The following are the excerpt from William
Pfaff's article posted on antiwar.com:
The most important force at work among vulnerable third-world
states is the desire to have a nuclear deterrent against
invasion or attack by the United
States (or in the Iran case, Israel),
or by some other nation in the future. The claim that if
it possessed nuclear weapons, it would aggressively attack
Israel (or the U.S. or Europe) is mendacious propaganda,
since nations, intelligent ones, such as Iran, are not given
to committing suicide.
This threat is put about because Israel wishes the United
States preemptively to demolish Iran as it already has demolished
As for the threat that President
Obama described in calling this meeting, that terrorists
would obtain nuclear weapons, this seems to me extremely
unlikely, if only because no government possessing these
weapons would imagine giving such power to terrorists,
or allowing weapons to be stolen. The world would hold
them, not the terrorists, responsible for what followed,
and they would themselves become the victim of retaliation.
A different problem, complicated by the U.S. itself, might
have found a solution at this meeting. Mr.
Obama met separately with the leaders of Pakistan and
India on Sunday, a day earlier than the plenary meeting.
This was because the United States, during the George
W. Bush administration, seemed to reward India’s secret
introduction of nuclear weapons into South Asia. Pakistan
had already followed India’s example, to have a deterrent
ready to set against India’s new weapons. There was then,
and remains, a Cold-War style balance of terror between the
Democracy in both America and Britain is
coming under scrutiny these days. Quite apart from the antics
of MPs and congressmen, it is said to be sliding towards
oligarchy, with increasing overtones of autocracy. Money
and its power over technology are making elections unfair.
The military-industrial complex is as powerful as ever, having
adopted "the menace of global terrorism" as its
casus belli. Lobbying and corruption are polluting the government
process. In a nutshell, democracy is not in good shape.
How strange to choose this
moment to export it, least of all to countries that have
never experienced it in their history. The west not only
exports the stuff, it does so with massive, thuggish violence,
the antithesis of how self-government should mature in
any polity. The tortured justification in Iraq and Afghanistan
is that elections will somehow sanctify a "war against terrorism" waged on someone else's
The high-minded attacks on corruption in Muslim states from London and
Washington is futile. In most countries corruption is the
lubricant of power. Nor is the west that clean. Britain showered
corruption on the Saudis to obtain arms contracts. The activities
firms in "rebuilding" Iraq were wholly corrupt.
In 2001 the British in Kabul – in the person of Clare Short
no less – were put in charge of suppressing Afghan opium,
fuel of most of that country's corruption. Britain allowed
it to continue, when the Taliban had been in the process
of stamping it out.
As Britons go the polls, they
should challenge their candidates to justify what is being
done in their name. A system of government that they have
spent two centuries evolving and still not perfected is
being rammed down the throats of poor and insecure people,
who are then hectored for not handling it properly. Why
should they? The invasions of their countries was not their
choice. They did not ask to be a model for Britain's moral
exhibitionism. They did not plead for their villages to
be target practice for western special forces.
Quake in Tibetan Area
Behind Nuke Summit