Jimmy Carter (who makes a much better ex-president than president) has recently stated that Israel 'has' 150 nuclear weapons. I'm not sure if this means currently, or when Carter was president from 77-80, because the article headline actually says 'had'.
Now Israel has never officially stated (or denied) that it even has nuclear weapons, and US officials usually toe the same line. The rest of the world has assumed Israel has nuclear weapons, but its interesting to see that Carter's claim is in the higher end of many estimates of Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal. If its true that they 'had' this many, remembering Carter left office in January 1981, then how many do they have now? It has almost certainly grown since then.
I would love to know Israel's strategy for when they would actually use those weapons, and exactly what they are pointed at.
The assignments are finished, the sickness is fading, so its time to get back to some (semi)substantial blogging. The NPT PrepCom which i mentioned a while ago wrapped up last week, and NGO reaching critial will has a great selection of documents and reports from the meeting.
The documents are relatively bland, and most of them mention the same unfulfilled treaties and the additional protocol, all look to Iran/North Korea as major threats to the regime, and call for more disarmament by the NWS. But a few significant issues did come up.
I'll start off with the Australian delegation, and the first thing that strikes you is the similarity with last years conference papers. A significant difference this year was that 2 NGO representatives made up part of the official Australian delegation. Definitely something to be proud of, and one of them was from MAPW. The interesting thing about this year was that they raised the idea of a nuclear weapons convention. The chair's factual summary also highlighted this. This is pretty new stuff, the idea of the NWC is an NGO idea floated around for a while. ICAN has a pretty detailed draft convention here. Its interesting stuff, and worth looking at and working towards.
The final day of the conference saw the P5 finally come out with a joint statement, unlike in past years. Tensions between the states, and of course their virtual disregard for their NPT obligations, means the statement put the emphasis largely on non-nuclear weapons states compliance with the treaty. they also failed to mention the Comprehensive Test ban Treaty (CTBT) which is yet to be fully ratified by the US and China. The language is also differs significantly with other states, reflecting the P5s use of the treaty as an instrument of policy rather than something they themselves are actually bound by. Many states at the meeting expressed concern over the disarmament clause, and the seemingly opposite moves that some NWS are making in developing new nuclear weapon systems, and retaining nuclear weapons as a vital part of defence planning.
An interesting issue is that of nuclear weapons free zones (NWFZ) and in particular the middle east. The vast majority of states were quite ready to criticise Iran and North Korea, as they should, and make empty calls for the realisation of the 1995 resolution on a NWFZ in the Middle East. However, the elephant in the room was Israel. The only state in the middle east to have actually acquired nuclear weapons, and it was never actually named. The Iranian delegation let the cat out of the bag in this statement,
"[the] Israeli clandestine nuclear program [is], the main obstacle to NWFZ in the region"
...
"Regrettably the trend of support and assistance of certain western countries to [the] Israeli nuclear weapon program has reached such a horrendous and indeed ridiculous state that the Israeli regime, a non-party to the NPT, whose nuclear arsenal coupled with its expansionst, repressive and state-terror policies and behavious is repeatedly recognised as the single most serious threat to regional and international peace and security, finds the audacity to cry wolf about [the] peaceful nuclear program of the NPT state parties. The agressive nature of that regime and the unequivocal support of the United States to it has let this regime belive that the law of the jungle rules the world.
Unfortunately, in the current session we witnessed that the attack of a non-party to the NPT on Syria a state Party to the treaty not only was not condemned by some western countries but also they turned their criticism to a non-nuclear weapon state who by joining the NPT has legally foregone [the] nuclear option. The position of this group of countries would send a wrong message that it is ok for some to have nuclear weapons and stay outside of the NPT, while others who are state parties to the treaty should be targeted"
Wow! I hope that shook things up a little. Even if it is left to Iran to say it, a state that has violated the NPT itself, its still pretty awesome to hear.
It looks like he is going to be replaced by another Age journalist, Jason Koutsoukis, who has started off his new post with this article. I look forward to seeing if he can fill those shoes.
Counterpunch has a couple of good article about Israel/Palestine which are worth a read.
Uri Avnery writes on Israel's Manifest Destiny and subconscious agenda.
"...The only game in town is the "negotiations" with the Palestinian Authority, which were a farce to start with. Like actors on the stage drinking from empty glasses, all parties pretend that there are negotiations going on. They meet, embrace, smile, pose for photographs, convene joint teams, hold press conferences, make declarations - and nothing, absolutely nothing, really happens."
