Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

ForeignPolicy

Radioactive Hypocrisy: American Hubris Threatens Perpetual Nuclear Proliferation

By Tad Daley, AlterNet. Posted May 15, 2008.


Non-nuclear weapon states shouldn't tolerate the nuclear double standard.
Advertisement

"Why can't we have them when they can?" That, for the "nuclear have-nots," has long been the essence of what some call the nuclear double standard, what others call nuclear narcissism, what others still call America's nuclear hypocrisy.

The bitterness about that double standard has steadily intensified for almost exactly four decades now (the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, was signed on July 1, 1968, and came into force in 1970). Why? Because in the basic bargain of the NPT, the non-nuclear weapon states promised forever to forego nuclear weapons, in exchange for a pair of promises from the nuclear weapon states. First, the nuclear weapon states conceded -- quite explicitly, in Article IV -- that the non-nuclear weapon states possess an "inalienable right" to develop "nuclear energy for peaceful purposes" and even promised "to facilitate" their efforts to do so. Second, the nuclear weapon states promised -- quite explicitly, in Article VI, and reiterated quite explicitly at the NPT Review Conferences in 1995 and 2000 -- to negotiate the complete elimination of their own nuclear arsenals, and eventually to deliver to the human race a nuclear-weapon-free world.

In a speech in Geneva on Monday, May 5, however, Iran's ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, speaking to the preparatory committees that were meeting in advance of the 40 year NPT Review Conference coming up in 2010, offered a more complex and quite illuminating elucidation of the range of grievances held by non-nuclear weapon states regarding the nuclear status quo.

Soltanieh began by complaining about "nuclear apartheid" -- just as his country's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has done many times, and just as Indian government officials did many times a decade ago when they conducted nuclear tests in the spring of 1998 in defiance of world opinion. However, the Iranian ambassador on this day was referring not just generally to the basic nuclear divide, but specifically to the United States imposing harsh export controls on countries like Iran, while at the same time, he claimed, secretly assisting Israel in the development of its sizeable nuclear arsenal.

"Access of developing countries to peaceful nuclear materials and technologies has been continuously denied," Soltanieh said, "to the extent that they have had no choice than to acquire their requirements for peaceful uses of nuclear energy ... from open markets." Usually, he said, that means that countries like his own must purchase items that are more expensive, of poorer quality and less safe.

Therefore, Soltanieh insisted that Iran would not submit to more intrusive IAEA inspections as long as this situation persisted. "The existing double standard shall not be tolerated anymore by non-nuclear weapon states," he said. "No additional measure in strengthening (IAEA) safeguards can be accepted by non-nuclear weapons parties unless these serious constraints and discrimination are removed."

Moreover, Soltanieh continued, "Israel, with huge nuclear weapons activities, has not concluded" any kind of agreement with the IAEA to allow for inspections of its own nuclear facilities.

Now Israel, it must be said, has never signed the NPT, so it is under no international legal obligation to conclude such an agreement. (Nor are the NPT's nuclear weapon states for that matter -- under the NPT, only the non-nuclear weapon states must open themselves to international inspections.) Still, the aspiration for the NPT has always been that it would eventually apply universally. (It is, at present, the most nearly universal treaty in history, as all but four states on the planet -- Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea after its withdrawal -- are members.) Israel's failure to join the regime can hardly be expected to diminish the simmering antipathies -- and not just in Iran -- about the perception that in the nuclear realm, there are different rules for different actors.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: npt, nuclear weapons, iran, hypocrisy

Tad Daley, www.daleyplanet.org, is Writing Fellow with International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, www.ippnw.org, winner of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize. He has served as a foreign policy advisor to Congresswoman Diane Watson, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and the late U.S. Senator Alan Cranston.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Nuclear weapons and the small-war ideology at the Pentagon. . .
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 15, 2008 12:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During the Cold War, it was recognized by military planners that full-scale conflicts would lead to their own extermination with nuclear weapons, and so the focus shifted to the use of small, semi-covert "dirty wars" to achieve "national objectives", which are almost always mainly economic in nature.

Nuclear powers are less likely to be subjected to outright invasion, which is why so many countries want nuclear weapons - they have the examples of Pakistan, Iran and Iraq to look to. Pakistan is a fully nuclear state, and is treated with great respect by the U.S. Iran is borderline, but is an NPT signatory and is working closely with Russia. Iraq had zero nuclear weapons or nuclear program, and was invaded for its oil.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are also now rushing to gain nuclear power, and they would like nuclear weapons for themselves - perhaps as a deterrent against Israel's arsenal of 100+ fission and thermonuclear fission bombs.

Why can't Israel, at this late date, simply admit to the truth of the matter? "We won't say if we have nukes." What does that mean? Should Israel be bombed as a potential terrorist threat, then?

