Ownership of Nuclear Weapons – Who’s Prerogative?
by Yamin Zakaria
Nuclear weapons (A-Bomb, Hydrogen Bomb and Thermo Nuclear) epitomises weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Its sheer destructive power dwarfs the other WMDs: Chemical and Biological. Many view it as the weapon of Armageddon. Therefore, the use of such weapon under any circumstance other than genuine self-defence is apt to classify it as an action of a bloodthirsty criminal, which symbolises the pinnacle of “terrorism” and war crimes.
Nuclear weapons were only ever used against Japan in bombing the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both were highly populated with civilians. Japan at the time lost all its Air defence capabilities, its military was constantly retreating, the island of Okinawa was occupied by the US and threatening the invasion of the main land Japan. The military operations were reduced solely to the defence its territory, i.e. mere survival. In fact, more people perished in the gratuitous bombing of the civilian areas in Tokyo than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thus, there was very little to gain in military terms by nuking the two cities as Japan was already on her knees. She was facing total annihilation just from the use of the conventional weapons unless it accepted surrender.
So, President Truman demanded for the unconditional surrender of Japan, to which Hirohito replied through Joseph Stalin, that he was prepared to ‘negotiate’ the issue. The proud Japanese nation could not just lay down their arms and Hirohito’s pretext to ‘negotiate’ was cosmetic diplomacy, an attempt to mask the humiliation of defeat. However, more to the point, Roosevelt’s offer was not rejected outright. Which means the US clearly had the diplomatic option to end the war virtually on its own terms, given the military situation on the grounds. In addition, the US could have simply exerted further pressure by threatening Japan with the nuclear bomb, practically achieving the unconditional surrender. The US regime had ulterior motivations, which was to test the bomb and thereby demonstrate its muscle to the world and satisfy its inherent violent nature. Japan being Orientals was preferred over Germany to be used as a testing ground for the weapon. Hence, one of the first actions carried by the US governor of Japan (General D. McArthur) was to meticulously collate all the information resulting from the impact of the two bombs.
Therefore, the deployment of the nuclear bombs was not remotely connected with the genuine defence of the US. Which leads to the conclusion based on the above principle (paragraph 1) that the nature of the US regime is: evil, it exemplifies the apex of state terrorism and personifies war criminals. Such actions coupled with the needless bombing of the civilians in Tokyo easily qualify as war crimes and State terrorism, which exceeds in many folds to the combined casualties of all the victims of all the alleged ‘terrorist’ actions from 1946 to date. It certainly dwarfs the track record of the US groomed Saddam Hussein or Pinochet. In line with its violent nature, the US then came to brink of using the bomb against China, North Korea and Egypt.
Nations produces and purchases weapons from the point of view of deterrence and to protect its existing interests as a minimum whilst the more powerful nations may use it to further its interests overseas. One of the axioms of international relationship is that: power is relative. It is not how much firepower you posses in absolute terms but in relation to your adversary. As an example, Britain has more firepower today in comparison to its colonial days in the 19th century, when she exceeded in her power relative to her rival nations, thus became the dominant power at that time. However, despite possessing greater firepower today, her relative power has declined, as has her position.
This is supposed to be the context for nations acquiring its weapons; security and defence forms the backbone of any nations sovereignty. In addition, the UN charter does not prevent any country from pursuing such objective. Thus, every nation has the right to possess Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons, especially considering the past track record of the US, some of which has been highlighted above coupled with the recent wanton aggression in Iraq based on its policy of pre-emptive strike. Nations pursuing the policy of non-proliferation of WMD would only increase the relative power of the US, whilst weakening their own position even further. In return, this does not guarantee a more peaceful world but certainly a world where the weaker nations are brought to its knees, run like slaves to serve the Empire. Just examine the US history in terms of the African Slave trade. Examine why North Korea was not invaded or attacked, where the US tone is far more conciliatory.
The US has launched its mission to contain the proliferation of the WMD but selectively focusing on the Muslim countries and North Korea as it turns a blind eye to its European allies and Israel. Which, she trumpets around as a ‘peaceful’ mission. One should also note the duplicity of such proclamation, as the US is one of the largest producer and exporter of WMDs. The US has refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and furthermore, George Bush stated that he wants to acquire mini-Nukes and ‘tactical’ Nuclear weapons. No doubt, such weapons would not be classified as WMD until it gets used by one of its opponents or the US itself becomes a victim of one. Mossad in partnership with the Christian-Zionist hawks might be able to help there, thus launch the final crusade against the Islamic world.
Many influential figures within the US do not feel ashamed to openly uphold such discriminatory policy, by proclaiming that nuclear bombs in the ‘right hand’ (US ally or a colony) is not a problem; diplomacy and subtlety was never a strong point of the US. So, it is not the much ranted about universal principles but self-interest that underpin the US policy. One US based Jewish hawk recently expressed this right by stating that America is God’s chosen nation under the leadership (‘Prophethood’) of Bush, as Bill Clinton would have clearly failed over Monica. This is expected from people who believe to be God’s chosen people. One can let the reader ponder of what they think of the rest of humanity.
As the war in Iraq comes to a conclusion, the schizophrenic clown of Libya surrenders its ‘WMD’ even though it had none to begin with in the first place. It’s like a child urinating in its pants just from the verbal threats issued by a bully. Which exposes the real character of these Arab regimes; they have very little courage, vision and support from its own population. Thus any threats results in capitulation unless they can quash it by resorting to brutal force.
The other remaining ‘threat’ is Iran, part of the “axis of evil”, who never really embarked on this course of developing Nuclear weapons. As the Iranian President suddenly ‘discovered’, possessing Nuclear weapons is contrary to Islamic teachings. So how does he intend to carry out the liberation of Palestine and confront the great Satan as we have been hearing for years? In fact, if Iraq is anything to go by, there is more probability of Iran using its bombs on Afghanistan.
The selective targeting of Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is explained by the fact that Iran unlike Israel is a signatory to the NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty). However, if non-Proliferation is the real objective than surely some sort of pressure should have been applied in parallel to force Israel to open itself to inspection, to say the least.
That leaves Pakistan, the only Muslim country with Nuclear weapons. The case of Pakistan also proves that you don’t have to posses enormous amount of wealth like oil to build such things. The US has already secured its interest otherwise Pakistan would have been declared as part of an “axis of evil” by asserting its complicity with the Taliban regime and hence by implication providing support to Al-Qaeeda. In time the US may well decide to use this card but at present Musharraf is compliant and useful enough.
When Pakistan to its full credit acquired the nuclear bomb, it was labelled by the mass media as the “Islamic Bomb”. The sarcastic reference here was to the Islamic character of Pakistan being populated largely by Muslims. Note when India also flexed its Nuclear muscle, with a government that can be definitely described as a Hindu fundamentalist regime, no such labels (Hindu Bomb) were applied. It also demonstrates how and why the mass media uses such politically charged terms.
The security concern of Pakistan from the potential threat from its eastern flank (India) was the reason for acquiring this Nuclear deterrent. Therefore, logic dictates that Musharraf should have taken this into account as well as the potential threat arising from the newly formed axis of US-India-Israel before openly and unconditionally cooperating with the US in virtually surrendering the Weapons.
On the contrary, Musharraf was happy to humiliate the hero of Pakistan, Dr. Abdul Qadir Khan. His ‘crime’ was to proliferate the nuclear technology to other nations. Firstly, such proliferation is in the interest of Pakistan otherwise the unipolar world will become even more polarised to the determent of Pakistan. Secondly, the countries to which the nuclear technology was leaked do not pose any threat to its own interests or borders. Finally, Pakistan has not signed up to the charter of NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty) along with India and Israel, thus any concession should have been linked to India and Israel. Perhaps that is asking too much from a leadership that had no vision and is in constant capitulation to US interests. Therefore, it seems that instead of the Nuclear weapons being a deterrent in protecting Pakistan, to the contrary the Pakistani government is protecting the weapons on behalf of the US interests in the region.
Extracted 02/23/04 from CDLR Islamic Board