News ANuclear Proliferation in Iran: A Cause for Concern or an Unfair Target?

[alexandra]

And what are we to conclude from this? That the US Senate (which is the arm of government charged with ratifying treaties) and the Presidents (who are charged with presenting the proposed treaties to the Senate) have found these accords not in keeping with the best interests of the US? Is this criminal? The whole UN idea is based on the fact that different countries are sovreign and able to make their own decisions about agreements.

Yes, but the UN is also based on the idea of international cooperation on matters of common interest. This is how the 'United Nations' is portrayed - a body that works towards furthering the interests of the whole international community. When other states act against what the US governments perceive as being in the US' 'national interests', they are forced to toe the line. The US government, however, does as it pleases. A more truthful argument would be "Ok, we recognise that this seems unfair - but so what? 'Might is right."

Only the UN charter is universal and the US has accepted that; it is constitutionally "the law of the land". So if you want to smear the US government you should focus on our failure to live up to that.

Pardon me, selfAdjoint - it is not my intention to smear anyone. Is it not possible to discuss what is happening, or our perceptions of what is happening? This discussion started off examining what people thought would happen in Iran. It developed, in quite logical fashion, into a discussion about who signed which treaties and who didn't.

And it's just a cheap shot to demonize Bush on this. Democratic Senators have gone along with the rejections too, and the US public is in favor of their decisions.

I have never, in any of my posts, distinguished between the Republican and Democratic Senators. In fact, I do not participate in the discussions/arguments about the 'differences' between these two parties, quite simply because I do not believe there are any substantial differences. Once or twice, I have even pointed this out in previous discussions, clearly stating that IMO there is no difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, or between Mr Bush's and Mr Kerry's policies. IMO Both parties and their members act in the interests of big business.

 

[SOS2008]

In regard to the U.S. public, only a minority is well informed enough to vote intelligently. Perhaps this is why members of Congress, including Dems are not doing a good job (as reflected in polls), and many representatives in the House have no qualifications and no business being in Congress at all.

IMO I feel the U.S. will continue to struggle to lead the world toward anything if the U.S. is not a model for what we ask others to do (i.e., hypocrisy). If it is Bush who makes a policy/policy change, then it is merely stating a fact, and is not Bush-bashing.

In an effort to stay on topic, I add to the discussion on nuclear proliferation only, beginning with this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28806-2004Jul30?language=printer

The US and others have pushed for Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) for many years, as one of many mechanisms to help prevent proliferation, especially by nations termed as “rogue states”, and by terrorists.

However, as reported by papers such as Washington Post (July 31, 2004) and Sydney Morning Herald (August 2, 2004), the Bush Administration announced that it would back out of a nuclear inspections treaty by opposing provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty to ban production of nuclear weapons materials.

As the article notes, “Arms control specialists said the change in the US position would greatly weaken any treaty and make it harder to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists. They said the US move virtually killed a 10-year international effort to persuade countries such as India, Israel and Pakistan to accept some oversight of their nuclear production programs.”

Charges of US hypocrisy abound from this, especially considering this announcement came “several months after President George Bush declared it a top priority to prevent the production and trafficking in nuclear materials.”

Military analyst for the Los Angeles Times reported (January 26, 2003--direct link not available) on “The Nuclear Option in Iraq; The U.S. has lowered the bar for using the ultimate weapon.”

Arkin highlights that “the Bush administration's decision to actively plan for possible preemptive use of such weapons, especially as so-called bunker busters, against Iraq represents a significant lowering of the nuclear threshold. It rewrites the ground rules of nuclear combat in the name of fighting terrorism.”

The BBC also revealed a report from the Los Alamos Study Group, a nuclear disarmament organization, that a leaked document suggests that Washington has had detailed planning for a new generation of smaller nuclear weapons. This has raised further concerns of double standards; that Iraq is not allowed to have such weapons, while the U.S. can, and also breach the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty in the process.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2779069.stm

So now we are demanding that Iran must abandon its nuclear program altogether, even for production of energy. I can’t imagine why they don’t just fall in line and do as we dictate.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I fear the Bush administration more than I fear any external threat.

