About a month ago, while living on a kibbutz at the northern tip of Israel’s Negev desert, I had my first frightening encounter with Israeli racism. It was only a matter of time.
It started when my friends and I met a group of Israeli Arabs staying on the kibbutz while they butchered meat in an area slaughterhouse for the upcoming Jewish holidays. Israeli Arabs are citizens of the state who live within Israeli territory, primarily in segregated villages where infrastructure and educational needs are bureaucratically ignored by the Israeli government. Theoretically, Israeli Arabs possess full and equal rights, though this is not the case in practice.
Having assumed that the kibbutz would be completely segregated, we were surprised to find the workers living nearby and decided to make friends. Many of them were around our age and were extremely welcoming. We drank coffee and smoked cigarettes in their room, speaking in Hebrew about Nazareth, Israeli women, etc. For a bunch of inexperienced young American Jews, this was an interesting and unexpected social interaction.
Our third visit, however, wrought significant drama. After leaving the workers’ room, one of my friends realized that she had left her cell phone inside. When she tried to retrieve it, they denied that the phone was there and refused to return it. When another friend tried calling the vmissing cell phone, no one heard a ring as it had apparently been shut off and hidden.
Though only a petty theft, the aftermath of this incident embodied some of the volatile tensions in Israeli society. My friend–extremely irritated–reported the stolen phone to the kibbutz manager, a college-educated young woman who responded with alarming fury. Such a theft was intolerable; she insisted that the entire group of a dozen or so workers be kicked off the kibbutz and their employer never again house butchers there. She sanctimoniously informed us that this is what we get for befriending the workers because this is what Arabs do: They lie and cheat and steal. She apologized for not calling the group Israelis, but to her, “They are only Israelis on paper, they are not real Israelis.”
Fearing lost wages if kicked off the kibbutz, our more familiar acquaintances quickly spoke up and offered to cover the cost of the phone. It became clear through our conversation that one individual was primarily responsible for the theft, and that forcing the entire group off the kibbutz was an unfair collective punishment.
Ultimately, their employer fired the responsible worker so that the rest of the group could stay through the duration of their employment. Yet the whole saga remains profoundly unsettling. The irrational rage that the kibbutz manager unleashed reflects an Israeli social order that breeds fear and hatred and refuses to acknowledge, among its Arab neighbors, the legitimacy of working for one’s livelihood. She instantaneously labeled every Arab guest as guilty, reflecting the hypocritical application of judicial ethics: Any principle of due process applies only to Jews.
Furthermore, my friends and I spontaneously came to possess an absurd amount of power over the lives of people we knew absolutely nothing about. As a group of privileged American post-graduates spending a year abroad for our own edification, we found several much older men–laboring for their own and their families’ subsistence–begging us to allow them to stay. As guests of the Israeli kibbutzniks, we were allied with the authoritative party, so should we have persisted in our outrage, the kibbutz manager would have kicked out the entire group. Since we were tepid with our blame, she decided to be lenient.
The overall lesson is a depressing one: It is practically impossible for Jewish Israelis to integrate Arab Israelis into their midst with any shard of equality. The workers were on the kibbutz to fill a labor void and to bring revenue to the kibbutz; they were allowed to stay only out of paranoid and reluctant pragmatism. When the tiniest of crises reared its head, the response of the Israeli woman in charge was pathological. As her guest, she expected us to adopt such a tic ourselves. •
Sidebar:
Israeli demographics
According to the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook) the total Israeli population is 6,352,117. 74.6% (approximately 4.74 million) of the population is Jewish, 23.6% (1.5 million) Arab. Some segments of the Jewish population live in areas that the international community does not recognize as Israeli territory: about 187,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, about 20,000 in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights on the Syrian border, and about 177,000 in East Jerusalem.
The Arab population can be divided into three categories: Israelis with citizenship (above), residents of Israeli territory that do not have citizenship, and citizens of territory governed by the Palestinian Authority in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. It is not clear how Arab residents of Israel who do not hold citizenship are counted in these statistics. Territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority: 1,428,757 Arab Muslims in Gaza, and 2,460,492 in the West Bank.
----
Kibbutzim
The kibbutz (plural: kibbutzim) is an important installation in Israeli society. Kibbutzim were founded around the time of Israeli independence in the 1940s and 1950s as experimental socialist farms, driven by an ideology of Jews connecting with their land through manual labor. In the decades since their founding, kibbutzim have become progressively privatized and now employ many foreign laborers, primarily Thai, as well as Israeli Arabs, to perform the more undesirable labor. Currently, approximately 3 percent of the Israeli population lives on kibbutzim.
Showing posts with label middle east. Show all posts
Showing posts with label middle east. Show all posts
Feb 23, 2008
From the Midwest to the Middle East: Dispatches from the holy land
Before I left Ohio to spend a year studying and volunteering in Israel, I emailed a family friend who had just returned from a semester here, to express my sadness that the result of Jewish suffering has been to inflict suffering onto other peoples. While I take pride in Israel’s successes as a modern society with a high standard of living and a thriving intellectual, literary, and creative culture, the consequences of Israeli militarism often eclipse these brighter points. My correspondence with this friend began amidst Israel’s bombardments of the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon, as news of the rising Palestinian, Lebanese and Israeli death tolls cycled in. It was not a sunny moment.
My comment was a relatively simpleminded observation: After nearly two millennia of virtual pacifism, Jews in Israel have developed a powerful military force with a corresponding impulse to dominate any foe. The lingering humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip is evidence of the stark consequences of this arrangement. After Jewish residents were evacuated from Gaza last summer, the Israeli Defense Forces have continued a fierce military and economic siege that keeps Gaza, the most densely populated patch of land on the planet, in a constant state of crisis regarding food, water, sanitary conditions and electricity. Objectively, it’s a human cage; disagreement is only over the cause.
The response to my email by my friend and our families was interesting. News of my comments spread rapidly and an ideological alarm was sounded: Criticism of Israeli behavior is evidence of a traitorous Jew, a pro-Palestinian backslider. A famous quote by former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was invoked more than once. “Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs learn to love their children more than they hate us.” I had never fully realized the potency of the American Jewish bottom line and the rapidity with which any dissenting opinion should be squelched. As I prepared to depart for Israel, the challenge of developing a conscientious and ethically sound relationship with this country started coming into clear focus.
This personal episode is relevant because it reflects a frequent phenomenon among the American Jewish community at large. While there is a wide political spectrum in Israel with contentious arguments over every policy, especially settlements and major military operations, it is taboo to mimic these arguments in the organized Jewish community. Great organizational energy is instead directed at the narrowly defined concept of “support for Israel,” which entails total approval of everything that goes on here, so as not to fuel the nation’s anti-Semitic enemies.
Defining support for Israel in this manner preserves a binary that paints Israel as the morally pristine peace-seeking party left with no choice when dealing with the hostile, anti-democratic terrorists that surround them. This binary rejects the legitimacy of Arab grievances, making peaceful settlement a categorical impossibility and failing to acknowledge Israel’s role in creating its own enemies.
In a controversial article published in the London Review of Books, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt dissect American support for Israel, emphasizing non-Jewish neoconservative leaders who are equally intolerant of criticism of Israel. Walt and Mearsheimer ridicule the idea that open debate, by threatening the status quo, endangers Israel’s existence, and argue conversely that the status quo is extremely dangerous to both Israel and America. The status quo guarantees decades and decades of additional conflict, and makes the recruitment of radical militant enemies a certainty. It guarantees the intensification of anti-American opinion in the Arab world and underscores America’s arrogance in unilaterally charting the course for this region.
Additionally, the suppression of dissenting opinion is a great loss to Israeli peace organizations’ desperate fight to chart a less bloody future. Without a significant counterpart in American politics, Israeli doves cannot generate the necessary power and momentum to undermine the supremacy of their country’s military establishment and move toward a more sincere and lasting settlement.
American Jews frequently tout their role in the civil rights movement and identify the recent suffering of the Jewish people as a driving force in preventing the suffering of others. Clearly, however, the civilian death toll in Lebanon and the lingering humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip undermine such claims, as the September InterActivist’s interview with Jehan Mullin demonstrates. (To receive a PDF version of September’s edition, email theinteractivist@gmail.com) There are enormous ethical and humanitarian issues relating the state of Israel, and as a young Jew deeply invested in the longevity of his people, I feel a responsibility to work sincerely toward resolving these issues during my lifetime. •
Ben Mendelsohn graduated from Ohio University in August, 2006 with a degree in English literature and film. He is currently living and volunteering in Tel Aviv, Israel.
