Bush's
real life game of risk.
By Michael St. Jacques
OpEdNews.com
"Today in Tripoli, the leader of Libya, Col. Moammar Gadhafi,
publicly confirmed his commitment to disclose and dismantle all weapons of
mass destruction programs in his country,"
On December 19th 2003, President Bush made the above announcement
and regarded the somewhat surprising revelation as the beginning of
"the process of rejoining the community of nations" for Libya.
What wasn't surprising was how both President George Bush and Prime
Minister Tony Blair heralded Libya's disarmament as a crucial victory in
the global war on terrorism. It was also a much needed opportunity to
emphasize the global effect the war in Iraq could have. However, to say
that Libya's decision to disarm was solely based on the invasion of Iraq
would be a hollow analysis. There were two decades of severe economic
sanctions imposed upon Libya by the United Nations. Many experts, such as Ray
Takeyh, a Libya expert at the National Defense University believe
the sanctions were a critical aspect of Gadhafi's decision:
"What forced Gaddafi to act was a combination of things -- U.N.
sanctions after the Lockerbie bombing, his international isolation after
the Soviet Union's collapse . . . and internal economic problems that led
to domestic unrest by Islamists and forces within the military,"
Libyan Foreign Minister Abdel-Rahman Shalqam, cited a more globally
political motivation for the surprise declaration of disarmament,
when he called the announced intentions a "clear message to
everybody, especially the Israelis, that they must start disposing of
weapons of mass destruction."
A political stance against Israel's suspected nuclear arsenal, devastating
international sanctions, and a potential domestic uprising due to those
sanctions along with the "message" that the invasion of Iraq
sent, compile a more accurate explanation as to why Libya decided to
disarm.
The question is, was the decision in Libya to dismantle their
"weapons of mass destruction" program really an event to be
heralded? Tony Blair and George Bush both claimed that Libya was close to
developing nuclear weapons, however just what defines "close" is
debatable. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, while admitting little was known about the specifics of the
program, that "they
have only a rudimentary program". In other words Libya never
reached the crucial step of enriching uranium.
The allowance of UN weapons inspectors in Libya apparently has appeased
the United States, it's a pity that the inspections just prior to the
invasion of Iraq didn't do the same thing. George Bush has defended
his decision to invade Iraq despite failing to locate any weapons
of mass destruction, which was the initial justification for the invasion.
His defense centers around the liberation of the Iraqi people through the
removal of the notoriously ruthless dictator, Saddam Hussein.
"There is no doubt in my mind the world is a better place without
Saddam Hussein, America is more secure. The world is safer and the people
of Iraq are free."
Colonel Ghadafi may not be seen worldwide as in any way comparable to
Saddam Hussein, but upon closer examination, there definitely are striking
similarities. There are reports of torture chambers, use
of poison gas and physical aggression towards neighboring nations.
"Libya is one of the few nations that has consistently refused to
sign a treaty banning chemical weapons. In a 1987 conflict with Chad, it
became one of a handful of nations to use such weapons in war when it
fired off Iranian-supplied mustard-gas bombs."
Is it because Ghadafi never used the gas on his own people or because
George Bush doesn't want to liberate Libyan people that he allows the mere
allowance of UN weapons inspectors in Libya to appease him?
The non-UN supported war in Iraq may have been a contributing factor in
Libya's decision to disarm, however there is little evidence elsewhere to
support the notion of the Iraq war as having a positive global impact.
Undoubtedly, the most glaring examples are North Korea and Iran.
NORTH KOREA
On April 24th 2003, North Korea admitted to having developed at least one
nuclear bomb. Earlier in the year, on February 11 2003, at a Senate
committee hearing in Washington, CIA Director George Tenet was asked
whether North Korea had a ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S.
West Coast. His answer was short and highly alarming, "I
think the declassified answer, is yes, they can do that".
Although the accuracy of Tenet's claim has been disputed.
The United States could be described as taking the diplomatic approach, if
they are taking any approach at all. North Korea "said
it would not participate in the next round of six-nation talks aimed at
ending the crisis over Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programme."