And Mats Svensson writes about the creation of the Palestinian state from nothing.
"Mavivi was on the Gaza Strip three years ago in December. That was before the Israeli settlers had left Gaza, before one had carried out a free and fair election in Palestine. Since then, it has become worse for most people..."
Both good articles on the issues that the mainstream press barely touches.
A general update today.
First of all, I really love the protests going on with the Olympic torch relay. Does it even still count now that they've put the flame out twice? They're even considering stopping it. The IOC, in giving Beijing the 2008 olympics, stated that they hoped it would help open up Chinese society and maybe be a positive influence on Chinese politics, so they cant exactly complain that protesters are politicising the games. Also, China is pretty clearly using the opportunity to show off China to the world as a world power and a successful developing state, so they cant complain when people point out it isn't that nice to live there (assuming you aren't rich anyway). Kevin Rudd has also exposed himself again as a dickhead on the issue, directing away criticism by claiming China is a lot better now than 25 years ago. So what? That doesn't mean its a good place to be. I don't think that sportspeople should boycott the games, but political leaders certainly should, so hopefully Rudd will get in on the act already, rather than avoiding the issue by leaving it up to his suposed 'schedule'.
Secondly, this report has just been released by USIP, and details the situation and options for the US in Iraq, and manages to put a positive spin on the fact that security levels are back to 2005 standards. It doesn't paint a very attractive picture.
Thirdly, the SIPR arms transfer database has been updated with 2007 information. Apparently arms sales were down on last year, but overall continuing their upward trend since 2000. it shows Australia as one of the 20 biggest arms importers, and Sudan has imported 87% of its conventional weapons from Russia between 2003-07, so we cant accuse China of being that bad. Its a really useful resource, check it out here.
And lastly, to the Age. I admit I can give some leeway, what with it being the opinon pages and all, but to print such zionist propaganda does require a certain suspension of rationality. Danny Lamm's article on the 7th was a blatant piece of Zionist propaganda. And Danny isn't entirely to blame, we can blame editors for the title 'Israel is taking all the right steps along the pathway to peace', and starting from that, it only got worse. He gets off to a good start, ignoring the problems that are inherent in a two state solution, and moves on to the big guns...
"This solution, however, has its opponents, particularly those groups led by Iran and its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and terrorist movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah which reject the peace process and maintain a fanatical commitment to destroy the state of Israel.
This would deny the Jewish people's right to self-determination..."
Invoking 'self-determination' in the defence of the Israeli state? I dont even know how such hypocrisy can function. Has Lamm completely ignored the fact that Israel is a colonial state? Is he completely blind to the Palestinian population being militarily and economically oppressed? Yes, Israelis should have a right to self determination, but has he considered the reasons why so many people want the Israeli state gone?
Lamm then moves on to defend some of the useful state myths surrounding Israel's beginnings, such as Israel's 'David and Goliath' view of the first Arab-Israeli war.He then attempts to discredit the work of Walt and Mearscheimer thesis, which, if you look at it objectively, would seem to confirm their arguments about the Israel lobby. Lamm is clearly eager to fit into this lobby, and his willful ignorance of the perspective of the oppressed in this situation can only discredit his arguments.
Why is The Age even publishing this crap?
The evolution towards a formalised South Africa style apartheid system is coming along strongly, with Israel's supreme court accepting the idea of seperate roads for Palestinians in the occpied territories. If we look back in US history, we find that since 1954 the legal consensus is that state sanctioned segregation is inherently unequal, and therefore discriminatory. But that doesnt stop the US from being Israel's most enthusiastic backer (a club that Kevin Rudd was eager to join). We also can't forget that the old 'roadmap' for peace was largely based on perpetuating the current status of a Palestinian territory that was made up of Apartheid style 'homelands' and an economic dependency of Israel.
All this begs the question, given the current situation and extreme poverty of what does exist of Palestine, is a two state solution physically possible? Can a viable Palestinian state ever emerge out of this apartheid?
Speaking at a fund raiser for an organisation that works to import Jews into Israel and displace more Palestinians, and labelling himself a "friend of Israel", proves Kevin Rudd is a complete dickhead.
And he cant do more than urge "restraint" in China's brutal crackdown in Tibet. Like it would be ok if they only killed a few people...maybe behind closed doors?
Kick him out already.
Really cool political synth pop. check it !
