There was agitation in the media with the brief stay of the president of Iran in Brazil. Obviously, the national and international Jewish community did everything (it has its political reasons) to pressure the Brazilian government to avoid this meeting. In all likelihood, the main intention of the visit, days before, of the polite and persuasive Israeli president, Shimon Peres, had been to attempt to cancel reception of the Iranian. He did not succeed - in this respect, our government was correct - because if it had given in to such pressure, it would be relinquishing its own sovereignty with respect to something of use that it still possesses, namely: the right to maintain contact with any country whatsoever, without having to request permission from the visitor’s enemies. It is only countries that are totally defenseless and without strong allies that allow, when coerced - fearful of stifling commercial or even military reprimands - other countries to exercise control over their foreign contacts, even at the level of ordinary conversation.
In this article, I will not be making an analysis of what is currently the best interpretation of sacrosanct “sovereignty”, which can not only be useful and beneficial, but also damaging to good international relations. It is even damaging to the actual countries that make abusive use of it. Drunken with euphoria, irresponsible, demented or ignorant governors, hypnotized by the abstract notion that “they can do anything because they are sovereign” (imagining themselves to be “kings”), forget that their folly generates consequences that are not solely internal, given the fact of globalization. This, however, will be left for another occasion. The topic of this article is the nuclear issue, seen as a global problem and not only associated with Iran and North Korea. Sooner or later, will be tempted (like Adam in the Bible) to take a bite of the forbidden fruit of nuclear knowledge for some kind of purpose. If the approach adopted in this article causes uneasiness or even repulsion, the blame is not mine but that of the current global reality, which should never be ignored like, unfortunately, any and all reality.
Paradoxically, the “nuclear threat” has been and still will be of enormous use for our planet to make advances, globally, in terms of security, justice and effectiveness. Without it, and its two “camouflaged allies” - environmental pollution and the irresponsibility of large American banks - our future would be more depressing. Analogously, snake venom, at the right dose and scientifically manipulated, saves lives. And not only the lives of those bitten by snakes; it “thins the blood” according to scientists. Somewhat intimidated, as long as George W. Bush did not see, on television, the floods in the south of his country and the roofs of houses ripped off by the force of hurricanes, he was not convinced that Mother Nature does not tolerate effrontery.
With the recent global economic crisis, leaving millions of workers unemployed, various leaders (for example, Gordon Brown) concluded that large banks cannot act in an irresponsible manner, confidant in future government support, inevitable for maintaining public confidence in the banking system. This is because avarice, in any sector, is only concerned with the present; however, “someone” - in this case the State (not necessarily socialist)) - has to be concerned with the future. It is fear of the atomic bomb, together with fears regarding global warming and financial anarchy - with unemployment and protectionism - that will force humanity to think seriously of setting up a world federation, or an equivalent entity, in which all nations feel themselves to be adequately protected against the ambitions of other countries. Currently, this situation does not exist. It’s “every man for himself”. All nations arm themselves, in the best possible manner, because no system exists that provides them all with real security. And this generalized lack of confidence represents an outlay of trillions of dollars - wasted wealth, diverted from being used for more useful purposes.
Due to the simple fear of their use, nuclear weapons could prevent long-lasting and no less deadly conventional wars. Despite the fact that the global atomic arsenal is estimated in thousands of nuclear warheads, only two bombs have been dropped in wartime to date: in Japan in 1945. Other bombs exploded, but in tests, without any victims. Fear is a negative and wretched feeling; however, at the right moment, it can save millions of lives. Throughout the world, Criminal Law has been aware of this for centuries. Rather than offer advice, it threatens punishment. The same can be said for the Highway Code. Authorities in the health area conduct their anti-smoking campaigns invoking a fear of cancer and pulmonary emphysema.
During the “very hot” time of the Cold War, with Stalin demonstrating ambitions of dominating as much of Europe as possible, the only reason that there was not a war between the Soviet Union and the USA (despite no lack of tension) was due to the fact that, if such a conflict occurred, it would not be conventional. Both sides would suffer devastation capable of incinerating and sterilizing their own countries. There would be no victors. The wars in Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia were prolonged because the combatants knew that nuclear weapons would not be used, bearing in mind the possibility of fearsome retaliation. At the time, the USA did not accept the suggestions of “hawks”, including General Douglas MacArthur, who favored the use of a few atomic bombs in Vietnam. It was not fear of aircraft, tanks, machine guns and bayonets that avoided a Third World War. It was a vision of a “mushroom cloud” that forcibly led to mutual and indigestible tolerance. “Small” fears cannot hold back our warmongering impulses. Only “gigantic” fears activate mechanisms of necessary restraint.