The previous three rounds of talks contained little to no progress. North
Korea apparently intends to continue to develop their nuclear weapons
capabilities with possible intent to sell to other nations or
organizations. North Korea recognizes the likelihood of any military
action led by the US as minuscule due to a near over-extension of it's
military worldwide. The reasoning behind North Korea's absolute defiance
of the United States is likely multi-faceted. North Korea is literally a
starving nation, largely due to the government decision to improve the
state of the military over the health of their own citizens. North Korea
wants economic assistance from the US as well as written assurances that
no invasion will occur of their country. There is the element of bribery
here but also the distinct presence of a nation, who in light of the war
in Iraq seeks security assurance. The threat of nuclear arms is their most
effective bargaining chip. The war in Iraq has had the opposite intended
effective on North Korea.
IRAN
Ever since September 2002, when Russia began preparations for a reactor
worth $800m near Iran's south-western port of Bushehr, the US has been
quick to accuse Iran of secretly developing a nuclear weapons program. In
2003, The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was granted
access to Iran in order to conduct a series of inspections on multiple
occasions. On November
11th 2003, the IAEA "says in a report that Iran has admitted
that it has produced plutonium - a material that could be used in nuclear
weapons, but adds there is no evidence that the country is trying to build
an atomic bomb." Later in November, the IAEA passed a resolution to
censure Iran but stopped short of recommending sanctions. Throughout, all
of the above time line events, Iran has claimed that their nuclear
pursuits are solely intended for energy. The situation has recently been
complicated by the staunch US ally, Israel. From late July of this year to
the current day, there have been numerous military threats by both Iran
and Israel. Israel is the most threatened nation by the possibility of the
development of nuclear arms by Iran.
Israel is believed to be the only middle eastern country with nuclear
weapons, an accusation Israel neither confirms nor denies. However, since
Libya's decision to disarm, several middle eastern nations have resumed
the call for Israel to follow suit and disarm themselves. Iran is one of
those nations as is evident by foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi
comments:
"Iran welcomes any step taken by any country to dismantle weapons of
mass destruction, But it is the time for the world to push for Israel's
disarmament, as the main threat to the region". The US continues to
be silent when it comes to the subject of Israeli nuclear arms but
extremely vocal in condemnation of other countries.
Iran and North Korea's actions and words have expressed defiance of the
United States directly, and do not appear intimidated by the invasion of
Iraq. They may have been influenced by the war though, just not in the
manner that the struggling Bush and Blair administrations would have
hoped.
World Wide Military Spending Increase
A group of UN-appointed military experts released findings that display a
disturbing trend throughout the world. "The 16-member group estimates
that military spending will rise to nearly $950
billion by the end of 2004, up from $900 billion in 2003." The
estimates do not take into account the costs of the active armed conflicts
in Afghanistan and Iraq, which would obviously make the estimates a great
deal higher. The disturbing content from the estimates is the comparison
made to the spending of rich nations on development, which is in between
50 and 60 billion dollars a year. The comparison, which directly reveals
the relationship between military spending and that of development, is
actually sickening.
On May 31st 2004, an article written by Channel NewsAsia International,
entitled, "China
defends military build-up, blames US for worsening Taiwan ties",
explains how "the United States was lashed after criticizing China
for developing a variety of "credible military options" to
prevent Taiwan from achieving independence."
Earlier in August, President Vladmir Putin announced that Russia would
"plan to increase
the budget for defense orders by 40 percent, which amounts to 70
billion rubles (2.5 billion dollars, 2.1 billion euros)," It was
further reported that "Russia had initially planned to eliminate the
draft by 2000. Now the plan has been pushed back by at least a
decade."
The so called global "war on terrorism" has created a more armed
and consequently more dangerous. This is directly related to the wars
currently being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the case of China, the
reasoning is still related to foreign policy. From displaying how the
disarmament of Libya doesn't provide the Bush or Blair administration with
any legitimacy in Iraq because of the huge presence of defiance in North
Korea and Iran, to the dangerous increase in world wide military spending,
the US foreign policy fails time and time again. It is no surprise that
Israel is in the midst once again, receiving no pressure from the US to
disclose their nuclear capabilities. The strength of the Pro-Israel policy
will continue to give the US a large dose of hatred from the Arab world.
Earlier in August, President George Bush declared, "I
know what I'm doing when it comes to winning this war," The
world has yet to see Bush win any war but they may very well see future
wars being created. The rest of the world is getting ready too.
Michael St. Jacques is a website administrator of a small online
discussion website called The
Voice Exchange.He can be reached at michaelstjacques@thevoiceexchange.com
|
