The right to be a nuclear power
In our
youth, we were filled with stories of a potential war between the United States and the Soviet
Union. A long time has passed after the collapse of the Soviet Union, resulting in the fears to have changed.
Now, we are continuously being filled with new stories.
The main
argument why the expected war never occurred was mainly based on the nuclear weapons
possessed by both of the superpowers, which caused them to fear each other. I
will not analyze the strength of that argument. It may be partially true with
some other parameters being equivalently effective in having avoided a war for
decades. What I want to emphasize is the chain of contradictions concerning
nuclear arms in concern with human rights and world peace.
Countries
possessing nuclear weapons today are the United
States, Russia,
China, France, UK,
India, Pakistan, North
Korea, and Israel. Although Israel did not
declare its weapons, it is not a secret that it possesses some. Formerly, Kazakhstan, Belarus,
Ukraine, and South Africa
also possessed nuclear weapons, but they gave them up which can be seen as a
really appreciable behavior of them in favor of humanity.
Anybody
following the world agenda would easily notice that nuclear weapons of some of
those countries are welcomed whereas that of some others are always discussed.
Does anybody want me to believe that it is for sake of world peace or the
future of human being? Is the weapon of North
Korea or Pakistan
dangerous, but that of the US
or Russia
harmless? The actual reason is the desire of having the tools to control others
with the least effort, and nothing else. I can understand the ambitions of
countries and politicians to some extend although I do not agree, but really
cannot understand how some journalists or writers are able to follow the same
route. As writers, should we not be so courageous to wish for everyone what we
whish for ourselves?
In recent
articles and news in the media, nuclear weapons of Pakistan are discussed a lot. Many
journalists and politicians hope India
to take precautions against the potential threat of Pakistan. If you look at the case
superficially, it seems logical as the authors fear the weapons to fall into
wrong hands, and point out especially the Taliban to be such a potential.
I do not
support the Taliban, but was it not a product of the United States? The Taliban members
as religious students may have been educated in Pakistan
or somewhere else, but as a movement, was Taliban not created or at least
supported by the US
to overthrow the Mujahedeen, and especially Ahmad Shah Masood? It is difficult
for me to understand why Pakistan
would be dangerous but India
would not.
Weapons in
the hands of wrong powers is, of course, a nightmare for the mankind. But, can
anybody guarantee or prove what the “wrong hand” is? You cannot trust the
Taliban, the leaders of North
Korea or Pakistani leaders, but can you
trust Bush, Putin, Sarkozy or the Chinese, British and Israeli leaders? Can anyone
guarantee that they are reliable?
An obvious
example of the danger in the Middle East should
have been noticed during the Israeli attack in Ghaza. As if the massacre in the
Ghaza strip was not sufficient, a candidate of prime minister ship in Israel
had called with imperturbableness to use nuclear weapons against the
Palestinians in Ghaza. It was foolish, of course, but he did call for it. Until
now, I have never seen any country discussing Israel’s nuclear weapons, except
some Arab and Muslim states.
A honest
whish would not be to discuss whether Pakistan,
North Korea
or any other country should possess nuclear weapons or not, but would be to
wish a nuclear-free world and call for removing all nuclear weapons from the
world. In this regard, for example, it is absurd to discuss or criticize the
efforts of Iran
to develop nuclear power. Iran
promises at least that it will not develop weapons, but just the power for its
industry. You may be suspicious about the promise, but is it fair to make a big
fuss of a doubt when you never criticize an obvious threat such as the example
above? No, the reason is something else.
It is a
struggle for power. Countries with nuclear weapons do not want rivals. I can
bear it if they could admit, but if anybody wants to make fools of us using masks
like “humanity”, “wrong hands”, danger” etc., it is really unbearable. Nobody
can convince me that US, UK, France,
Russia, China and Israel
should have nuclear arms, and Pakistan,
North Korea, Iran or any
other country should have not to protect the world or to have peace. Were the
stories of the Soviet era big lies?
I believe
that either everybody has the right to have nuclear weapons or nobody should
have. Otherwise, the “law of the jungle”, will always be in force everywhere.
My whish is a nuclear-free world, but if this opportunity is provided for some,
others should have it, too. If not possessing weapons, everybody should have
the right to be a nuclear power, at least for peaceful technological means.
For Yemen Observer, May 20th,
2009