In conventional wars, princes, presidents and generals, as well as their families, are practically free from personal physical danger. It is for this reason that the history of mankind has been so “rich” in wars. In nuclear wars, fear is democratized. Even if they find refuge in shelters, those in power (who send out young people to fight for them) will be poisoned by radiation if they leave their lairs. And they cannot remain in them indefinitely. Hence the paradoxical use, favoring peace, of the feeling that the “other side” is also in possession of nuclear arms. All valor has its limits.
We insist in demonstrating the use of and even the need for fear, in order for mankind to be, at least, more “cooperative”.
What is it that originally explains, in part, the creation of the most powerful nation on the planet, the USA? The fear of thirteen American colonies of losing the war of independence. Alone and in isolation, these colonies were aware that they would not be able to free themselves from British domination. United, they would perhaps achieve their goal, as in fact occurred. Ultimately, fear of probable defeat led the colonies to unite, although they had to renounce several of the privileges of so-called sovereignty (for example, in foreign policy), which would have to be unique. In international politics, it is an undeniable fact that only interest and fear force countries to become united and behave in a civilized manner. In addition, the more nations are united, the better the global security climate. When one speaks of “interest”, this is implicitly understood to be a form of fear, the dread of “losing” something.
Like a parenthesis, the then American president, Harry S. Truman, has been the object of much censure to date with respect to his decision to drop two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima e Nagasaki, on August 6th and 9th 1945. Nevertheless, if such extremely deadly weapons had not been used, it is likely that the Japanese empire would have continued fighting to the end, given the fact that it was the military, not civilians, who decided at the time regarding surrender or continuation of the war. When the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan did not surrender. It was not convinced that the war was lost. It was necessary for a second bomb, three days later, together with the American threat (via radio) that it was in possession of other weapons of the same type, which - according to historians - was not true.
According to the web-based encyclopedia known as “Wikipedia”, the day after the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, President Truman issued a radio warning that he could repeat the crushing castigation used on the previous day. What was the response of the Japanese high command? They stated that the warning was “allied propaganda”. On this topic, the then United States Secretary of Defense, Henry L. Stimson, afterwards explained that “the two atomic bombs which we had dropped were the only ones we had ready, and our rate of production at the time was very small”.
The Japanese people have always been extremely proud and combative (was it not they who invented the kamikaze?) and it is more than likely that, if it were not for fear of the successive dropping of atomic bombs, the Japanese would have continued fighting for may months, even finally to the point of hand-to-hand combat in the streets of Japan, after devastating American bombing had reduced the main cities to rubble. At the time, Japanese patriotism would not accept surrender unless drowned in blood - its own and that of Americans. Even today, in Japan, the descendents of samurai enjoy a high degree of social prestige. As far as I know, even greater than that of the status of the most important captains of industry. Brazilians living in Japan and practicing the “vale tudo” variety of martial arts are surprised, when walking through the streets, by the prestige that they enjoy, simply due to the fact that they are professional fighters.
Atomic weapons are undeniably a tragedy; however, without them, there would be even more bloodshed, with millions dying not in a few minutes, but daily or over a period of months or years. They are useful precisely for the psychological effect of “prohibition of use’. This should be taking into account when the one examines the stance adopted by North Korea and Iran, who can always ask, based on the assumption of equal rights: “Why is it only us that do not have the right to not be fearful of countries that are already in possession of atomic weapons?” North Korea has already been a signatory of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It ended up withdrawing in 2003, as the actual treaty permits, as long as three month’s notice is given of intention to withdraw. Furthermore, according to the treaty, it is sufficient to allege that withdrawal is in the “supreme interest of the country”, according to its own criteria and not those of other signatories of the treaty. This treaty is not considered to be a model of legal precision regarding the rights of countries that adhere to it or withdraw. If North Korea withdrew from the treaty, in accordance with its terms, why has it subsequently been subjected to threats due to the fact of possessing nuclear weapons? Israel has not even signed the treaty, implies that it has the atomic bomb and has never been bothered as a result of this. It is impossible for many to understand such inequality of treatment, if one supposes that all countries should have the same rights. It is simply a question of international coercion, not of legal or political prevention against one State or another.
