Skip to main content

Lots of people are apparently holding their breath, waiting to see what happens in the United States on November 6, 2012.  Annecdotal evidence suggests that American enterprise is entering into contracts for new projects, but not giving the go-ahead for work to commence, until after the election is done. And, we've been hearing for over a year about bankers not being able to make loans and release funds into the economy because of "uncertainty." As if the future were ever certain. Are they going to be more certain after November 6th, when Barack Obama gets elected to a second term, despite the fact that they've all done their best to keep people unemployed and desperate? Probably not, but at some point they're going to have to realize that the money they are sitting on is worthless and the Federal Reserve is not going to bail them out by raising the base interest rates.

However, Wall Street seems to be in good company. The nations of the Middle East are also sitting on their hands watching and waiting to see what transpires in the U. S. this November.  So, the Finland conference on MENWFZ is on hold until December. What's MENWFZ, you ask?

It's been a while since I posted about the Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, as a follow on to the Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, because, although President Barack Obama made the elimination of nuclear weapons one of his goals, there's not been much movement to add on to the original 9.  But, the just past  President of the General Assembly of the United Nations, Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, also had the issue as a priority, so in 2011 a meeting of the affected parties was planned for 2012.

Who are the affected parties? The former Australian Foreign Minister, Gareth Evans sounds discouraged, but he is addressing the issue as a follow up to the Asia Pacific Leadership Network for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament meeting, fully aware that some of the principals are perhaps not keen. Though the announcement of the invitation to Teheran being announced in the paper suggests that it was well received. Iran is certainly central and, according to Counter Punch, continues committed to non-proliferation, despite the Isreali Prime Minister's bomblet presentation last week at the United Nations.

Let's let them provide a bit of context:

What was Netanyahu’s case against Iran? That Iran is close to having a nuclear bomb. This is an old saw from Bibi. In 1992, as a Member of the Knesset, Netanyahu predicted that Iran was “three to five years” from a nuclear weapon. He was wrong in 1992, and he is wrong now. Take the case of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) recent reports on Iran. The Director General of the IAEA provided a report to the IAEA’s Board of Governors on August 30, 2012. If you are able to get through the bureaucratic and legalistic verbiage, you’ll get to the two important sentences: (1) that the IAEA is confident about “the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran”; and (2) that the IAEA can “conclude that all nuclear materials in Iran is in peaceful activities.” By the IAEA’s standards, Iran has not diverted its materials to nuclear weapons use. In other words, Iran remains on track with a program that President Eisenhower’s administration championed, Atoms for Peace (at his 1953 speech to the UN General Assembly).
Meanwhile, the representative of the United Arab Emirates, Hamad Al Kaabi called for the establishment of the MENWFZ, even as he announced to the United Nations that
the UAE started the construction of unit one of Barakah nuclear power plant earlier this summer, making it the first country among nuclear newcomers to start the construction of a nuclear power plant in 27 years,
The argument that the Middle Eastern nations are sitting on oil fields and thus have no reason to develop nuclear energy ignores that prudent people diversify and don't put all their eggs in one basket.

Egypt is still on board, if the report in Counter Punch is to be believed:

If Israel was serious about the principle of a nuclear-free Middle East, it would immediately sign onto the most important proposal made in this UN General Assembly session thus far: when Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi called for the creation of a Nuclear Weapons Free zone in the region by the end of 2012. The problem is that Morsi’s proposal will be blocked by two powers: the US and Israel. A Nuclear Weapons Free Zone would mean that the US would not be able to bring its nuclear weapons to its bases in the Middle East and nor can it use depleted uranium in the weapons that its ships carry into the Gulf.
Well, that's a variant of the same silly reason the United States advanced against the Central Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone until it was finally adopted. So, perhaps the assessment that it merely needs to be a regional initiative is honest and the meeting now scheduled for December in Finland will be fruitful.

If Evans' assessment is correct, then the nations in the region are probably holding their breath.

But it is hard to ignore the huge constraint that an intensely partisan and negative political environment in the US has imposed. Republican intransigence has precluded US ratification of the CTBT, which would be a big international circuit-breaker; almost killed the New START treaty at birth; and has caused the bar for further negotiations with Russia and China to be set almost impossibly high.

Nor is there any sign that any of these positions would be modified should Mitt Romney, the Republican challenger, become president. International concerns have been compounded – certainly for the APLN leaders – by the shrillness of Romney’s statements on China and Taiwan, as well as his extraordinary identification of Russia as America’s “number one geopolitical foe.”

Perhaps Bibi's bomblet was a "Hail Mary" and he's not looking forward to having the man who doesn't "bluff" re-elected. Certainly, Israel is a stumbling block to Barack Obama's ambitions.  
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 10:33:44 AM PDT

  •  Without doubt, MENWFZ would be a good thing.. (9+ / 0-)

    ...and every effort to make it happen is important. Attacking Iran, if that were to happen—either by Israel of the U.S.—would set back, not advance MENWFZ. Which means we should do all we can to counter propaganda that encourages such an attack, which would be, on many, many levels, a disaster for all concerned, not least, of course, to the thousands of Iranian civilians who would be killed in even the lowest level of attack that could actually do anything to suppress Iran's nuclear industry.

    It may well be true that Iran is committed (beyond its obvious public statements) to a non-nuclear Middle East and thus to a solely peaceful use of nuclear energy, as it has proclaimed for more than a decade.

    However, the excerpt you provide analyzing the IAEA report from August 30 does not mesh with the summary of the actual report.

    The excerpt states:

    (1) that the IAEA is confident about “the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran”; and (2) that the IAEA can “conclude that all nuclear materials in Iran is in peaceful activities.” By the IAEA’s standards, Iran has not diverted its materials to nuclear weapons use.
    This is from the report itself:
    52. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

    53. Despite the intensified dialogue between the Agency and Iran since January 2012, no concrete results have been achieved in resolving the outstanding issues. Given the nature and extent of credible information available, the Agency considers it essential for Iran to engage with the Agency without further delay on the substance of the Agency’s concerns. In the absence of such engagement, the
    Agency will not be able to resolve concerns about issues regarding the Iranian nuclear programme, including those which need to be clarified to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme.

    54. It is a matter of concern that the activities which have taken place since February 2012 at the location within the Parchin site to which the Agency has requested access will have an adverse impact on the Agency’s ability to undertake effective verification. The Agency reiterates its request for access to that location without further delay.

    55. The Director General continues to urge Iran, as required in the binding resolutions of the Board of Governors and mandatory Security Council resolutions, to take steps towards the full implementation of its Safeguards Agreement and its other obligations, and to urge Iran to engage with the Agency to achieve concrete results on all outstanding substantive issues.  

    To be clear: there is no proof that Iran is engaged in an effort to build a Bomb. But it does not help the cause of those of us who oppose, unequivocally, an attack on Iran to suggest that the IAEA has said the Iranian nuclear program is definitely not engaged in such an effort. The agency has not done so, as the above paragraphs clearly show.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 11:02:52 AM PDT

    •  Thanks for that. By no stretch of the imagination (4+ / 0-)

      is this an area I know anything about, other than that nuclear weapons are bad and the nine weapons free zones set up so far a good start.
      The U.S. has blood on its hands for having used depleted uranium in weapons as a way to dispose of it, much as nasty waste fluids are not being pumped under ground in the fracking process to sort of "kill two birds with one stone."

      From where I sit, "what man has put together, he should be made to put assunder," and we have to learn not to make lethal stuff, unless we are willing and able to make it unlethal.
      But, we have to talk about it. Nuclear materials are a big issue, especially waste, and nobody wants to talk about waste unless they're forced.

      The good thing about making mistakes is that someone will step up to correct you, if you're lucky.  So, again, thanks. :)

      We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

      by hannah on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 11:28:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  One of the more encouraging aspects of ... (5+ / 0-)

        ...Barack Obama's presidency is his efforts to reduce the arsenals of the two nations in the world who have the most nuclear warheads. Without those two cutting back, the rest of the world can rightly claim hypocrisy in any effort to keep other nations from getting them.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 11:41:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site