Given all that, it seems pretty obvious that solar and wind are far safer (and truly renewable) energy sources. The deadly hot waste issue, the oops, we left the valve open issue, the Enron-style management issue - at least you can't contaminate an entire state with wind turbines and solar panels.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I still prefer the sun! Posted by: katz22br
» It's amaziing Posted by: bornxeyed
Underlining Theology and Self Fulfilling 'Prophecies'
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 15, 2008 5:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Find a video of Hagee's 'Armegeddon Stratedgy' - Bill Moyer's Journal, or Young Turks online- footage of his agenda. Listen to Parsley...Then see who they are Affliated with in High Places in Gov't. Listen to Mc'Cain' and Hillary's 'foreign Policies...'Bom Bomb Bomb Iran' "Totally Obliterate Iran" to retailate for any action against 'Isreal, Saudia Arabia & The UAE'- funny WE did make that VERY short List for such Use of globally devastating Force(not even our European Allies- Telltale). Funny how neither acknowledges that Iran does NOT have WMD's EITHER (like Iraq- 'fool me once...'apparently is not in their intellectual repetoire.
I have never been so Terrified as I am Right now and the Threat to our national & the interantional Security is being Cultivated in our midst. Anyone & everyone who is affliated with this sociopathic theocracy should be considered Traiors and Terrorist and prosecuted as such! I have no fear of attacks to US from Islamic 'Terrorist' they target the Brick & mortar of the MIC who is Responsible for placing OUR citizens in Harms Way through their domestic (McVey) and Foreign (9/11)Policies and Global Business Practices. The American blood that was Spilt on such events (and the WARS) is squarely found on the Hands of Politicans, Multinational Incs and their Foreign sponsors (saudis/UAE- home of the majority of the 9/11 highjackers,) the REAL countries Aiding & Inciting such terrorist ideology & Actions- they have hidden behind US and Used US as their scapegoats, to avoid responsiblity for what they are doing (and have done) to their own people
We must bring down this 'Ministry of Truth ' which has Endangered not only US but all Mankind!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuke Hypocrisy 101
Posted by: parryisle on May 15, 2008 5:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the time the elder George Bush created this latest mess in the Mideast with HIS WAR there were large scale anti-war demonstrations not only in our country but around the world. I remember Daniel Ellsberg in one of these rallies telling those in attendance, "The U.S. has "used" nuclear weapons twenty-six times." By the word "used" he used the fitting analogy of a bank robber brandishing a weapon to succeed in his crime. Few Americans ever expressed any outrage concerning the aid Washington gave to Israel which gave them a nuclear weapons arsenal. Today it is quite common for Israel's leaders to join our leaders in threatening to use nukes on any nation daring to defy or confront their power. I have not researched the entire 26 threats Ellsberg cites but I do remember soon after the end of World War 2 President Truman threatened the then nukeless Soviets with these weapons to accelerate their departure from Northern Iran. Eisenhow, using Nehru as a courier, threatened another nation lacking such weaponry, Red China, to bring them to the table to end the conflict in Korea. The U.S. has NEVER theatened to use these weapons on either nation since they acquired a nuke capability to retaliate in kind. The lesson to all nations is if you lack these weapons you will forever be threatened or intimidated until you do attain the ability to stand up to U.S./Israel power with your own nuke arsenal. Steve, USN, WW2

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nuke Hypocrisy 101 Posted by: woodford54
Terrytom Truthand logic
Posted by: terryton on May 15, 2008 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article should be a must read for everyone. It says with good facts what I have been saying for 30 years. Now under Bush the sociopath serial killer by proxy it is much worse.
We have violated these treaties and agreements from the start and continue to do so. We in order to terrorize the world have never signed the “no first strike agreement” a fact not mentioned. Our double dealing, our threats and arrogance are a great cause of fear and anger towards our nation. Fear driven politics in America may cause citizen fools to give up their constitutional rights. Fear driven politics when dealing with other nations causes distrust and measures of self-protection. If I were a small nation in the Middle East I would for sure want a bomb with which to retaliate.
With our constant threats of violence and in many cases doing violence we yes we the Great United States of America are the supreme terrorists on the planet.
God forgive America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iran and nukes
Posted by: fanny666 on May 15, 2008 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran. Sayyid Ali Khamenei is. Ahmadinejad must take orders from Khamenei. Khamenei has issued a fatwa (religious edict), stating that for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is haram (forbidden). These people are mostly Shia, they believe that Ayatollahs are holy, like Catholics and the Pope. His word is law.

Iran has not done ANYTHING illegal, according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). We, however, do not follow article 6.

I don't want to see Iran with a nuclear weapon, but the best way to prevent that is to stop threatening them, and to tell Israel to stop threatening them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Iran and nukes Posted by: woodford54
Great idea!
Posted by: Axiom69 on May 15, 2008 9:31 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Non-nuclear weapon states shouldn't tolerate the nuclear double standard."

YES! It's unfair that a country that calls for wiping it's neighbor off that map is not allowed to have a nuclear bomb.

