Hypocrisy in Middle East
Date: Monday, October 16 @ 19:16:07 UTC
Topic: USA

By Dr. Kwame Nantambu, trinicenter.com
October 09, 2006

Within recent times, it has been suggested that the international community is angered that the Islamic Republic of Iran has "enriched uranium" that may lead to Iran eventually possessing a nuclear bomb.

The notion has also been bandied about that the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly stated that, "Israel should be wiped off the map."

While the latter is steeped in largely misunderstood historical precedents, however, another variable must be factored in, that is, the State of Israel is the only supreme nuclear power in the Middle East. In addition, Israel has been posited to serve, protect and defend American and European interests in that region ever since its formation on 14 May, 1948.

Geo-political reality suggests that if one country in the Middle East is allowed to acquire nuclear power then any and all other countries must also be allowed to do so. However, such democratic logic does not work that way in this specific of the Middle East. Hypocrisy replaces democracy in this region.

In other words, true peace in the Middle East indicates that this region must only have one supreme nuclear power.

The fact of the matter is that President Ahmadinejad is perfectly within his rights as the head of a sovereign, independent nation-state to vigorously state his case that, "Iran will not give up its right to nuclear technology."

The record should be put on the table that US friends India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons and just recently, "US nuclear experts [were] to offer technical advice to their counterparts in Egypt, which last month (September) announced it was re-launching its civil nuclear programme."

In addition, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are not even democracies. It therefore seems obvious that only US allies are allowed to have nuclear capability while perceived enemies are not allowed to do so. These include Iran and North Korea. This is geo-political hypocrisy at its European supremacist zenith.

The fact of the matter is that the Middle East does not need a sub-imperialist State; the region needs States whose people can live in peace and security within their geographic borders.

In this geo-political regard, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (namely Britain, United States, China, Russia and France) neither speak for nor represent, the international community. Let it be recorded that these same five governments , so-called "PK5", primarily United States and Britain, permitted the violent, undemocratic, minority pariah Apartheid government of South Africa to openly defy untold UN Security Council Resolutions. In fact, they played no small part in facilitating South Africa's acquisition of nuclear capabilities. They allowed South Africa to become a nuclear power during the Apartheid years. This truism is well-documented by Ronald Walters in his book titled, "South Africa and the Bomb: Responsibility and Deterrence," (1985).

Indeed, the international community brought down the walls of Apartheid; the "PK5" did not. And US President Ronald Reagan had to be dragged kicking and screaming to sign the Anti-Apartheid Act of 1985 as a direct result of massive protest actions by the international community, including the Free South Africa Movement (FSAM) in the United States.

This writer took part in that protest movement which lasted from November 1984 to February 1985 in Washington, D.C. in front of the Embassy of South Africa. Such participation involved being arrested and spending hours in jail.

The "PK5" also turned a blind eye when South Africa, as a sub-imperialist State, used its nuclear power/arsenal to attack/invade/destabilize neighbouring sovereign, independent southern Afrikan countries with impunity.

There was a conspiratorial, "unholy alliance" between the "PK5", South Africa and the State of Israel during the Apartheid era.

Truth Be Told: A reality check reveals that the real international community consists of one hundred and ninety two (192) politically independent countries that comprise the United Nations General Assembly. The "PK5" only represents the global minority.

Ergo, it is hypocritical and tantamounts to the arrogance of geo-political powers to suggests that the "PK5" speaks for the international community. In any mathematical construct, Euro-centric or Afro-centric, 192 is greater than 5.

The fact of the matter is that real community is not perturbed by Iran's right to membership in the nuclear club.

The real international community would support one of its own to be elevated to such global status. Iran has stated that its nuclear programme is for peaceful means.

However, the "PK5" has insisted that because and since Iran lied to the United Nations for the past eighteen years, then, it cannot be trusted this nuclear time around.

The stark reality is that nation-states use their national political agendas to lie about their real macro, geo-political intentions. This is the modus operandi of politics - that's the nature of the beast.

Let the record show that the governments of the United States and Britain both lied to the international community in regard to the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq. This proven geo-political 'Big Lie' was subsequently used as the basis to invade Iraq in 2003.

The bottom-line is that if the State of Israel is allowed to possess nuclear capabilities, then, any other State in the Middle East must also be allowed to do so. In this specific regard, the paraphrased slogan holds true: "None of us should be nuclear unless all of us are nuclear."

In the final analysis, the real international community is not calling for "strong action" against the Islamic Republic of Iran; on the contrary, the international community is adamantly calling for real equality and democracy in the Middle East instead of the specter of hypocrisy that currently prevails.

Shem Hotep ("I go in peace").

Dr. Kwame Nantambu is a part-time lecturer at Cipriani College of Labour and Co-operative Studies and University of the West Indies.

Reprinted from:

This article comes from Rastafari Speaks

The URL for this story is: