Opinion
Nuclear Hypocrisy
February 27, 2007 - 1:01amIran was on everyone’s mind at Cornell last spring. Members of the Student Assembly joined the leaders of Cornell Israel Public Affairs Committee to introduce what became perhaps the most controversial resolution of the year: Resolution 29. The majority of two S.A. meetings were spent discussing and finally passing the resolution, which urged the government to pressure “Iran [and] any other state sponsor of terror to stop their support of international terror organizations [and] the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”
The resolution was hotly debated; the meetings were packed with those who supported it and those who opposed it. Many groups spoke out against the resolution for several reasons; members of the Iranian Student Organization, such as Mandana Arabi grad, said at the time, “with this resolution [Iranian students] are feeling marginalized and alienated from the Cornell community.” Although the S.A. eventually passed the resolution by a majority vote, the opinion expressed by it — both within the S.A. and in the Cornell community as a whole — was by no means unanimously agreed upon.
Now, Iran is on everyone’s minds again — and not just at Cornell. The rhetoric between U.S. and Iranian officials has escalated over the past several months. The surface issue remains the same: Iran’s development of nuclear technology.
The program in question is their uranium enrichment program, which Iranian officials say will provide nuclear power for the country. Many question the need for an energy program in a country with such vast natural resources. It is true that Iran has the second largest oil reserves in the world — behind Saudi Arabia but ahead of Iraq — along with the second largest natural gas reserves behind Russia. Nevertheless, economists have pointed out that, if Iran can develop an alternative energy source, it can sell all of its oil and natural gas on the world market, netting huge profits for the country.
Despite Iran’s stated reason for its uranium enrichment program, some, including the Bush administration, have accused Iran and its president Mahmoud Ahmandinejad, with using the guise of developing nuclear energy to develop nuclear weapons. This comes despite the most recent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which recently declared that Iran had defied the international deadline to end their uranium enrichment program. The agency found that Iran was operating almost 1,000 centrifuges, but experts report that it would take 3,000 centrifuges running for a year in order to produced “weapons-grade fuel.” Obviously, Iran does not have nuclear weapons at this point and they may not even be developing them.
Thus, the question is why all this attention is being paid to nuclear development in one particular country: Iran.
It is certainly not because Iran is the only country that is working with nuclear technology. Five states are designated as “nuclear weapons states” by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: the U.S., Russia, the U.K., France and China. In addition, three other states have successfully detonated nuclear weapons since the establishment of the NPT: India, Pakistan and North Korea. Thus, if Iran were seeking to develop nuclear weapons, they would be joining a well-established group of nuclear powers.
Although Israel has long been presumed to have nuclear weapons — with reports that it has over 200 of these weapons — the Israeli government had never officially confirmed or denied that it has nuclear weapons technology. That is until this past December, when Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert slipped up on a television interview in Germany while discussing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, saying, “Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly, threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel and Russia?”
Here is a country that has admitted they have nuclear weapons, in violation of the NPT. The response from the U.S. government? Not a word. Obviously, the U.S.’s concern with Iran’s nuclear program does not stem from the fact that it is in violation of an international treaty.
In addition, the U.S. government recently reached a deal with North Korea, brokered by China, about their nuclear program. The deal requires North Korea to dismantle its Yongbyon nuclear reactor within 60 days, in exchange for 1 million tons of fuel oil. However, the agreement did not mention the nuclear weapons already developed in the country or the supposed existence of a secret program to enrich uranium.
This is the same North Korea that the Bush administration placed in the “axis of evil” alongside Iran and Iraq, after September 11. What is the difference between this agreement with North Korea and the threats against Iran? North Korea already has the ability to produce between six and 10 nuclear warheads, qualifying it as an actual threat to U.S. security. Sparking a conflict with North Korea would require huge military resources that we simply don’t have right now.
It is clear that the U.S. is not so much concerned about the development of nuclear weapons within Iran, but the development of Iran as a regional power outside of the control of the U.S. government.
Finally, we cannot forget that the country dishing out the harshest rhetoric to Iran is the U.S., the only county in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons. A country that dropped two atomic bombs on civilian targets, which has had long-term devastating consequences for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is threatening sanctions and military action on a nation that does not even have nuclear weapons capability. Talk about hypocrisy.
"Many groups spoke out
"Many groups spoke out against the resolution for several reasons; members of the Iranian Student Organization, such as Mandana Arabi grad, said at the time, “with this resolution [Iranian students] are feeling marginalized and alienated from the Cornell community.” Although the S.A. eventually passed the resolution by a majority vote, the opinion expressed by it — both within the S.A. and in the Cornell community as a whole — was by no means unanimously agreed upon."
While the S.A. should stop wasting its time passing resolutions that will have no effect on anyone, it seems like you are implying that you disagree with the content of this resolution. Given that Iran IS sponsoring terrorism in at least three countries and is probably seeking to acquire nuclear weapons to use against Israel, I don't see how anyone feels marginalized by criticizing these incredibly destructive actions taken by an extremely hostile government.
"Here is a country [Israel] that has admitted they have nuclear weapons, in violation of the NPT. The response from the U.S. government? Not a word."
If you would have done a minimum amount of research (which you have showed us week in and week out that you are incapable of doing), you would have discovered that Israel is not a signatory to the NPT, and therefore cannot be in violation of it (this took me all of 15 second to look up, but I'm sure you're really busy this semester).
"Finally, we cannot forget that the country dishing out the harshest rhetoric to Iran is the U.S., the only county in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons."
Yes but which country is most likely to use nuclear weapons in the future, the US or Iran? Which country's president openly declared that he wanted to wipe another country off the face of the earth? Which country is actively sponsoring terrorist groups in Iraq, Lebanon, and in the West Bank & Gaza Strip? Let's say Iran was a little more forthcoming with its desire to acquire nuclear weapons (and most likely use them on Israel). Would you then claim that the US shouldn't try to stop Iran from launching a nuclear missile because of something that happened 60 years ago?
NPT and INDIA
NPT was created after INDIA's first nuclear explosion especially to contain INDIA.
ISREAL and nuclear weapons
Response to Steve's comment: "Here is a country [Israel] that has admitted they have nuclear weapons, in violation of the NPT. The response from the U.S. government? Not a word."
INDIA,ISREAL and Pakistan did not violate NPT as they never joined NPT so your argument is invalid.
Umm Satish, that quote is
Umm Satish, that quote is from the actual column. I'm making the same point you are; mainly that this columnist is an idiot.
Missing the point
The problem that while, legally, Israel is not in violation of the NPT, it is in violation of the spirit of non-proliferation. If we allow countries to escape moral culpability by being a non-signitor, then we leave open the possibility for war crimes being tolerated on the basis of not signing the Geneva accords. If exceptions like this are made, then the whole concept of international law is undermined.
Incidentally, part of the NPT specifically allows signators, including Iran, to develop nuclear power technology. Whether or not their usage is wholly civilian is hard to tell, but the vilification campaign being waged by neocons makes it difficult to separate fact from fiction. While the president of Iran is an idiot and an anti-semite, he is also very weak in terms of foreign policy (That is the territory for the theocrat Supreme Leader whose rhetoric has been anti-proliferation i.e. issuing a fatwa against atomic weapons).
What about France?
France, a country with a real prevelent history of rampant revoloutions has nuclear capability. Perhaps they intend to keep the Spanish and Italians in line. Shouldn't the United States be offering countries like Portugal and Lebonon missle shields like Poland and Chezch Republic? Before some S.O.B. says "Let them eat cake!" and pushes the button. No nukes is good nukes. Theere is plenty of hypocracy involved in recent US plans to "Freshen" their own nuclear arsenal. Fear not World ...... there will be a lot less Republicans in office inext election. Less then two years.
re: missing the point
"The problem that while, legally, Israel is not in violation of the NPT, it is in violation of the spirit of non-proliferation"
No. This is not a valid argument. As an opinion columnist, you CANNOT get your facts wrong and then make up for it by giving a bullshit excuse like this one. If she wanted to make your point, she should have taken the 15 seconds to get her facts straight (this is literally all it took for me to look up that Israel was not a signatory of the NPT). Instead, she built a straw man argument against Israel to support her point.