My comment was a relatively simpleminded observation: After nearly two millennia of virtual pacifism, Jews in Israel have developed a powerful military force with a corresponding impulse to dominate any foe. The lingering humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip is evidence of the stark consequences of this arrangement. After Jewish residents were evacuated from Gaza last summer, the Israeli Defense Forces have continued a fierce military and economic siege that keeps Gaza, the most densely populated patch of land on the planet, in a constant state of crisis regarding food, water, sanitary conditions and electricity. Objectively, it’s a human cage; disagreement is only over the cause.
The response to my email by my friend and our families was interesting. News of my comments spread rapidly and an ideological alarm was sounded: Criticism of Israeli behavior is evidence of a traitorous Jew, a pro-Palestinian backslider. A famous quote by former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir was invoked more than once. “Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs learn to love their children more than they hate us.” I had never fully realized the potency of the American Jewish bottom line and the rapidity with which any dissenting opinion should be squelched. As I prepared to depart for Israel, the challenge of developing a conscientious and ethically sound relationship with this country started coming into clear focus.
This personal episode is relevant because it reflects a frequent phenomenon among the American Jewish community at large. While there is a wide political spectrum in Israel with contentious arguments over every policy, especially settlements and major military operations, it is taboo to mimic these arguments in the organized Jewish community. Great organizational energy is instead directed at the narrowly defined concept of “support for Israel,” which entails total approval of everything that goes on here, so as not to fuel the nation’s anti-Semitic enemies.
Defining support for Israel in this manner preserves a binary that paints Israel as the morally pristine peace-seeking party left with no choice when dealing with the hostile, anti-democratic terrorists that surround them. This binary rejects the legitimacy of Arab grievances, making peaceful settlement a categorical impossibility and failing to acknowledge Israel’s role in creating its own enemies.
In a controversial article published in the London Review of Books, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt dissect American support for Israel, emphasizing non-Jewish neoconservative leaders who are equally intolerant of criticism of Israel. Walt and Mearsheimer ridicule the idea that open debate, by threatening the status quo, endangers Israel’s existence, and argue conversely that the status quo is extremely dangerous to both Israel and America. The status quo guarantees decades and decades of additional conflict, and makes the recruitment of radical militant enemies a certainty. It guarantees the intensification of anti-American opinion in the Arab world and underscores America’s arrogance in unilaterally charting the course for this region.
Additionally, the suppression of dissenting opinion is a great loss to Israeli peace organizations’ desperate fight to chart a less bloody future. Without a significant counterpart in American politics, Israeli doves cannot generate the necessary power and momentum to undermine the supremacy of their country’s military establishment and move toward a more sincere and lasting settlement.
American Jews frequently tout their role in the civil rights movement and identify the recent suffering of the Jewish people as a driving force in preventing the suffering of others. Clearly, however, the civilian death toll in Lebanon and the lingering humanitarian crisis in the Gaza strip undermine such claims, as the September InterActivist’s interview with Jehan Mullin demonstrates. (To receive a PDF version of September’s edition, email theinteractivist@gmail.com) There are enormous ethical and humanitarian issues relating the state of Israel, and as a young Jew deeply invested in the longevity of his people, I feel a responsibility to work sincerely toward resolving these issues during my lifetime. •
Ben Mendelsohn graduated from Ohio University in August, 2006 with a degree in English literature and film. He is currently living and volunteering in Tel Aviv, Israel.
Iran and the nuclear issue: a critical view
The Bush administration has not ruled out a military intervention against Iran. It is opposed to Iran’s development of a capacity to enrich uranium as one major step toward creating a nuclear power industry. The administration fears that, once Iran has this capacity, it will have the potential means for building nuclear weapons. And, because it has defined Iran as a “terrorist state” that cannot be trusted to have nuclear weapons, the administration insists Iran must be stopped now. I am not convinced that Iran is a terrorist, or rogue, state. And I am opposed to any US military intervention against Iran. My reading has led me to believe that it would be foolhardy and very costly to the US economically and militarily, would provide momentum for the further consolidation of an imperial presidency and the stifling of democracy here in the US, would have devastating consequences for Iran, would likely generate more conflict across the Middle East, and would likely strengthen the position of Islamic fundamentalists in Iran and across the Middle East.
At the same time, the administration’s position does not seem unreasonable when it is considered out of context. Indeed, most of us do not want to see a further proliferation of states with nuclear weapons. The chances of nuclear war, by design or accident, and the chances that terrorist groups will acquire the materials for building a nuclear bomb, increase as more countries have the bomb. There is already a massive amount of nuclear material that is unaccounted for and possibly accessible to terrorist groups. It would not take very many nuclear bombs to generate a “nuclear winter” and end civilization as we know it. Along with global warming, it is one of the great threats to our very survival as a species.
Even though Iran has a right to develop nuclear power for civilian and/or peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), I personally am opposed to nuclear power to generate electricity, because of the dangers of accidents at nuclear plants, the accumulation of highly radioactive waste at these plants, the lack of effective means to dispose of nuclear waste, the contamination of soil and water sources around nuclear plants, the lack of options for what to do with highly contaminated nuclear plants when they are too old to go on operating, the vulnerability of nuclear facilities to terrorist attacks, and the increased chance that terrorists will be able to obtain materials for the construction of nuclear weapons. In her new book, Nuclear Power is Not the Answer, Helen Calicott discusses these problems in some detail, and also adds, “Nuclear power is not ‘clean and green,’ as the industry claims, because large amounts of traditional fossil fuels are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run nuclear power reactors, to construct the massive concrete reactor buildings, and to transport and store the toxic radioactive waste created by the nuclear process.”
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
This treaty provides the basic legal framework of issues regarding both nuclear power generation for electricity and the development of the capacity to build nuclear weapons. While the International Atomic Energy Agency is given the authority to monitor the nuclear facilities of signatories, the NPT has no enforcement provision, although violations may be referred to the UN Security Council for action if there is concern that there is an imminent threat to other countries. In the present Iranian case, European countries outside of the UN framework have been attempting to persuade Iran not to go ahead with its development of nuclear power. The matter has been brought to the UN’s Security Council, and Iran has been given a deadline for giving up this project. The United States is on record of wanting to impose sanctions on Iraq if it fails to comply with the deadline and of keeping “all options on the table,” including military intervention.
There are at least four nuclear powers that have not signed the NPT – Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. The United States has diplomatic relations and other relations with three of the four illegal nuclear powers. Even though India is a nuclear renegade, the Bush administration has recently entered into an agreement with the Indian government to provide it with nuclear components for its nuclear power plants. India has the capacity to enrich uranium for both peaceful and military purposes. There is no way to keep India from using nuclear components for military purposes, even when an agreement prohibits this.
The United States itself also violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the NPT in another way. Article VI of the treaty, the disarmament provision, requires countries with nuclear weapons to eliminate these weapons. The Bush administration has done little to comply with this provision. It has over 10,000 nuclear bombs, some ready for launching and some deactivated but not dismantled. It is developing new types of nuclear bombs. It is modernizing its nuclear arsenal, which may require testing. It has failed to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It is going ahead with the development of missile systems that will enhance the ability of the United States to launch or intercept nuclear bombs and to militarize space
Helping frame the issue
Many experts believe that Iran is five to ten years away from being able to build nuclear weapons. The Iranians are obviously making technological progress and are now able, for the first time, to enrich small quantities of uranium, which moves them closer to the point of being able to produce energy for peaceful purposes. They are still a long way from being able to enrich weapon grade uranium. Within the present NPT framework, Iran does have the right to develop a nuclear power capacity under Article IV.
Iran has consistently claimed that it will not divert materials from its non-military nuclear facilities for the development of nuclear weapons. Can we believe them? Diversion is possible at some point in 5-10 years to come. The United States says, if Iran has the opportunity, it will divert. The IAEA says it doesn’t know. How do United States officials know? They don’t. There is no hard evidence at present that Iran is in violation of the NPT itself. All of its current activities with respect to nuclear research and uranium enrichment conform to what is permitted under the treaty.
Whatever Iran’s goals for the future, there are understandable reasons why Iran would want to develop a nuclear-weapons capacity at some point in their future. Here are just four examples of the relevant evidence from the Monthly Review (April, 2006). First, Iran “is surrounded by countries with weapons of mass destruction: including Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan, all of which have nuclear weapons (as well as chemical and probably biological weapons capabilities), Syria and Egypt, both of which have chemical weapons, and Turkey, with its NATO-based nuclear weapons and massive military capacities.” Also noteworthy is the fact that “there are now 200,000 US and allied troops in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. The United States has military bases almost completely ringing Iran in Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgzstan.” Meanwhile “…US nuclear weapons deployment in and around the Persian Gulf, especially through the presence of the US Fifth Fleet in the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, represent a constant threat to Iran.” And of course, we cannot forget the “State of the Union” address where Bush stated that “The US declared Iran a member of the ‘Axis of Evil’ in 2002 and claimed it has a right to ‘preventive war’ against such ‘evil’ states. This threat was subsequently carried out in the case of Iran’s neighbor Iraq.”