According to the same treaty, Iran could also withdraw from this commitment, escaping the stigma of a treaty breaker; however, it is foreseeable that, even if it withdrew, it would continue to be pressured, this being a peculiar characteristic of our imperfect international system, which tends to make decisions based on political convenience rather than legal precepts.
Ahmadinejad is unreserved in his use of words and it is this that is his main problem. A few years ago, he made two big mistakes that he likely regretted but does not have the courage to admit, in order not to show “weakness”. The first of these was to completely deny the Holocaust, without giving any further explanation. The second was to say that Israel, a country with around seven or eight million inhabitants, should be “wiped off the map” - something that is evidently inconceivable and impracticable. As a result of these statements, he became the involuntary worst enemy of his own country, given that he legitimized the attempt of its greatest adversary (Israel) to obtain the sympathy of the international community and act with extreme aggressiveness against the Palestinians.
With regard to the Holocaust, if Ahmadinejad had limited himself to casting doubt on the number of Jews really exterminated, his opinion - although accused of being “churlish” by the Israelis - he would have been much less repudiated. It would be a tolerable, theoretical, historical, quantitative, statistical doubt, subject to the meticulous scrutiny of those historians more concerned with precision, or seeking notoriety. I think that the strange decision taken by the European Parliament of “criminalizing negation of the Holocaust” would not reach the point of prohibiting examination of the topic. Even if, eventually, there is found to be a smaller number of victims, use of such a forceful term as “Holocaust” would not be inappropriate to describe the extermination of a significant proportion. At least hundreds of thousands or even a few million lost their lives as a result of such persecution.
If Ahmadinejad were a better strategist, or perceptive, or at least prudent, He would currently say the following in front of the microphones:
“I have always been against the creation of the State of Israel in Palestine, occupied for almost twenty centuries by Palestinian Arabs, who were not those originally responsible for expulsion of the Jews. Sooner or later, considering its volume such a “return” would inevitably result in the unjust expulsion of local populations, as in fact occurred. However, I currently recognize that Israel has become a consummated historical, political and geographic fact that should be accepted, as long as such acceptance is accompanied by political and economic compensation as justice for those expelled”.
“This - Justice! - will henceforth be our foreign political struggle, without violence, presuming that the major powers act with a minimum of honesty and spirit of equality. When I denied the Holocaust, I was referring to the possible occurrence of quantitative exaggeration in its evaluation, as a mere topic of historical interest. With regard to doubts concerning our intention to use nuclear energy, for peaceful or military purposes, I can confirm that our intentions are peaceful; however, we also have the right to be fearful of the aggressiveness of neighboring or distant countries that are politically aligned with our greatest enemy, which does not hide the fact that it is in possession of nuclear weapons, but does not allow its facilities to be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The obligations concerned have to be the same”.
“Finally, we do not accept the recent proposal of sending our nuclear fuel for treatment in Russia, then France, before being eventually returned to Iran, given that there are no firm guarantees that, if such shipment occurs, our uranium will not end up being retained in these countries for some kind of reason or pretext. In the event that this occurs, we would have our hands tied, prevented from mastering nuclear technology that is necessary because petroleum resources are finite and we do not have sufficient hydrographic resources. From what we have seen to date, the policy adopted by states is not reliable and international justice, despite the good intentions of its judges, still does not have statutes capable of treating, on an equal basis, all nations and peoples that do not yet have the status of a State. If our “legal failing” is that of not complying with the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it will be easy for us to resolve such a failing by simply stating that we have withdrawn from it, as permitted by its article X. Anyway, we still have the right to equal treatment of all nations, without the current privileges. This is our stance. The Security Council should provide us with a reply”.
With the evaporation of any legal basis for international sanctions, given that the 1968 treaty can no longer be considered to have been violated by Iran, I am wondering where the Security Council would find legal justification for the announced sanctions.
(30-11-09)
_______________________________________________________
