62 Years of Nuclear Hypocrisy

Saturday, October 6, 2007

by Daniel Pourkesali(CASMII Columns)

President Harry Truman defended his decision for the August 1945 nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by stating:

"I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have used to bombard them." Gar Alperovitz, The Decision, p. 563 [1]

Given the fact that Pearl Harbor was a military base while Hiroshima was a city inhabited by more than 300,000 people, many Americans have wholeheartedly accepted that feebly flawed reasoning behind such brutal retaliation against innocent men, women, and children while vehemently rejecting the idea of revenge as a proper family value.

United States has refused ruling out military action which may include use of tactical nuclear weapons in order to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Even if in a total lapse of all humanity and sound judgment people were to somehow accept Truman’s absurd harebrained reasoning as proper justification to commit mass murder against the Japanese, how will we ever explain a similar act perpetrated against those innocent Iranians who have not threatened nor done us any harm?

Western countries and the five original nuclear states in particular [2], lack the moral authority to accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons when all are in violation of Article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [3] which states:

"Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices"

As far as we know there are no exception clauses granting special waivers to India, Pakistan, and Israel. The original declared nuclear weapon states are also in clear breach of the second paragraph of Article IV:

"All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy."

United States having earned the distinct dishonor of being the only nation that has actually used nukes against a non-nuclear state, continues to maintain the policy of having the nuclear option "on the table" when dealing with actual, potential, or even imagined adversaries. That misguided principle actually creates the conditions forcing these states toward acquiring such weapons. And the hypocritical "do as I say and not as I do" fallacy of maintaining and modernizing its nuclear arsenal [4] is in belligerent defiance of the Article VI:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty Undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

37 years after its ratification, the original nuclear states have not only rebuffed any notion of negotiating in good faith toward disarmament; but they've used it to enhance their international influence by awarding themselves permanent memberships in the United Nation Security Council sanctioning countries like Iran for pursuing its legal right to uranium enrichment which is a central tenet guaranteed by the first paragraph of Article IV as an "inalienable right" granted to all non-nuclear states.


طراحی و توسعه آگاه‌سیستم