Thursday, October 10, 2002

LET’S TALK ABOUT NUCLEAR DISARMANENT

Or more specifically, let’s talk about the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Let’s talk about moral bankruptcy masquerading as principal. Let’s talk about knee-jerk anti-West sentiment capturing and subverting agendas. Let’s talk about who’s got the bomb, who wants the bomb, and who should get rid of the bomb.

This from the Working Group against Star Wars:
We are also alarmed by the likely weaponisation of space as part of US plans for missile defence, the escalating resource commitment involved – now estimated at well in excess of $100 billion – and the possibility that the system would be used as an instrument of unaccountable strategic influence over other countries.

The worry over “unaccountable strategic influence over other countries” refers to the ability of a MDS-equipped US to tell nuclear-armed nations to behave. That is, make the two-way use of nukes less likely.

The CND are against NATO, preferring to look to the patronage of others:
CND wants to see the extension of influence, resources and funding of the Organisation for Security and co-operation in Europe (OSCE).


Your remember the OSCE: they’re the nice folk who did such a CRACKERJACK job in Yugoslavia, less than a morning’s drive from OSCE Head Office.

It is reasonable to assume that an activist organisation will put their most important issues on the font page. From the NCD Home Page, their biggest bugbears are the Trident Submarine system, Israel/Palestine and Iraq. It isn’t clear why Israel gets singled out as the nuclear State That Rates, particularly since the closest we’ve come to a nuclear exchange in the past ten years is Pakistan/India. The CND claims they are interested in
justice for all, Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Muslims.

As far as the CND is concerned, the Palestinian Christians can go to buggery. No peace and Justice for them.

But the funny thing about the CND is that they’re not angry about Iraq’s repeated efforts to lay their hands on nukes. They’re not even concerned that an attack on Iraq might provoke a WMD response from Saddam. They’re afraid of Iraq not being forced to finally cease their pursuit of WMDs.

Why isn’t the CND in the forefront, leading the pro-war crusade? This is the first time that a state known to be actively pursuing nuclear weapons, and known to have biological and chemical weapons, will be disarmed and kicked out of the WMD club. The CND membership will actually get what they pay their dues for. As a bonus, you get rid of a regime that the all-knowing UN has agreed is a danger to others, liberate the locals from a police state, start the aid flow, and free up zillions in defence and UN spending for other purposes.

Judging by their web site, the CND is not particularly concerned with Iraq actually getting nuclear weapons. They do not see this prospect as in any way destabilising, certainly not as destabilising as the US implementing a system that makes the use of nukes less likely to succeed. Indeed, the CND website makes absolutely no mention of Iraq as a state interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. The acquisition of nuclear material by the Swiss (and French, Germans and Belgians) rates a mention. So do the African states that are a likely source for uranium smugglers, though who they would sell the product to the CND does not speculate. Even the new Australian reactor is in there.

So it appears that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is primarily directed at the states that have nuclear weapons (though not all of them), states that use nuclear power for peaceful means and for medical research (though not all of them).

One standout is that the CND has avoided using “nuclear” in connection to Iraq, in either past, present or future tense. The CND Briefing Paper of September 2002 is hardly enlightening on their attitude to Iraq. The only place nukes get a mention is in brief quotes from UNSC resolutions, and in uncontested quotes from Scott Ritter. By contrast, the CND takes the time to refute the recent report from the International Institute of Strategic Studies, so it’s not a matter of space.

On the subject of chemical attacks on his own people, the CND offers this by way of mitigation:
Much is made of the fact that the threat from Saddam Hussein possessing WMD is clear as he once used them on his own people. Perhaps we can put to one side the fact that it is highly unlikely that Saddam considers Kurds to be his own people.

What follows is three times as much space devoted to kicking the West for supporting Saddam, and a bit of smugness:
At the time, the attack was barely reported. CND and the peace movement tried hard to raise the issue.

Is there a worse crime than gassing non-combatants? Well yes:
The hypocrisy is staggering. If the US, or anyone else, says that it needs WMD to protect itself, then why shouldn’t every country do the same? The only just situation is for no-one to have them.

You heard it here first. Official CND policy is for all nuclear states to disarm simultaneously. Nothing else will do. In fact, it is more moral for all the 192 nation states to arm themselves with nukes, than for the US to act against Iraq. To hell with the low-hanging fruit. All or nothing, and the devil take the hindmost. Proliferation is preferable to the Pax Americana.

One good thing about the CND site is you get all the nutty goodness all in one spot.
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?