[Mb-civic] Maybe time to stop trying to destroy the world in order to save it?

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

Here is an informative look at the international dysfunction behind nuclear 
proliferation..


Today's commentary:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-09/29monbiot.cfm

==================================

ZNet Commentary
Proliferation Treaty September 29, 2004
By George  Monbiot 

Of course Iran wants the bomb, and the international system has given it
everything it needs to build one.

Poor Mr Baradei, His mission is a parody: He tells the states (with some
aplomb) They can and cannot have the bomb. Here is the world's most
nonsensical job description. Your duty is to work tirelessly to prevent
the proliferation of nuclear weapons. And to work tirelessly to encourage
the proliferation of the means of building them. This is the task of the
head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei. 

He's an able diplomat, and as bold as his predecessor, Hans Blix, in
standing up to the global powers. But what he is obliged to take away with
one hand, he is obliged to give with the other. His message to the
non-nuclear powers is this: you are not allowed to develop the bomb, but
we will give you the materials and expertise with which you can build one.
It is this mortal contradiction which permitted the government of Iran
this weekend to tell him to bog off. His agency's motto - "Atoms for
Peace" - wasn't always a lie. 

In 1953, when Eisenhower founded it with his famous speech to the United
Nations,(1) people really seemed to believe that nuclear fission could
solve the world's problems. An article in the Herald Tribune, for example,
promised that atomic power would create "an earthly paradise. ... Our
automobiles eventually will have atomic energy units built into them at
the factory so that we will never have to refuel them.... In a relatively
short time we will cease to mine coal."(2) 

Eisenhower seemed convinced that the nuclear sword could be beaten into
the nuclear ploughshare. "It is not enough to take this weapon out of the
hands of the soldiers. It must be put into the hands of those who will
know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace."
The nuclear powers, he said, "should ... make joint contributions from
their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials" which should
then be given to "the power-starved areas of the world", "to provide
abundant electrical energy".(3)

This would give them, he argued, the necessary incentive to forswear the
use of nuclear weapons. The IAEA, its statute says, should assist "the
supplying of materials, equipment, or facilities" to non-nuclear states.
It should train nuclear scientists and "foster the exchange of scientific
and technical information".(4) Its mission, in other words, is to prevent
the development of nuclear weapons, while spreading nuclear technology to
as many countries as possible. It is also responsible for enforcing the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which has the same dual purpose. 

There might have been a case, while Eisenhower's dream could still be
dreamt. But to persist with this programme long after it became clear that
it caused proliferation, not containment, suggests that the global powers
are living in a world of make-believe. The International Atomic Energy
Agency has put nuclear technology "into the hands of those who will know
how to strip its civilian casing and adapt it to the arts of war." It's
not difficult. Every state which has sought to develop a nuclear weapons
programme over the past 30 years - Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan,
North Korea and Iraq - has done so by diverting resources from its nuclear
power programme.(5) 

In some cases they built their weapons with the direct assistance of Atoms
for Peace. India developed its bomb with the help of fissionable material
and expertise from Canada, the United States, Germany, France, Norway and
the United Kingdom. Pakistan was able to answer the threat with the help
of Canada, the United States, Germany, France, Belgium, China and the
United Kingdom. In the name of peace, we equipped these nations for total
war.(6) 

Now there are about 20 countries which, as a result of foreign help for
their civilian nuclear programmes, could, if they choose, become nuclear
weapons states within months.(7) 

When Russia shipped uranium and the technologies required to build a bomb
to Iran, it not only had a right to do so: under the NPT it had a duty to
do so.(8) It's not yet clear whether Iran has stepped over the brink. It
is plainly enriching uranium and producing heavy water, which could enable
it to build both uranium- and plutonium-based bombs. But both processes
are also legitimate means of developing materials for nuclear power
generation. To enrich uranium from power-grade to bomb-grade you need only
pass it through the centrifuges a few more times.(9)

The Non-Proliferation Treaty gives Iran both the right to own the
materials and the cover it requires to use them for a weapons programme. 