One of the Bush administration’s central contentions is that Iran is especially dangerous – a rogue state – “and will use nuclear weapons against Israel once it has them” and/or give them to terrorists to use against the United States itself. Randal Mark disagrees with this view and offers the following reasons (source: Randal Mark, “Nonproliferation: From Noble Lie to Pretext for War,” www.antiwar.com March 21, 2006):
• “…the modern Iranian regime has never invaded any other country”
• “Such support as it has given to Hezbollah and other resistance groups fighting Israel should be compared with US support for the Contras in Nicaragua” – such activities have been focused and will be evaluated variously depending on one’s perspective.
Does the United States have a “hidden agenda?” There is no definitive answer to this question. Nonetheless, my sources refer, for example, to how the Bush administration wants to eliminate a state that is defined as unfriendly and prevent it from consolidating its control of a major source of oil, limit Iran’s agreements with China to develop some of the Iranian oil fields, and divert the public’s attention away from the debacle in Iraq.
The Bush administration is not opposed to the on-going negotiations involving the IAEA and some European countries with Iran. However, it has not been willing itself to become directly involved in negotiations with Iran, so it hasn’t put the diplomatic option to a real test. A number of sources maintain that the United States has to drop its preconditions for negotiations and drop its regime change ambitions.
At the same time, the administration has never given up the military option, which the President believes is a decision he can make independently of the US Congress. The Bush administration has not ruled out a preventive-strike against Iran. That said, the United States is prepared to launch an air attack against selected targets in Iran. Some think the United States might even use nuclear bombs in an invasion of Iran. There is contingency planning in the DOD regarding the use of nuclear weapons in an attack on Iran.
In the event that the United States does decide to invade Iran, there are many potential costs. First is the probable further loss of US credibility. The Editors of Monthly Review point out, “There is every reason to believe that opposition to a US ‘preventive war’ against the people of Iran is almost universal outside the US, while tens of millions of people inside the US itself oppose such an expansion of the Middle East Conflict” (April 2006). Second, it is important no note that threatening or attacking Iran would violate international law. An attack on Iran would likely be unconstitutional, without the support of Congress.
Iran is in much better position than Iraq was to respond to a US attack (consider the following two points). First, Iran has the means to launch a devastating retaliation with conventional weapons, including its Shahab-3 missiles, which can reach targets in Israel with reasonable accuracy. And Iran has other military options, including intervention on the Shiite side in Iraq, which could turn the disastrous US occupation there into a worse nightmare, with skyrocketing casualties. Iran could also vastly increase its support to Islamist resistance forces in the Palestinian territories and to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Second, an Israeli or US attack on Iran would almost certainly strengthen Islamist tendencies throughout the region as well as put intense pressure on Arab governments to react much more strongly against the United States and Israel. And heightened threats against Iran would only strengthen the hard-liners there. By all accounts, Iranians--even those who detest the mullahs--overwhelmingly support their country's nuclear ambitions. A US attack on Iran would be costly and destabilizing and lead to a protracted war in the region. This would of course lead to skyrocketing oil prices. The US military is already over-stretched and is not prepared for another extended conflict. It also important to note that a US attack on Iran would strengthen China’s growing influence in the region.
It’s better to live with an Iran that seems determined to develop a nuclear capacity than to intervene militarily against Iran. We must bear in mind that Iran is some years away from having the capability to build nuclear bombs.
What effect would Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons have on the proliferation of such weapons? (a) Saudi Arabia and Syria might want them but neither country has the resources – and they would likely be pressured to give up the idea; (b) Turkey might feel pressure to match Iran and acquire its own nuclear weapons – “but EU pressure would almost certainly prevent any movement in that direction”; (c) It might make the US less reckless in its use of military force in the Middle East; (d) It might force Israel to the negotiating table for real. Iran has demonstrated moderation and pragmatism in its foreign policy of recent years, as national interests and strategic calculations have taken precedence over ideology.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives
Many of us in the peace movement or who are critics of the Bush administration’s Middle East policies don’t want Iran or any other non-nuclear country to build or retain nuclear bombs. We also don’t want the United States to invade or bomb Iran. What then do we want? It may be useful to clarify what we think are reasonable goals that would redirect US policy way from the sanctions and military options, and that would pave the way for the reversal of nuclear proliferation.
