Blix panel urges Israel, Iran to end nuclear enrichment
Whilst the whole world watches the drama unfolding between the US and Iran over the enrichment of uranium, a report has been released by Hans Blix that is deserving of everyone's attention if we truly want a nuclear free Middle East.
Blix has demanded that both Iran and Israel should give up enrichment of uranium.
"The reality is that if the U.S. were to ratify, then China would. If China did, India would. If India did, Pakistan would. If Pakistan did, then Iran would. It would set in motion a good domino effect," Blix told a news conference.Blix is arguing that the attempts to encourage Iran to suspend it's enrichment programme are far too narrow and that more success could be achieved by encouraging the suspension of the enrichment of uranium across the whole of the Middle East.
The recommendations were among 60 offered by the panel, set up by Sweden's government three years ago to pump new life into global disarmament efforts and help free the world of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
Blix was in New York to give the report to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who in a statement called on the international community to consider its findings.
The report could embarrass Israel, which has never admitted having nuclear arms and, unlike Iran, is not a member of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It would be harder for the Iranians to hold on to their present position were the entire Middle East to become a nuclear free zone.
Of course, this proposal will be ignored by Washington who see no contradiction in their support for the nuclear power of Israel - who are not a signatory to the NNPT - and their condemnation of Iran who are a signatory to the NNPT and who say they are abiding by it's rules.
America's contradictory stance regarding different country's in the Middle East does much to lessen her moral authority. Not that Bush cares.
However, the US would find it much easier to obtain the backing of China and Russia were she to speak with a consistent voice.
Click title for full article.
Tags:
5 comments:
I agree with most of what’s posted on your site – but you’re way off on the identity card issue.
We already have defacto identity cards – they’re called social security cards and drivers licenses. Nobody who conducts daily transactions in this data-verified society can get along without them. If we combine them for identification purposes into one card, and add a fingerprint below the photograph, or some other unique identifying device, how will that diminish our liberties?
JJ
The problem will be what comes next.
Then there will be Federal laws saying that you must present your ID to any official that demands it. You must be required to prove who you are at any moment. This harkens back to the Iron Curtain where anyone behind it had better show their papers when asked.
The idea of a unified identity card is in itself not entirely bad - I certainly wouldn't mind having something that combined aspects of my different forms of identification (this is speaking from the UK, where similar ID cards are proposed). However, the problems outweigh possible benefits: if you make ID cards compulsory, you create strict limitations on what can be done without a card. Fine, you might say, as everyone should have one - but if everyone has one, everyone can be tracked whatever they do, as both companies and state organisations know that they can exploit this fact to keep tabs on you. Again, you might find this perfectly fine if you don't worry about either of those things, but the current generation of proposed ID cards are all RFID based, and have been proven to be easily exploitable by criminals or others interested in identity theft - they just aren't secure, despite the claims of their proponents. If you want all your personal information in circulation on an easily readable chip, fine, but I have enough problems with handing mine in at airports when I travel.
Israel give up nuclear enrichment?!? What are you, some kind of dirty anti-semite? :)
Main Gnome,
I just would like someone to explain to me how cards would have prevented 7-7. They keep saying they need them to "tackle terrorism". In what way are the of any use?
I don't buy the argument that those of us with nothing to fear should simply accept this.
And I think there should be a limit to how much access the government have to my personal life.
They say you may even have to present them to buy aclohol or any time you need to verify your age.
That's potentially an enormous amount of info being stored about you.
I simply think the next battle is not between right and left but it's between those who are prepared to give up civil liberties for percieved security and those who are not.
Blair justifies all this based on a rather insane belief that we have "the right" not to be blown up. That's a nonsense. There is no such right for the simple reason that there's no court I can go to which will be able to uphold this "right".
I have a profound wish not to be blown up, but I do not have a right.
Post a Comment