|
Page 2 of 2 Neither the U.S. peace movement nor peace movements elsewhere seem to have seriously addressed the question of what policy we should pursue toward Iran if the Iranian government does continue moving toward the development of nuclear weapons. It seems quite likely that the newly elected Iranian government will do precisely that. What do we do beyond wringing our hands? And should global peace movements be rethinking in any way the appropriate policies to support in the entire area of nuclear proliferation as we face not only the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also a 35-year old Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that is going nowhere and a militarily all-powerful United States that has become the greatest nuclear rogue state of all?{mosgoogle right} Here is one person's first cut at suggestions for new policies on nuclear proliferation for peace activists to consider. ONE. Establish, by emphasizing and reemphasizing the point, that U.S. policies on nuclear proliferation should always support and be consistent with global justice and an expansion of human rights. TWO. Oppose all military actions and/or sanctions intended to prevent Iran or any other nation from obtaining nuclear weapons, until the U.S. and all other nuclear nations have eliminated such weapons from their own arsenals, and the elimination has been verified by international inspectors. If this policy allows Iran and certain other nations to acquire nukes, so be it. If justice is one of our goals, any other policy is simply untenable. This policy is also the only way to force the U.S. into serious negotiations to eliminate its own nuclear arsenal. Unless we succeed in bringing about such negotiations by the U.S., there can no longer be any hope for a meaningful nonproliferation policy. THREE. Use the August 6 anniversary to emphasize the negative, not the positive. E.g., "Sixty years have passed, and while there has yet been no further use of nuclear weapons in warfare, we have made NO progress in inducing possessors of the weapons to negotiate away their arsenals. Furthermore, it has become gradually easier over the years for nations to acquire the weapons, so we need to change SOMETHING in our policies to meet the new situation." Then, and only then, we might start talking about some positive things. We should show more understanding that in almost every case, a nation's or group's desire for nuclear weapons arises from political issues on which the nation or group believes it has been mistreated, justice for its people ignored, or its people's human rights violated. We should be helpful, and be seen to be helpful, in solving the political injustices and changing our policies to stop violating human rights anywhere. Above all, until we in the U.S. peace movement can bring about major changes in U.S. foreign policy, and resolve some of the political grievances against us (including our own massive and growing nuclear arsenal), we should simply stop talking about not wanting other nations to go nuclear. All we accomplish with our carping is to intensify already existing global hatreds against the U.S.
Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. He is a contributor to Imperial Crusades, CounterPunch's new history of the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. He can be reached at:
Christison@mwcnews.net The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of MWCNews Recommend this article...
 Quote this article on your site | Views: 1468
Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4
Tags: Bill Christison Hiroshima's 60th Anniversary and Crunch-time for Nukes in Iran
|
Commentary 