The United States must take the lead and set an example by reducing its nuclear stockpile, ceasing development of new nuclear weapons, and opening itself up to independent international inspections. In the meantime, the United States should support initiatives for genuine diplomacy with Iran, rather than sanctions or military intervention. On this point, Michael Klare recommends that genuine negotiations on the US side “means accepting Iran as a legitimate negotiating partner and approaching the issues in a professional manner. Negotiating with Tehran doesn't mean endorsing the clerical regime; it simply means being prepared to reach a compromise that's in everyone's best interest. It requires shunning all talk of "regime change" and any inclination to use force” (“Defusing the Iran Crisis,” www.tompaine.com, March 3, 2006).
Support legislation that forces the Bush administration to consult with the US Congress before ever launching a military attack on Iran. For example, Congressman Peter DeFazio’s H.Con.Res.391 expresses “the sense of the Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran with respect to its nuclear program without first obtaining authorization from Congress.”
The only solution at this stage is to impose a worldwide moratorium on the production of weapons-grade fissionable materials, and those materials already produced should be placed under strict international control in all countries including our own. This would mean revising the NPT or replacing it with a stronger treaty. We must also support the proposal for an International Sustainable Energy Agency. According to Richard Falk and David Krieger in The Non-Profileration Treaty is Failing: What Now? “…an international sustainable energy agency should immediately be established and generously funded to extend aid to poorer countries to develop various types of sustainable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal). Such a step would both ease the prospects of a global energy crunch, and would contribute to environmental protection.”
Bob Sheak is a professor emeritus in sociology from Ohio University. He moved to Athens in the summer of 1971, taught until 2005, and has engaged in periodic peace and politically-oriented work over these years.
At the same time, the administration’s position does not seem unreasonable when it is considered out of context. Indeed, most of us do not want to see a further proliferation of states with nuclear weapons. The chances of nuclear war, by design or accident, and the chances that terrorist groups will acquire the materials for building a nuclear bomb, increase as more countries have the bomb. There is already a massive amount of nuclear material that is unaccounted for and possibly accessible to terrorist groups. It would not take very many nuclear bombs to generate a “nuclear winter” and end civilization as we know it. Along with global warming, it is one of the great threats to our very survival as a species.
Even though Iran has a right to develop nuclear power for civilian and/or peaceful purposes under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), I personally am opposed to nuclear power to generate electricity, because of the dangers of accidents at nuclear plants, the accumulation of highly radioactive waste at these plants, the lack of effective means to dispose of nuclear waste, the contamination of soil and water sources around nuclear plants, the lack of options for what to do with highly contaminated nuclear plants when they are too old to go on operating, the vulnerability of nuclear facilities to terrorist attacks, and the increased chance that terrorists will be able to obtain materials for the construction of nuclear weapons. In her new book, Nuclear Power is Not the Answer, Helen Calicott discusses these problems in some detail, and also adds, “Nuclear power is not ‘clean and green,’ as the industry claims, because large amounts of traditional fossil fuels are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run nuclear power reactors, to construct the massive concrete reactor buildings, and to transport and store the toxic radioactive waste created by the nuclear process.”
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
This treaty provides the basic legal framework of issues regarding both nuclear power generation for electricity and the development of the capacity to build nuclear weapons. While the International Atomic Energy Agency is given the authority to monitor the nuclear facilities of signatories, the NPT has no enforcement provision, although violations may be referred to the UN Security Council for action if there is concern that there is an imminent threat to other countries. In the present Iranian case, European countries outside of the UN framework have been attempting to persuade Iran not to go ahead with its development of nuclear power. The matter has been brought to the UN’s Security Council, and Iran has been given a deadline for giving up this project. The United States is on record of wanting to impose sanctions on Iraq if it fails to comply with the deadline and of keeping “all options on the table,” including military intervention.