Because these columns have no citations at all, we as the readers have to take the author at their word that they get all the facts straight. Ms. Taylor has shown time and again that she is incapable of doing this.
Steve, the point is obvious
Make and argument instead of saying "that's not a valid argument"
I generally take a few minutes to research important political matters, especially when they involve weapons of mass destruction. While your 15 second research may have netted you the wisdom shown above, I'd check the meaning of facts before you attack others for doing so. That is, the NPT functions such that signatory states, such as the US, are bound to enforce provisions,including preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. As it is with treaties, signatory states need to enforce them domestically. In the US, this treaty provision is enforced, in one way, through Section 609 of the Foreign Assistance Act (and subsequent laws) which requires suspension of foreign assistance to nations that do not open up to IAEA inspection . That is, the NPT (internationally) and the FAA (US enforcement mechanism) put Israel in the "violator" column. It also puts the US in violation of enforcement of the NPT as they haven't suspended aid to Israel, which should happen posthaste as per the Iran rhetoric all over the Sun and mainstream media.
More simply - Israel HAS nuclear weapons, has announced so after the initiation of the NPT regime and will not allow the required inspection. This is in violation of NPT provisions (albeit not self-binding on Israel, but on all signatories) and is in violation of the US's domestic mechanisms of implementation.
A Few Quesitons
A few questions for Ms. Taylor:
1. Do you write your aticles in the fashion you do simply to see whether you can generate the most comments of any opinion piece on a particular day? If so, then you are a smashing success.
2. Do you hate the United States?
3. How about Israel?
4. Do you subscribe to the old formula: my enemy's enemey is my friend? How else do you explain your apparent fondness for all things anti-American?
5. Why are you so willing to bleieve anything an Iranian dictator states, yet disbelieve anything any republican says?
6. When was the last time Israel or its Prime Minister advocated the eradication from the Earth of any of the following: Syrians, Iranians, Iraqis, Saudi Arabians, Palestinians, Egyptians, Arabs in general, Americans, or anyone who isn't Jewish?
Waiting on your reply,
Fondly
"That is, the NPT functions
"That is, the NPT functions such that signatory states, such as the US, are bound to enforce provisions,including preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons."
Article I says that nuclear states can't transfer nuclear weapons or aid to help produce nuclear weapons to a non-nuclear weapon state. If we agree that Israel has nuclear weapons, then the US is not violating this part of the NPT since Israel would not be considered a non-nuclear state. Assuming that Israel somehow fit under the definition of non-nuclear state, just because the US gives aid to Israel does not mean that it is using this specific aid to acquire/maintain its nuclear arsenal.
"In the US, this treaty provision is enforced, in one way, through Section 609 of the Foreign Assistance Act (and subsequent laws) which requires suspension of foreign assistance to nations that do not open up to IAEA inspection ."
I am not finding this section in the Foreign Assistance Act. It appears as though it was repealed in 1998. Perhaps you could provide a citation to this provision in the USC?
"More simply - Israel HAS nuclear weapons, has announced so after the initiation of the NPT regime and will not allow the required inspection."
Under Article III of the NPT, a non-nuclear weapon state has to agree to inspections by the IAEA. Again, if Israel were a signatory to the NPT, it would be classified as a nuclear-weapons state, and thus not subject to this inspection requirement.
If you arguing that Israel should be considered a non-nuclear weapon state because it has never officially acknowledged its possession of nuclear weapons, then that would support your point that these inspections should be required in order for Israel to receive aid under the FAA (again please point me to the specific section you are referring to).
Back to my original point, Ms. Taylor could have done the necessary research to frame her argument as you did Dovid, but instead she chose to base her argument on an inaccurate statement that was easily verifiable. This smacks of laziness at best and extreme disregard for the truth at worst.