 

[EnumaElish]

Shouldn't we give a chance to U.N. sanctions before the military option?

 

[SOS2008]

Shouldn't we give a chance to U.N. sanctions before the military option?

Absolutely. You may recall that the U.S. invaded Iraq because they decided against giving UN sanctions any more time to work.

Even Republicans should be concerned, because the biggest threat to U.S. national security is our national debt. Can we afford to spend more on another war of attrition? (Insert Stupid Smilie Here)

 

[selfAdjoint]

Yes, but the UN is also based on the idea of international cooperation on matters of common interest. This is how the 'United Nations' is portrayed - a body that works towards furthering the interests of the whole international community. When other states act against what the US governments perceive as being in the US' 'national interests', they are forced to toe the line. The US government, however, does as it pleases. A more truthful argument would be "Ok, we recognise that this seems unfair - but so what? 'Might is right."

International cooperation is fine, but the Kyoto treaty was (in my perception) a sleazy political deal designed to weigh lightly on those who proposed it and very heavily on the US. Furthermore it wouldn't have stopped global warming even if fully implemented. The President and Senate were right to reject it. Sorry about the O.T. rant but it bugs me.

 

[SOS2008]

International cooperation is fine, but the Kyoto treaty was (in my perception) a sleazy political deal designed to weigh lightly on those who proposed it and very heavily on the US. Furthermore it wouldn't have stopped global warming even if fully implemented. The President and Senate were right to reject it. Sorry about the O.T. rant but it bugs me.

I felt the U.S. couldn't afford to lose any more ground against China (and to a lesser extent, India), who also hasn’t signed it. Nor was I in favor of the U.S. making commitment to providing additional aid to Africa, especially without some kind of guarantee that these countries would manage the funds properly. But we should nonetheless try to be as responsible as we can in regard to the environment, and Bush hasn't been exactly pro-environment on any level.

Back to the main discussion, this business of not signing something doesn't mean it's okay for a country to behave contrary to it, or worse, renege on something that was signed because it is no longer convenient. In regard to nuclear proliferation, the hypocrisy does not make for credibility in our stance toward Iran.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Back to the main discussion, this business of not signing something doesn't mean it's okay for a country to behave contrary to it, or worse, renege on something that was signed because it is no longer convenient. In regard to nuclear proliferation, the hypocrisy does not make for credibility in our stance toward Iran.

I agree with this if you include Germany and other European countries with the US in "our". The history of international response to nuclear research suggests that Iran is being treated unfairly. The UN did not impose sanctions as I recall on India or Pakistan. Sanctions are a miserable tool anyway, look at the mess they made in Iraq.

 

[NewScientist]

The history of international response to nuclear research suggests that Iran is being treated unfairly. The UN did not impose sanctions as I recall on India or Pakistan. Sanctions are a miserable tool anyway, look at the mess they made in Iraq.

A fair point but one must also consider that numerous immmoderate years have passed since the dawning of the nuclear age in Pakistan and India - we have had a massive polarisation in the world between the East and the West, tensions on both sides are extremely high and a very fine balance has evolved. The West cannot exerty too much pressure on the East due to the worry of oil and nor can it use force due to its moral stance. The East can, on the other hand, use violence and other forms of actions not open to the West but is wary that overstepping the mark will cause severe reaction. With this view of a 'powers system' any major advance by one side or the other could lead to a downfall in relations. To this end the West (and some member of the East) are extremely worried about nuclear proliferation outside their sphere of influence, especially in countries like Iran.

The idea of sanctions being a miserable tool is also true to a point, though I believe it would be better to say that untargetted and narrow minded sanctions are the porblem, as some sanctions can be effective.

NS