There are at least four nuclear powers that have not signed the NPT – Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. The United States has diplomatic relations and other relations with three of the four illegal nuclear powers. Even though India is a nuclear renegade, the Bush administration has recently entered into an agreement with the Indian government to provide it with nuclear components for its nuclear power plants. India has the capacity to enrich uranium for both peaceful and military purposes. There is no way to keep India from using nuclear components for military purposes, even when an agreement prohibits this.
The United States itself also violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the NPT in another way. Article VI of the treaty, the disarmament provision, requires countries with nuclear weapons to eliminate these weapons. The Bush administration has done little to comply with this provision. It has over 10,000 nuclear bombs, some ready for launching and some deactivated but not dismantled. It is developing new types of nuclear bombs. It is modernizing its nuclear arsenal, which may require testing. It has failed to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It is going ahead with the development of missile systems that will enhance the ability of the United States to launch or intercept nuclear bombs and to militarize space
Helping frame the issue
Many experts believe that Iran is five to ten years away from being able to build nuclear weapons. The Iranians are obviously making technological progress and are now able, for the first time, to enrich small quantities of uranium, which moves them closer to the point of being able to produce energy for peaceful purposes. They are still a long way from being able to enrich weapon grade uranium. Within the present NPT framework, Iran does have the right to develop a nuclear power capacity under Article IV.
Iran has consistently claimed that it will not divert materials from its non-military nuclear facilities for the development of nuclear weapons. Can we believe them? Diversion is possible at some point in 5-10 years to come. The United States says, if Iran has the opportunity, it will divert. The IAEA says it doesn’t know. How do United States officials know? They don’t. There is no hard evidence at present that Iran is in violation of the NPT itself. All of its current activities with respect to nuclear research and uranium enrichment conform to what is permitted under the treaty.
Whatever Iran’s goals for the future, there are understandable reasons why Iran would want to develop a nuclear-weapons capacity at some point in their future. Here are just four examples of the relevant evidence from the Monthly Review (April, 2006). First, Iran “is surrounded by countries with weapons of mass destruction: including Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan, all of which have nuclear weapons (as well as chemical and probably biological weapons capabilities), Syria and Egypt, both of which have chemical weapons, and Turkey, with its NATO-based nuclear weapons and massive military capacities.” Also noteworthy is the fact that “there are now 200,000 US and allied troops in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. The United States has military bases almost completely ringing Iran in Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgzstan.” Meanwhile “…US nuclear weapons deployment in and around the Persian Gulf, especially through the presence of the US Fifth Fleet in the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, represent a constant threat to Iran.” And of course, we cannot forget the “State of the Union” address where Bush stated that “The US declared Iran a member of the ‘Axis of Evil’ in 2002 and claimed it has a right to ‘preventive war’ against such ‘evil’ states. This threat was subsequently carried out in the case of Iran’s neighbor Iraq.”
One of the Bush administration’s central contentions is that Iran is especially dangerous – a rogue state – “and will use nuclear weapons against Israel once it has them” and/or give them to terrorists to use against the United States itself. Randal Mark disagrees with this view and offers the following reasons (source: Randal Mark, “Nonproliferation: From Noble Lie to Pretext for War,” www.antiwar.com March 21, 2006):
• “…the modern Iranian regime has never invaded any other country”
• “Such support as it has given to Hezbollah and other resistance groups fighting Israel should be compared with US support for the Contras in Nicaragua” – such activities have been focused and will be evaluated variously depending on one’s perspective.
Does the United States have a “hidden agenda?” There is no definitive answer to this question. Nonetheless, my sources refer, for example, to how the Bush administration wants to eliminate a state that is defined as unfriendly and prevent it from consolidating its control of a major source of oil, limit Iran’s agreements with China to develop some of the Iranian oil fields, and divert the public’s attention away from the debacle in Iraq.
The Bush administration is not opposed to the on-going negotiations involving the IAEA and some European countries with Iran. However, it has not been willing itself to become directly involved in negotiations with Iran, so it hasn’t put the diplomatic option to a real test. A number of sources maintain that the United States has to drop its preconditions for negotiations and drop its regime change ambitions.
At the same time, the administration has never given up the military option, which the President believes is a decision he can make independently of the US Congress. The Bush administration has not ruled out a preventive-strike against Iran. That said, the United States is prepared to launch an air attack against selected targets in Iran. Some think the United States might even use nuclear bombs in an invasion of Iran. There is contingency planning in the DOD regarding the use of nuclear weapons in an attack on Iran.
