Nuclear Proliferation: The Irony of Bellicose Rhetoric
by Katharine Daniels
Executive Editor, The WIP
– USA –
Five long years after the 2003 invasion of Iraq the chatter coming from the White House reads like déjà vu. Despite the calls from world leaders and weapons experts to “stop and think,” the White House appears stubborn and determined to rush into another ill-conceived, poorly executed, and unsupported pre-emptive strike. In 2003 there were very few women’s perspectives in the debate that ultimately led to the war. The foreign policy experts, the politicians, and the journalists on television and in print during the critical period before the invasion were overwhelmingly male. The lack of women’s voices parallel a lack of perspective. That lack of perspective is similarly noticeable today as the White House drums up support for another war.
In the case of The Bush Administration vs. Tehran, time appears to be on our side and running short for two lame duck presidents. With just 15 months left in office for President Bush and only 18 more months for President Ahmadinejad, journalists must do all we can to report the calls for dialog and diplomacy and not the “tit-for-tat” battle of will and ego that these two outgoing leaders portray. Journalism must rise above the noise and not only educate readers but respect them by providing all the facts available this time around. It is not enough to analyze only the isolated events without providing both a historical context and a careful consideration of the impact our actions will have in the future. All around the world calls for diplomacy are sounding. It is up to journalists to listen.
On Friday, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon commented on the Iran issue, “I have said with great urgency on many occasions that the differences can be resolved through peace, through dialogue; a war or military action is not desirable in any way.” On Sunday, UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei said the International Atomic Energy Agency has no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons and urged the Bush Administration to cease its bellicose rhetoric. “I see no military solution. The only doable solution is through negotiations and inspections.” As we face the challenge of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, we must also heed the warnings of Hans Blix, the former head of the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq who, in an interview with Al Jazeera last Friday, stated that the United States has no tangible evidence that “implicates a will on the part of Iran to have nuclear weapons.” He strongly advocated diplomacy and had faith in the power of the people in America, “I think U.S. public opinion is so tired of military adventures that I really doubt that [a military operation] would happen.” He then added “But the risk is not non-existent. It is there.”
The great irony in our current dilemma is that the bellicose rhetoric coming out of the White House breeds the proliferation of nuclear weapons the United States claims to be fighting against. In the case of Iran, whose production of nuclear material has not exceeded the limitations imposed by 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we should not be surprised that a survey by the bipartisan group Terror Free Tomorrow found that “A majority of Iranians also favor the development of nuclear weapons and believe that the people of Iran would live in a safer world if Iran possessed nuclear weapons.” As the 2006 Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission report Weapons of Terror, Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms, chaired by Hans Blix found: “So long as any state has such weapons – especially nuclear arms – others will want them.”
We cannot forget that the United States was the first to use atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We cannot ignore what those closest to the decision to use the bomb felt after they dropped it. As reported by Common Dreams News Center on the sixty year anniversary of the bombing,
“One of the most famous was General Eisenhower, who repeatedly stated that he urged the bomb not be used: ‘[I]t was not necessary to hit them with that awful thing.’ The well-known ‘hawk,’ General Curtis LeMay, publicly declared that the war would have been over in two weeks, and that the atomic bomb had nothing to do with bringing about surrender. President Truman’s friend and Chief of Staff, five star Admiral William D. Leahy was deeply angered: The ‘use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. ..[I]n being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians of the Dark Ages.”
It is not only the dead voices from our past whose warnings we must heed. In January of this year The Wall Street Journal published the article “Kissinger, Schultz, Perry & Nunn call for A World Free of Nuclear Weapons” written by two former U.S. Secretaries of State, one former U.S. Secretary of Defense, and one former Chairman of the U.S. Senate Arms Services Committee. These knowledgeable and well-respected statesmen lay out the “historic opportunity” that lies before the United States to “revers[e] reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing their proliferation into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world.” We live in a world where deterrence no longer provides the strong nuclear defense possible during the Cold War. With the advent of non-state terrorist groups our “reliance on nuclear weapons for this purpose is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective” the authors warn.
