by Tahir Mustafa (Main Stories, Crescent International Vol. 52, No. 10, Jumada' al-Ula', 1444)
Despite Iran’s invitation on November 10 to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to visit Tehran to discuss the issue of alleged traces of uranium particles at three sites, the following day (November 11), four countries still issued a demand. Led by the US, Britain, France and Germany called upon the IAEA board to pass a resolution calling it “essential and urgent” for Iran to explain the uranium traces in question. Why was it necessary to make such a demand when Iran had already extended an invitation to the IAEA to visit the country?
This reflects the hypocrisy that surrounds the nuclear issue. Three of the four countries that made a demand of Iran are nuclear-weapons states. They have demonstrably failed to fulfill their obligations under the nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). So, what legal or moral authority do they have to make such a demand?
The world unfortunately is not governed by the rule of law. The threat of the use of brute force determines most countries’ policies. That is why those with military power and nuclear weapons make ludicrous demands of non-nuclear states.
Iran is not making a bomb. Nuclear weapons are not part of its defence strategy so why continue harping on them? It is meant to pressure Iran to abandon its independent policy and force it to comply with the west’s exploitative demands. Since Iran refuses to surrender its sovereignty and independence, it is subjected to inhumane sanctions, vile propaganda and military threats.
There is not even a hint that the zionist state of Israel be made to comply with its nuclear obligations. The Tel Aviv regime is believed to possess between 80 to 400 nuclear weapons. Information has now emerged that the zionist entity had dumped biological pathogens in Palestinian villages to spread disease and cause suffering among Palestinians.
Let us consider the conduct of the major nuclear weapon states: the US, Russia, France, Britain, China and Israel. Barring China, the others have at one stage or another threatened to use nuclear weapons or supported their use by one of their allies. They deserve to be called nuclear lepers.
The NPT was signed in 1968 placing certain obligations on the signatories. The treaty went into effect in 1970 for an initial period of 25 years. In 1995, the NPT was extended indefinitely, with the proviso that a review conference would be held every five years.
At the 1995 Review and Extension Conference, there emerged deep divisions between the nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states about the terms of extension of the Treaty. The non-nuclear states pointed out that nuclear armed states had failed to fulfill their obligations under Article VI of the NPT: namely, serious steps toward reducing and ultimately abolishing all nuclear weapons. Instead, these states, especially the US and Russia, have developed more lethal nuclear weapons.
Much worse, they are even threatening to use them. The war in Ukraine has provided the backdrop for such threats. The US followed Russia’s threat to use nuclear weapons. This was spelled out in the US National Security Strategy document released on October 12. It was followed two weeks later by the Pentagon’s release of the National Defense Strategy (NDS), Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), and Missile Defense Review (MDR).
Both documents make grim reading. Commenting on the madness contained in the two documents, Stephen Young of the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote on his twitter account: US nuclear forces are designed so
@POTUS could have 10 minutes to decide the fate of humanity, from when the 1st warning comes until incoming warheads explode. There is no coming back from a launch based on faulty information or made by a president unhinged from reality.
While targeting Iran for its non-existent nuclear weapons program, the western lepers and their allies have opposed every attempt to make the Middle East a nuclear-free zone. On October 28, the United Nations General Assembly First Committee, which deals with disarmament and international security issues, called on Israel to get rid of all its atomic weapons and place its nuclear sites under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency in a 152 to 5 vote.
Five countries—Canada, Israel, Micronesia, Palau and the United States—opposed the resolution over the “risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.” Twenty-four other countries abstained, including members of the European Union.
The resolution, submitted by Egypt, was sponsored by the Palestinian Authority and 19 countries, including Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates.
The world is already a dangerous place with $1.7 trillion spent annually on acquiring weapons. Even if half of this money were spent on alleviating hunger, poverty and disease, life for the vast majority of people in the world would be a lot better. Alas, that is not the case.
Add to that the wars raging in different parts of the world, necessitating the use of massive stockpile of weapons, and life for most people, especially in the global South, is extremely precarious. In recent weeks, heightened threats of the use of nuclear weapons have been made. Given their lethality, the use of nuclear weapons can wipe out much of the world’s population.