In the event that the United States does decide to invade Iran, there are many potential costs. First is the probable further loss of US credibility. The Editors of Monthly Review point out, “There is every reason to believe that opposition to a US ‘preventive war’ against the people of Iran is almost universal outside the US, while tens of millions of people inside the US itself oppose such an expansion of the Middle East Conflict” (April 2006). Second, it is important no note that threatening or attacking Iran would violate international law. An attack on Iran would likely be unconstitutional, without the support of Congress.
Iran is in much better position than Iraq was to respond to a US attack (consider the following two points). First, Iran has the means to launch a devastating retaliation with conventional weapons, including its Shahab-3 missiles, which can reach targets in Israel with reasonable accuracy. And Iran has other military options, including intervention on the Shiite side in Iraq, which could turn the disastrous US occupation there into a worse nightmare, with skyrocketing casualties. Iran could also vastly increase its support to Islamist resistance forces in the Palestinian territories and to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Second, an Israeli or US attack on Iran would almost certainly strengthen Islamist tendencies throughout the region as well as put intense pressure on Arab governments to react much more strongly against the United States and Israel. And heightened threats against Iran would only strengthen the hard-liners there. By all accounts, Iranians--even those who detest the mullahs--overwhelmingly support their country's nuclear ambitions. A US attack on Iran would be costly and destabilizing and lead to a protracted war in the region. This would of course lead to skyrocketing oil prices. The US military is already over-stretched and is not prepared for another extended conflict. It also important to note that a US attack on Iran would strengthen China’s growing influence in the region.
It’s better to live with an Iran that seems determined to develop a nuclear capacity than to intervene militarily against Iran. We must bear in mind that Iran is some years away from having the capability to build nuclear bombs.
What effect would Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons have on the proliferation of such weapons? (a) Saudi Arabia and Syria might want them but neither country has the resources – and they would likely be pressured to give up the idea; (b) Turkey might feel pressure to match Iran and acquire its own nuclear weapons – “but EU pressure would almost certainly prevent any movement in that direction”; (c) It might make the US less reckless in its use of military force in the Middle East; (d) It might force Israel to the negotiating table for real. Iran has demonstrated moderation and pragmatism in its foreign policy of recent years, as national interests and strategic calculations have taken precedence over ideology.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives
Many of us in the peace movement or who are critics of the Bush administration’s Middle East policies don’t want Iran or any other non-nuclear country to build or retain nuclear bombs. We also don’t want the United States to invade or bomb Iran. What then do we want? It may be useful to clarify what we think are reasonable goals that would redirect US policy way from the sanctions and military options, and that would pave the way for the reversal of nuclear proliferation.
The United States must take the lead and set an example by reducing its nuclear stockpile, ceasing development of new nuclear weapons, and opening itself up to independent international inspections. In the meantime, the United States should support initiatives for genuine diplomacy with Iran, rather than sanctions or military intervention. On this point, Michael Klare recommends that genuine negotiations on the US side “means accepting Iran as a legitimate negotiating partner and approaching the issues in a professional manner. Negotiating with Tehran doesn't mean endorsing the clerical regime; it simply means being prepared to reach a compromise that's in everyone's best interest. It requires shunning all talk of "regime change" and any inclination to use force” (“Defusing the Iran Crisis,” www.tompaine.com, March 3, 2006).
Support legislation that forces the Bush administration to consult with the US Congress before ever launching a military attack on Iran. For example, Congressman Peter DeFazio’s H.Con.Res.391 expresses “the sense of the Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran with respect to its nuclear program without first obtaining authorization from Congress.”
The only solution at this stage is to impose a worldwide moratorium on the production of weapons-grade fissionable materials, and those materials already produced should be placed under strict international control in all countries including our own. This would mean revising the NPT or replacing it with a stronger treaty. We must also support the proposal for an International Sustainable Energy Agency. According to Richard Falk and David Krieger in The Non-Profileration Treaty is Failing: What Now? “…an international sustainable energy agency should immediately be established and generously funded to extend aid to poorer countries to develop various types of sustainable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal). Such a step would both ease the prospects of a global energy crunch, and would contribute to environmental protection.”
Bob Sheak is a professor emeritus in sociology from Ohio University. He moved to Athens in the summer of 1971, taught until 2005, and has engaged in periodic peace and politically-oriented work over these years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)