Posted on 04/03/2005 9:48:32 AM PDT by Nachum
In a move that could curtail Israeli power in the Middle East, the US is calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and forego the use and stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Twice in the past two weeks, State Department officials have compared Israel’s status as a nuclear power with that of India and Pakistan, calling on all three nations to give up their nuclear arms.
The statements were made by two mid-level State Department Officials, ahead of the NPT Review Conference, scheduled to open in New York on May 2.
The purpose of the conference is to evaluate implementation of the NPT and determine its future course. The officials’ comments regarding Israel’s weapons capability were made, apparently, in order to put the issue of Israel’s nukes on the conference’s agenda. The comments appeared to deviate from Bush Administration policy, which up to now, refrained from using terminology that confirms Israel’s status as a nuclear nation.
The most recent statement came from Jackie Wolcott Sanders, the president’s representative for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. In an essay titled “How to Strengthen the NPT” Sanders mentions Israel, along with India and Pakistan, within the context of enforcing “universal NPT adherence,” but adds that it’s not likely “in the foreseeable future.”
“The Review Conference should reinforce the goal of universal NPT adherence and reaffirm that India, Israel and Pakistan may join the NPT only as non-nuclear-weapon states. Just as South Africa and Ukraine did in the early 1990s, these states would have to forswear nuclear weapons and accept IAEA safeguards on all nuclear activities to join the treaty. At the same time, we recognize that progress toward universal adherence is not likely in the foreseeable future,” writes Sanders.
She adds, “The United States continues to support the goals of the Middle East resolution adopted at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, including the achievement of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.”
Another statement, using similar language, was made by Mark Fitzpatrick, acting deputy assistant secretary for nuclear proliferation, on March 17, at a Meeting of the Organization of American States Committee on Hemispheric Security, in Washington, D.C. He also held the status of Israel’s nuclear armaments on a par with those of Pakistan and India:
“The Conference should also reinforce the goal of universal NPT adherence and reaffirm that India, Israel and Pakistan may join the NPT only as non-nuclear-weapon states. Just as South Africa and Ukraine did in the early 1990s, these states should forswear nuclear weapons and accept IAEA safeguards on all nuclear activities.”
Fitzpatrick’s comments regarding Israel were made just after proclaiming, “Iran and North Korea must not be permitted to violate the NPT without consequences.”
The statements of the two officials contrast with President Bush’s own reference to the NPT in a speech he made on March 7 when he called for enforcing the treaty’s provisions on NPT members, which conveniently include both Iran and North Korea. Bush did not refer to his policy regarding non-member states, which include Israel, Pakistan, and India.
The U.S. State Department has often taken pro-Arab positions on the Arab-Israeli dispute over the years, and has been wary of projecting Israeli power in the Middle East.
Sometimes the department’s positions ostensibly contradict those of the president. For example, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice recently declared in two separate newspaper interviews that President Bush did not make any guarantees to Israel regarding Israel’s right to retain certain settlement blocs as part of a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians. The president purported to make such promises to Israel in a letter he wrote to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last spring, but the interpretation of Bush’s statements have been the subject of much controversy, some of it spurred on by State Department officials.
This is very appaling! It is as bad as Colin Powell's speech about Taiwan not having soverignty!
I wouldn't call him a racist, just uniformed. I don't agree with everything Israel has ever done, I still have a lot of questions and doubts about the attack on the USS Liberty but Israel definitely has the right to protect its people(nukes) and to settle its land disputes as it sees fit.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I will freepmail you to chat about non FR stuff.
Regards,
Tim
The State Dept. today asked Israel to give up their Jewishness saying it was an impediment to peace in the Middle East.
I am going to advance, once again, my modest proposal that, at least in certain areas of the world, we need to cut loose this one-size-fits-all nonproliferation article of faith. The disarmament crowd had huge amounts of fun with the MAD acronym for mutual assured destruction back in the bipolar cold war, but it worked.
China is finally getting serious about the fruitloop in North Korea, but for several years they sat back and chuckled their inscrutable a**es off watching our policy there resemble a monkey attempting carnal knowledge with a football. Consider how much of their attention we'd have gotten if we pulled our 35,000 men out of the peninsula and set them to providing security for the handful of nukes we gave Japan on loan while they developed their own capability, and don't even think Japan is not quietly working on that anyway.
While we have been over-extending ourselves in the middle east to the point China can pretty openly threaten Taiwan knowing our military option there is limited, to put it generously. Japan is for very good reason, very nervous about the aformentioned fruitloop.
Israel probably exists today because they had the nuclear ace up their sleeve. The logic is not that different from armed homeowners or concealed carry laws, the bad guys will hesitate when confronted with the potential of deadly response from the victim.
I grant, this logic only works with identifiable nation-states, and even then one has doubts about such as North Korea. The potential for a terrorist group with no particular return address to pull off a nuclear event is frighteningly close to achievable, but that genie is already out of the bottle. God knows, I am glad I won't have to make the call if some unidentifiable group takes out half of LA with a device hidden in a seatainer. Do we turn a nation of 95% innocent people from which the zealots operated into a glass-lined parking lot if we do trace it back? And if we did, would it actually take out a religious/idealogical organization with no real allegiance to any given geographical base. The sort of people who will turn pregnant teenagers into suicide bomb vehicles won't think twice about putting the host nation of the moment at risk of obliteration as they judiciously move on to another base of operations, they'll just holler "Allahu Akbar" as they pack for moving day.
As much as that is my nightmare, it has no relevance to allowing responsible nations to have a nuclear deterrent. That will not be the source of a non-governmental terror group's fissile material, there is entirely too much of that already available.
I remember thinking as I watched the old USSR collapse, that the destabilization that event created would someday make us look back fondly on the relative stability of a basically balanced three party world. I truly hope I am wrong, but as a gambling man, I do not give us good odds of avoiding this grim scenario in my lifetime.
OK, since you replied to my post #63, I assume you agree with what I said? I wasn't suggesting Israel give up its nukes.
Sorry if I got wrapped up in a train of thought your post inspired and failed to ,make that clear. Yes, I absolutely agree with your post, was just expanding the same concept to other nations at risk.
The old America as nuclear umbrella, so ya'll don't really need your own, that is unravelling past the point of credibility. If I am Taiwan, or Japan, or South Korea and my Chinese (or North Korean) neighbor starts making rude noises, I am not going to sleep nights all safe and cuddly, secure in the concept that "of course we need not worry, our American frinds will cheerfully put one or more of their West Coast ciies at risk of nuclear annihilation on our behalf."
Actually, that is rather an absurdly large favor for any nation to seriously expect and such agreements were more easily made when there was little chance of anyone actually calling our bluff.
Kim Jong is too screwy to read, I don't know if even the Chinese know exactly what he wants long range. I seriously doubt that the fruitloop himself is sure of that from one day to the next. China is another critter. Their aim is to control their sphere of influece utterly in a hegemonic empire. Other than symbolically, Mao no longer counts, Communism itself is just the convenient dressing to put on whatever form of top-down central control works. I remember during the Clinton years, I heard Chinese minister Jiang speaking to the press at the opening of the most substantial trade talks the two nations had had in a long time. I cannot quote it right now, but I recall thinking, "God help us, the Chinese Prime Minister understands capitalism better than Robert Reich ever did." I believe that in retrospect, that observation has been borne out, they took us to the cleaners in that deal and still take every marginal advantage of our distraction elsewhere.
By the way, love the handle. I reread Bester about a year ago, first since high school, and he is still first rank.
Israel laughs uproarously at the State Department's suicide pact.
Hello, anybody home there? The last thing we wanted in either Gulf War was Israel's direct help, we gave them the Patriot batteries just to preclude their unilateral entry into Desert Storm.
They may not have oil, but at least Israel is not in the habit of blowing up our buildings and supporting the groups who do. OK, they did a number on the Liberty, but that was as much poor back channel communication during a crisis as anything and much as I dislike it, at least everybody involved was military, it was not civilian terror. There are principles at stake here that will, I hope, outlast our strategic dependence on Arab oil.
Maybe because we dont allow them to help!
If you think the Muslims are good allies then you are in for a shocking surprise.
This is wrong. No way Isreal should give up their nuclear capability. I am very disappointed to see this from the State Department.
Dont go into conspiracy theories from anti-semitic websites!
Don't make me laugh. I worked with NSA and SIGINT for 15 years. NSA says what the administration wants them to say. I never said it was a conspiracy, just that I had questions and doubts. I have been interested in the USS Liberty since the 70s. Israel is capable of making mistakes just like any other nation, but you ask those men on board the Liberty in 1967 and you will get a different story than the one told by Israel and NSA.
Yes Israel, America and all countries are capable of mistakes.
NSA says what the administration wants them to say.
What about the CIA and other agencies?
This is the same argument liberals give agains the Iraq War that all our agencies are just mouth pieces for the administration.
have been interested in the USS Liberty since the 70s
Why is that? Are you as interested in the USS Pueblo a similar spy ship captured by the N.Koreans in 1968 and held captive for over 200 days while our government did nothing?
agains=against
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.