Hello? You cannot apply western values to eastern peoples. Does anyone notice that we don't have Americans, Brits or Aussies blowing themselves up on a daily basis? That's because we don't believe 70 virgins are waiting for us if we do. Give some of these countries the bomb and you can bet one of them will light the match as he imagines what his virgins are going look like.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Great idea! Posted by: woodford54
More Nuclear Weapons, you need to go get help, seriously go get some real help..
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 15, 2008 11:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wish you could all have just once stood like me and seen Nuclear weapons these were tactical and I won't tell you where they were but rows and rows of them..

If any one of you thinks that any other nation than those who already unfortunately do have these weapons should be added to the ranks of the arguably insane, then you need to go get help..seriously if you only knew what I know and how sick it is the we the United States still have 10,000 nuclear warheads and even actually more than that considering small tactical weapons rather than larger strategic and Russia has 7,000 plus strategic warheads and theirs have even larger yields than our biggest ones, due to their missiles having less accuracy than ours so they compensated with through weights of over 50 Megatons..at times..

1 Megaton is equal to 1 million Tons of TNT but that's just the explosive power the gamma rays, radiation is they seldom tell you about..let alone the particular radiation..

The bomb we dropped on Hiroshima was only 14 kilotons or 140,000 tons of TNT not one Megaton the Nagasaki Bomb was more like 20 kilotons these are nothing compared to thermo nuclear devices of 1-50 MEGATON..

An some of you argue others should have this..go get help..seriously you really do need help..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Fear driven Posted by: yale
» RE: Fear driven Posted by: TJ-stars4peace
World Government is Necessary for Deterrance and Non-Proliferation
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on May 15, 2008 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the biggest problems the world has in regards to nuclear weapons is that some countries have them and the rest don't. This creates a power disparity and these smaller nations like Iran want to level the playing field to ensure that they won't be invaded and have their sovereignty ignored.

A world government that had a stockpile of nuclear weapons is the answer.

Members of the world government would have to agree to give up their nukes in exchange for membership to the World Government. Since the U.S. would rightfully never tolerate being ruled by dictators in other countries there would need to be some standards for entry into the World Government.

Free and fair elections to select representatives of member nations in the World Government, minimum human rights standards in member nations, a House and a Senate so populous nations cannot run roughshod over smaller nations and vice versa. (The U.N.'s method of President's appointing representatives to it never sat well with me, why shouldn't the U.S. citizens get to select who represents us there?)


The major problem I see with such a government is the same problem I see with the federal government we have today, it would start out with limited specified powers and before long any idea of federalism would be gone.

Before we knew it, it would be creating social programs up the wazoo with our tax money going to families around the world where they have an average of 5 kids per couple. Other countries would try legislating morality in our country and vice versa.


It would definitely be complicated, greater care and thought would need to be taken, lessons of how our federal government grew into a titan would have to be learned and applied to prevent it from happening again, but ultimately I do think a World Government would serve to end nuclear weapons proliferation.

It would give incentive for dictators and other nations with poor human rights records to change so that they can become members and be protected from outside aggressors by the World Government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NWO Kooks Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
THE U.S. IS USING "NUCLEAR WEAPONS" IN IRAQ TODAY
Posted by: Quannah on May 15, 2008 10:48 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They are using depleted uranium (DU) shells - armor-piercing shells - in Iraq and Afghanistan TODAY. It is causing untold damage to the health of our service personnel, and even more to civilian populations of those two countries. Children are especially vulnerable.

AND NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT IT!

Radioactive particles, once inside the body, cannot be removed. Ever. And they begin to do damage immediately. They alter the chromosomal structure and cause all kinds of physical problems, not the least of which is cancer.

Women in Afghanistan are suffering very high rates of miscarriage where depleted uranium shells have been used.

DU gets into the dust. It's airborne during storms. It gets tracked into homes. It gets breathed into people's lungs. It gets ingested. It's a dark side of this war that nobody is talking about, and I don't for the life of me understand why. It's a weapon of mass destruction - and we're using it on our own military personnel.

Sure, it isn't the mushroom cloud bomb that most people are familiar with, but it's deadly, nonetheless. And we need to do something to stop this madness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the big stick
Posted by: mayall13 on May 18, 2008 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the beginning the American government and the military has sought to maintain control of nuclear weapons technology as its private reserve.
Very early on General Leslie Groves wrote:
"If we are truly realistic, instead of idealistic, as we appear to be, we would not permit any foreign power with which we are not firmly allied, and in which we do not have absolute confidence, to make or possess atomic weapons. If such a country started to make atomic weapons we would destroy its capacity to make them before it had progressed far enough to threaten us....Either we must have a hard-boiled, realistic, enforceable, world-agreement ensuring the outlawing of atomic weapons or we and our dependable allies must have an exclusive supremacy in the field, which means that no other nation can be permitted to have atomic weapons." or as Nobel laureate Joseph Rotbalt wrote: "The new age was conceived in secrecy and usurped even before birth by one state in order to gain political dominance."
Since those early days these ideas still hold sway in our use and approach to nuclear technology...it is ours to use and control and others may have access only at our behest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]