If you want to build a bomb, you simply sign the treaties, join the IAEA,
then use your entitlements to do what they were designed to prevent. Iran
certainly has plenty of motives for seeking to become a nuclear power.
Israel has enough nuclear weapons to wipe it off the map. Sheltered by the
US, it has no incentive to dismantle them and sign the NPT. Both the
United States and the United Kingdom have abandoned their own obligations
to disarm, and appear to be contemplating a new generation of nuclear
weapons.(10)

 Both governments have also suggested that they would be prepared to use
 them pre-emptively.(11) 

Iran is surrounded by US military bases, and is one of the two surviving
members of the axis of evil. The other one, North Korea, has been
threatening its neighbours with impunity. Why? Because it has the bomb. If
Iran is not developing a nuclear weapons programme, it hasn't understood
the drift of global politics. 

But what can El Baradei do? He can beg Iran to stop developing enriched
uranium, but the treaty he is supposed to be enforcing gives him no
authority to do so: the government has pointed out that it's legally
entitled to pursue all the processes he fears. This is why he's seeking to
persuade it to stick to "voluntary agreements". I hope I don't need to
explain how dangerous all this is. The official nuclear powers have junked
the NPT, while the non-nuclear powers are using it to develop their own
programmes. 

If Hizbullah clobbers Israel, Israel might turn on Iran, and the Middle
East could go up in nuclear dust, rapidly followed by everyone else who
has decided to join the second nuclear arms race. And the man charged with
preventing this from happening is still facilitating it. The obvious
conclusion is that you can't phase out nuclear weapons without phasing out
nuclear power. 

Now that the old treaty has become worse than useless, now that the
promise of an earthly paradise of free power and electricity too cheap to
meter has been shown to be false, isn't it time for a new nuclear treaty,
based not on Eisenhower's chiliastic fantasy but on grim global realities?
Isn't it time for Mr Baradei to stop destroying the world in order to save
it? 

www.monbiot.com 

References: 

1. Dwight D. Eisenhower, 8th December 1953. Atoms for Peace. Speech to the
United Nations General Assembly. 

2. An article by John O?Neill, published in 1945 in the New York Herald
Tribune, cited by Mohamed ElBaradei, 27th June 2004. Nuclear Power: A Look
At the Future. International Conference on 50 Years of Nuclear Power,
Moscow. 

3. Dwight D. Eisenhower, ibid. 

4. Article III of the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

5. All these states, with the curious exception of Israel, are listed by
Paul Leventhal in an article by William J. Broad, 25th May 2004. Nuclear
Weapons in Iran: Plowshare or Sword? The New York Times. Israel?s weapons
programme, as Mordechai Vanunu showed, was developed at the Israeli Atomic
Energy Commission site at Dimona, home to one of its two nuclear power
plants. 

6. See for example Steven Dolley, 9th June 1998. Indian & Pakistani
Nuclear Tests: Frequently Asked Questions. The Nuclear Control Institute.
http://www.nci.org/i/ip-faq.htm 

7. William J. Broad, 25th May 2004. Nuclear Weapons in Iran: Plowshare or
Sword? The New York Times. 8. See Article IV of the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 

9. Dr Frank Barnaby, author of "How to Build a Nuclear Bomb", pers comm. 

10. See Jonathan Medalia, 8th March 2004. Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator
Budget Request and Plan, FY2005-FY2009. Congressional Research Service -
The Library of Congress; Mark Townsend, 16th June 2002. Secret Plan for
N-bomb Factory. The Observer; Richard Norton-Taylor, 18th June 2002. MoD
Plans £2bn Nuclear Expansion. The Guardian. 

11. Eg Geoff Hoon, 24th March 2002. The Jonathan Dimbleby Show, ITV 1. 



-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, option D 
(up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options (option A - 
1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - up to 3x/day) 
please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded you this email and you 
want to be on our list, send an email to ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which 
option you'd like.



Action is the antidote to despair.  ----Joan Baez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20041001/16cdb58b/attachment.html