Japan etc. Again, please note, it is not the bomb that is being disputed, but possession of the know-how itself.
This brings me to the second point: the Economist wants Iran to give up its ‘nuclear technology’. What exactly does this mean? I don’t want to open a technical argument here. It is far simpler than that: you either know how to master nuclear technology or you do not. The knowledge exists in human resources first, and materials and equipment next.
How is it possible to ‘give up’ such technology? Other than complete capitulation of national sovereignty and the right to self-govern/self-learn, how is this possible?
Actually, it is worse than that: it is not about self-government even. It is about agreeing to an externally-imposed limit on scientific knowledge. It is about giving up the right to learn physics. I for one am not sure how this is even possible in a practical sense. We would basically have to self-censure our learning and textbooks because some other countries told us to do it.
This brings me to the third point: who gave the Economist the right to assume to know or determine who has the right to such knowledge? Or even the right to such weapons?
Of course the Economist is all about the expression of opinion, and they have the right to roll out their garbage year in year out. But it must be clear to you that I am just using the article as a reflection of western double standards and actual (real) policies. So let me turn to the West directly, and ask ‘who has the right to determine such rights’?
What we have in effect is a club of nuclear powers, a number of which (e.g. Japan and Germany) have nuclear weapons capability and could produce bombs quite quickly at any time.
And let us be clear: Iran is actively being prevented from reaching this level of technology development, rather than bomb possession itself. A small group of countries in the world have decided that Iran does not have the right to possess certain aspects of the science of physics.
Essentially, it is about ‘book burning’.
The futility and stupidity – not to mention the insult – of the exercise must be clear to most of us. Sooner or later, the time is coming when nuclear/chemical/biological weapons can be produced in relatively small laboratories and carried in briefcases: how will the ‘elite’ countries manage the situation then?
They could bomb all schools in other countries perhaps?
This brings us to the question of a remedy for the situation. What can be done? Again, I will refrain from attempting any technical discussion, but will stick to the ‘philosophical’: how does one ‘cure’ a disease – a growing problem such as this nuclear proliferation?
Well there are many ways, but dealing with the symptoms (like headaches or inflammation) does not ‘cure’. It simply relieves the discomfort until the disease is cured – often by the body’s defences alone.
Sometimes, the body’s defences do not manage to cure the disease, yet the symptoms are suppressed by medication for a while until the disease spreads and erupts in a much more severe form with added complications from secondary infections. This I guess is how AIDS or cancer can become uncontrollable.
This latter course is where we are heading on the nuclear issue if we continue to be ‘led’ (or better say ‘force-fed’) by the type of elitist, unfair, self-defeating, garbage ‘advice’ given by the likes of the Economist. Why? Simple: there is no trust in the actions of anyside in this dispute. Unilateral, secretive ‘action’ is totally justified.
Both Iran and her opposition – the Security Council, Israel and Germany – are acting as self-serving, manipulative, power-hungry parties that have no real interest in nuclear disarmament at all. What they are fighting over is who should have nuclear weapons technology, and this is a fight that is bound to have more losers than winners. It can only accelerate the rush to building more nuclear weapons, as these seem to bring privileges and unfair advantages for some nations at the direct expense ofothers. So somebody somewhere will break out of the mould and produce something really nasty without anyone noticing it.
One of these advantages is virtual (though not total) immunity from any serious attack by a foreign power. This is why Iran wants it and Israel is so desperate to ensure that it does not get it. Unfortunately for Israel, any fair-minded person would see Iran’s right to self-defence as long as Israel has such weapons.
Any serious person can see that a realsolution would have to be a multilateral one that does not isolate any particular country for chastisement. That way, any country or group that steps out of line would subject itself to discipline. The current path, however, leaves Iran looking like the victim in the eyes of impartial observers.
Not in the eyes of the Economist, mind you. Then again, what is an economist doing giving advice on global security issues? Perhaps best if they would stick to economics? But they could not even manage to see the financial crisis coming, could they?
Pigs can‘t fly, but with the right lipstick, they obviously can imitate economists who dish out global security advice. God-awful choice-makers.