The United States must reassert its vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and cease the use of all bellicose rhetoric inconsistent with this desire. As we trudge the road of diplomacy with Iran, The United States finds itself in the terrible predicament of not living up to the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty whereby, as a nuclear weapons state, the United States agreed to the “cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament.” I wonder how we can demand good-faith from our non-nuclear weapons state neighbors, whose 1970 concession was to “not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices,” when we ourselves have fallen off the path of disarmament. The intense anti-Iran rhetoric in Washington is a betrayal to this nation’s historical commitment to nuclear disarmament and only encourages nations who fear our president to explore their own nuclear options.
Since it is unconscionable to demand that nations do not explore solutions to their energy needs, it is consequently imperative that we maintain the highest levels of diplomacy with all nations pursuing nuclear technology. Our biggest hurdle in the United States is that the Bush Administration doesn’t respect diplomacy. It doesn’t concern itself with either public opinion or the system of checks and balances that our nation has adhered to since its inception. Journalists must provide the perspective that counterbalances this administration’s tendency to bully and dominate. Journalists must provide the perspective that considers the good of our country as well the global community. We must provide the perspective that reflects everyone’s needs, not just those of the handful of leaders in charge.
As Kissinger, Schultz, Perry & Nunn remind us, in 1953 President Eisenhower pledged America’s “determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma – to “devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death but consecrated to his life.” They further remind us that Ronald Regan warned, “all nuclear weapons… [are] totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization,” and that John F. Kennedy said “The world was not meant to be a prison in which a man awaits his execution.”
As we move toward a solution to The Bush Administration vs. Tehran we must consider history while looking toward the future. A military attack is always a short term solution, and in the case of Iran, a solution that does not account for the dire consequences of the last five years in Iraq. Before choosing a military response yet again, we must heed past warnings and carefully consider all current alternatives to military action. It is time to move forward, considering above all else, the sanctity of life.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the US since the Bush regime was installed is the dereliction of the US media. I can never thank the WIP enough for this article, for both its content and its call for responsible journalism.
Since the 2000 elections, I have read articles and opinion in the Washington Post that must have left Katherine Graham turning in her grave at what that organ has become. I have often thought of it as propaganda for the Bush regime rather than the newspaper that broke the Watergate affair.
El Baradei and Blix, who are the experts as well as the voices of reason, were not treated respectfully in the US media before the invasion of Iraq and are not being featured prominently in today’s dialogue either.
And, of course, as Kate says, women’s voices are completely silenced, though the cost of war and destruction impacts women and children in ways too horrible to contemplate. Yes, soldiers, who are mostly men, die in battle and live with wounds and disfigurement of body and mind and that is an intolerable waste of life. Women and children have to survive the battles and their aftermath of destruction, continuing violence, pestilence, famine, rape, and displacement, whether the men of their families return from the wars or not. Current articles in this journal such as the one about the women of the Philippines show that women are choosing peace, the truly brave option. The world needs to listen to women and men who advocate peaceful solutions.
Many thanks to the WIP and to you, Kate, for speaking in the
“voice that leads the way in changing the conversation” which you aspire to use. Here is an example of you doing just that.
I love the photo of the woman holding the sign. It is a very powerful image!
After what America has done in Iraq over the past five years, I wouldn’t expect even a sane leader to listen to our requests for nuclear disarmament. It’s so basic to “lead by example,” to “treat others as you wish them to treat you,” to be “a power of example.” Our leaders in the White House aren’t stupid they just don’t really want peace, they want control.
We are at a crucial time in history if we intend to prevent this impending war with Iran. It’s not enough to just take to the streets and march every few months and say “no war.” The people of this country need to remember that we do have a constitution and we have rights and we need to hold this entire present government accountable. We need to stop pretending like the Democrats are different then the Republicans and confront all of them together as one. It takes the blind eye of many to allow for such atrocities to be committed by few.
