<http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13700-noam-chomsky-the-gravest-threat-to-world-peace>
Noam Chomsky: The Gravest Threat to World Peace
Friday, 04 January 2013 09:05
By Noam Chomsky, Truthout | Op-Ed
Reporting on the final U.S. presidential campaign debate, on foreign
policy, The Wall Street Journal observed that "the only country
mentioned more (than Israel) was Iran, which is seen by most nations
in the Middle East as the gravest security threat to the region."
The two candidates agreed that a nuclear Iran is the gravest threat
to the region, if not the world, as Romney explicitly maintained,
reiterating a conventional view.
On Israel, the candidates vied in declaring their devotion to it, but
Israeli officials were nevertheless unsatisfied. They had "hoped for
more 'aggressive' language from Mr. Romney," according to the
reporters. It was not enough that Romney demanded that Iran not be
permitted to "reach a point of nuclear capability."
Arabs were dissatisfied too, because Arab fears about Iran were
"debated through the lens of Israeli security instead of the
region's," while Arab concerns were largely ignored - again the
conventional treatment.
The Journal article, like countless others on Iran, leaves critical
questions unanswered, among them: Who exactly sees Iran as the
gravest security threat? And what do Arabs (and most of the world)
think can be done about the threat, whatever they take it to be?
The first question is easily answered. The "Iranian threat" is
overwhelmingly a Western obsession, shared by Arab dictators, though
not Arab populations.
As numerous polls have shown, although citizens of Arab countries
generally dislike Iran, they do not regard it as a very serious
threat. Rather, they perceive the threat to be Israel and the United
States; and many, sometimes considerable majorities, regard Iranian
nuclear weapons as a counter to these threats.
In high places in the U.S., some concur with the Arab populations'
perception, among them Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the Strategic
Command. In 1998 he said, "It is dangerous in the extreme that in the
cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East," one nation,
Israel, should have a powerful nuclear weapons arsenal, which
"inspires other nations to do so."
Still more dangerous is the nuclear-deterrent strategy of which
Butler was a leading designer for many years. Such a strategy, he
wrote in 2002, is "a formula for unmitigated catastrophe," and he
called on the United States and other nuclear powers to accept their
commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to make
"good faith" efforts to eliminate the plague of nuclear weapons.
Nations have a legal obligation to pursue such efforts seriously, the
World Court ruled in 1996: "There exists an obligation to pursue in
good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear
disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective
international control." In 2002, George W. Bush's administration
declared that the United States is not bound by the obligation.
A large majority of the world appears to share Arab views on the
Iranian threat. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has vigorously
supported Iran's right to enrich uranium, most recently at its summit
meeting in Tehran last August.
India, the most populous member of the NAM, has found ways to evade
the onerous U.S. financial sanctions on Iran. Plans are proceeding to
link Iran's Chabahar port, refurbished with Indian assistance, to
Central Asia through Afghanistan. Trade relations are also reported
to be increasing. Were it not for strong U.S. pressures, these
natural relations would probably improve substantially.
China, which has observer status at the NAM, is doing much the same.
China is expanding development projects westward, including
initiatives to reconstitute the old Silk Road from China to Europe. A
high-speed rail line connects China to Kazakhstan and beyond. The
line will presumably reach Turkmenistan, with its rich energy
resources, and will probably link with Iran and extend to Turkey and
Europe.
China has also taken over the major Gwadar port in Pakistan, enabling
it to obtain oil from the Middle East while avoiding the Hormuz and
Malacca straits, which are clogged with traffic and U.S.-controlled.
The Pakistani press reports that "Crude oil imports from Iran, the
Arab Gulf states and Africa could be transported overland to
northwest China through the port."
At its Tehran summit in August, the NAM reiterated the long-standing
proposal to mitigate or end the threat of nuclear weapons in the
Middle East by establishing a zone free of weapons of mass
destruction. Moves in that direction are clearly the most
straightforward and least onerous way to overcome the threats. They
are supported by almost the entire world.
A fine opportunity to carry such measures forward arose last month,
when an international conference was planned on the matter in
Helsinki.
A conference did take place, but not the one that was planned. Only
nongovernmental organizations participated in the alternate
conference, hosted by the Peace Union of Finland. The planned
international conference was canceled by Washington in November,
shortly after Iran agreed to attend.
The Obama administration's official reason was "political turmoil in
the region and Iran's defiant stance on nonproliferation," the
Associated Press reported, along with lack of consensus "on how to
approach the conference." That reason is the approved reference to
the fact that the region's only nuclear power, Israel, refused to
attend, calling the request to do so "coercion."
Apparently, the Obama administration is keeping to its earlier
position that "conditions are not right unless all members of the
region participate." The United States will not allow measures to
place Israel's nuclear facilities under international inspection. Nor
will the U.S. release information on "the nature and scope of Israeli
nuclear facilities and activities."
The Kuwait news agency immediately reported that "the Arab group of
states and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) member states agreed to
continue lobbying for a conference on establishing a Middle East zone
free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction."
Last month, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution calling on
Israel to join the NPT, 174-6. Voting no was the usual contingent:
Israel, the United States, Canada, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and
Palau.
A few days later, the United States carried out a nuclear weapons
test, again banning international inspectors from the test site in
Nevada. Iran protested, as did the mayor of Hiroshima and some
Japanese peace groups.
Establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone of course requires the
cooperation of the nuclear powers: In the Middle East, that would
include the United States and Israel, which refuse. The same is true
elsewhere. Such zones in Africa and the Pacific await implementation
because the U.S. insists on maintaining and upgrading nuclear weapons
bases on islands it controls.
As the NGO meeting convened in Helsinki, a dinner took place in New
York under the auspices of the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy, an offshoot of the Israeli lobby.
According to an enthusiastic report on the "gala" in the Israeli
press, Dennis Ross, Elliott Abrams and other "former top advisers to
Obama and Bush" assured the audience that "the president will strike
(Iran) next year if diplomacy doesn't succeed" - a most attractive
holiday gift.
Americans can hardly be aware of how diplomacy has once again failed,
for a simple reason: Virtually nothing is reported in the United
States about the fate of the most obvious way to address "the gravest
threat" - Establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.
© 2012 Noam Chomsky
Distributed by The New York Times Syndicate
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel