ASKING FOR SOME HONESTY

This past week, I attended an event at ASU College of Law. There was a panel of three experts invited to talk about Human Rights and Nuclear Proliferation: Iran. One of these was an Iranian ex-patriate, another the director of an institute that monitors and documents human rights abuses in Iran, and the third a professor from the School who specializes in international nuclear proliferation.

Each of them seemed to operate from the same premise--Iran has no right to nuclear weapons. They built upon this foundation belief by debating whether or not sanctions would be effective, typing nuclear weapons to human rights abuses (on a large scale), and making note of the United Nations' resolutions condemning Iran's defiance of international inspection and their continued processing of U-235 (Uranium used in nuclear power plants and, potentially, in weapons).

I found it difficult to accept their basic premise and the assumptions built upon it, because it seems fundamentally dishonest--or at least disingenuous--to me. How can we in the United States say that it is OK for us to have nuclear weapons and it is not OK for Iran (or North Korea or Chad, for that matter)? What possible rationale is there for one nation to say that it is acceptable, even necessary, to maintain its own nuclear arsenal and then to deny the same defensive (or, perhaps, offensive) capabilities to another sovereign country?

It was argued that Iran's possession of nuclear weapons is de-stabilizing. As evidence, the professor pointed out that when Israel developed its nuclear-weapons capacity, there was not a mad scramble among other Middle Eastern nations to get their own A-bombs (H-bombs, N-bombs, you get the idea). That is, supposedly, because everyone "knew" that Israel would be responsible with its weaponry.

This whole idea of de-stabilization is an intriguing one. We maintain that we keep our nuclear weapons in order to maintain international "stability." We say this is good, because it means that the world is ordered the way we want it to be.

When a putative enemy moves in the direction of nuclear-weapons capacity, this is de-stabilizing. Yes, if it means that such capacity threatens OUR efforts at stabilizing the world the way that we want it to be. But to call that bad can only be seen as a self-serving moral evaluation.

Then there were the repeated claims that Iran is flouting UN resolutions, often with the help of Russian and Chinese vetoes at the Security Council. When was the last time that the United States ever felt bound to stop doing what it thought was in its national interests because of a vote at the UN? And have we forgotten our own history of casting vetoes when Israel was being censured by UN resolutions?

I do agree that it is not in our national interests for Iran to have nuclear weapons. We don't want them to possess them, we don't want them to be able to militarily threaten us or our allies (most especially Israel), we don't want them to be able to dictate terms in the Middle East, we don't want them undermining our efforts in Iraq, we don't want them to be that powerful. Fine: then let us take whatever political actions toward that end that we deem prudent and necessary. But for goodness' sake, let us stop acting like this is some human rights crusade or that we are adopting some moral high ground in calling for living up to the terms of treaties and abiding by UN resolutions. If we believed that possessing nuclear weapons is a serious abuse of principles of human rights, then we should lead the way in getting rid of every last nuclear weapon and technological capacity in the United States. If we believe that abiding by UN resolutions is a moral imperative then let us do so unreservedly and let us press others--Israel among them--to act likewise. If enriching U-235 must be stopped, let us stop it in our country, and let us use economic and political pressure to stop this very activity in Brazil and Argentina.

The drift of my argument is apparent, I'm sure. If we want the power to act in our own interests and make others do what we want, then let's say that upfront and stop pretending that we are on a moral crusade.

WELCOME

For seven years, I had a weekly e'zine called "Burning Bright." Now I'm looking to create a blog in which I can explore similar issues and raise the questions that are burning within. Thanks for every moment you spend with these ideas.