What a moving motion. If I was the George Bush or Ahmadenijad and I had just read this article I would seriously think twice about an aggressive foreign policy. I think George Bush is a little boy in men’s trousers who doesnt know how far to take the child hood play. He is a disaster for world peace and must be stopped immediately and made to realise that this is the child hood “cops and robbers” game, it people’s lives we are talking about that of the Iranians and the US soldiers he is going to send there.
Dear Kate – “Journalism must rise above the noise and not only educate readers but respect them by providing all the facts available this time around” – this is hugely important and cannot be repeated often enough.
Journalists and editors (all over the world) need to be responsible and open to critic in much the same way as it demands this of politicians and people in power positions, and it is imperative in the case of the US administration’s reactions and attitude towards Iran’s nuclear proliferation, where so much is at stake.
This is “Cold-War” at its worst and all players are trying to “solve” it – EU, China, Russia, USA, Israel, Syria and more.
Understanding this conflict is not an easy task. Thank you for making it clearer.
In thinking further about your statement that “journalists must provide the perspective that considers the good of the country…” I add this from an article published by TruthOut and written by Michael Winship, who quotes from a New York Times study of campaign coverage, its own being among that found lacking.
“The study found that two-thirds of all political stories, in print, on-line, and via TV and radio, concentrated on the campaign horse races but only one percent examined candidates’ public records. The Times noted, ‘Only 12 percent of stories seemed relevant to voters’ decision making; the rest were more about tactics and strategy …’
” ‘The campaign coverage has been sharply at odds with what the public says it wants,’ the study found, with voters eager to know more about the candidates’ positions on issues and their personal backgrounds, more about lesser-known candidates and more about debates.”
The abysmal state of US journalism is everywhere evident. Thank you, Kate, and to the WIP for responsible journalism. We need it, we are withering and dying for want of it. I know people who say that candidates are against the war in Iraq for instance when those same persons have voted every time for funds to support it. What people say is not what they are doing, as a previous WIP article on several candidates pointed out.
It’s hard to believe that after the disaster in Iraq, there could be any reaction but outrage and refusal at the Bush administration’s suggestion of heading off for another war with Iran. And the celebrity/gossip press has never done better!
Your point re: the responsibility of journalists to reveal and force the public to face the destructive foreign (not to mention domestic) policy of the Bush administration is absolutely true. It seems that political corruption and power grabs are an inevitable aspect of politics, but the damage can be abated when journalists pay attention to what is being said versus what is actually being done, and report what’s actually happening, versus what the White House would like them to regurgitate.
Thank you for another heartful and mindful editorial.
As was the case leading to terrorist excution of 9/11,our overwhelming ignorance of, not only the locations of potential targets, which would at least have some semblance of strategy, we also have still not come close to an understanding of how and why Iran is involved in the Iraqi scene. We as a government are so ignorant of that region’s politics, that when we are encouraged to topple a dictatorship (Sunni) by Iran (predominantly Shiite), we are then flabbergasted by Iran’s desire to ensure a Shia state.
We label their actions meddling, while we bullhead our ideas of “democracy” in Iraq.
The same double standard of course applies to adherence to nuclear non-proliferation. In our hands, the word is deterrence. In the hands of other non nuke family nations, a threat.
As you point out- what other nation in the world has been willing to use these weapons? In whose hands then are they safe?
Did the democratic republic USA excercise the government by the people when those bombs were dropped? Will we be consulted the next time.
The Iranians know vastly more about the politics of Iraq than we.
Have we asked them to dispel our ignorance?
At least there is this: the majority of Americans have turned against the Iraq war. We know that we were lied to by an administraton that possessed and misinterpreted bad intelligence.
An attack upon Iran is going to be a hard sell, God willing.