An open letter to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Disruptive diplomacy may be the only way out of the Iran-Israel nuclear crisis: the only way to pierce the hegemony of hypocrisy dominating the power politics of nuclear weapons control, of those who have them, and of those who are accused of developing them.
Otherwise, this weekend's meeting on Iran's nuclear program is likely to be yet another missed opportunity, yet another exercise in futility.
Who will meet in Istanbul this Saturday? Iran and the P5+1.
Who? The P5+1: The five permanent members of the UN Security Council and the only "legitimate" nuclear weapons states under the UN's Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- the U.S., China, Russia, France and the UK and Germany.
Together, their collective history with Iran and Israel is one of complexity, pain and -- so far as nuclear weapons are concerned -- utter hypocrisy! There is no easy solution. What is needed is disruptive diplomacy -- acts of naivety, perhaps -- in which both sides put forward something challenging, and in which everyone gives something up to win peace. Only four countries sit outside the NPT. Israel, India and Pakistan never signed, and North Korea withdrew.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, by joining the NPT Israel can pierce the veil of its policy of "ambiguity," placing its facilities under international safeguards, and begin to dismantle its nuclear arsenal. In this way Israel can help end hypocrisy, and build trust. Israel does not need nuclear weapons; these do not offer a safety net, instead they provide a destabilizing influence throughout the entire region.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran could equally offer to dismantle its entire nuclear program in favor of smart energy systems, efficient energy use and renewable energy sources. This is not cheap rhetoric. It could be done, and would benefit Iran's people.
In 2007, the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior embarked on a Nuclear Free Middle East tour to address the threat of nuclear weapons in the region and the threat of another "weapons of mass destruction" war. We commissioned a study showing that a combination of decentralized energy systems, renewable energy use and energy efficiency would allow Iran to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, end its nuclear program and meet the development needs of its people.
At the same time, Greenpeace activists demonstrated outside Israel's Parliament, the Knesset, arguing: "Nuclear developments and nuclear weapons in any country provoke proliferation and undermine security region wide."
What about the so-called P5? The high handed posturing of Iran's principle accusers, requires some scrutiny. They are the permanent members of the UN Security Council. They are proof that nuclear weapons provide a seat at the top table of global security and thus power politics. Why else would Britain and France (still) have their own chairs? What right do any of them have to discuss illegal so-called "preventative" attacks on a country?
Together they stand for over four decades of bad faith. Under the NPT they promised to disarm in return for all other signatories forgoing nuclear weapons. The P5 committed to negotiate away their deadly nuclear arsenals. They have not done so! Instead, they continue to invest; they continue to modernize their nuclear weapons and delivery mechanisms; they continue to undermine global nuclear non-proliferation efforts.
Before accusing Iran of duplicity, the nuclear weapons nations need to stop and reflect. In reality the grand bargain of the "atoms for peace" pact at the heart of the NPT was always a dangerous lie. A diplomatic deceit promising to control the spread of nuclear weapons in return for support in developing nuclear power, an abundant power source that was supposed to be clean, safe and reliable (even if it turned out to be dirty, dangerous, and expensive). A pact that Iran agreed to, but Israel has not.
Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are the Janus faces of nuclear technology: you cannot have one with out the other. No amount of agreement, treaties and inspection will ever remove the risk and temptation of a nuclear power state becoming a nuclear weapons state. It can be made harder, but never impossible. Just as the risks of meltdowns are present at every reactor site, the risk of nuclear proliferation is attendant in every nuclear program and the temptation to balance the possession by others of nuclear weapons is always there. The temptation to enter the arena of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is ever present.
The world does not need nuclear power. Greenpeace's Energy [R]evolution scenarios -- developed over many years with leading scientists and engineers -- shows how we can avert catastrophic climate change, phase out nuclear power and transition to a clean energy system based on smart (efficient) use and renewable energy sources.
End
Follow Kumi Naidoo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kuminaidoo
Elisabeth Braw: Iran Thinks It Has a Direct Line to God
Revealed: “Refrain from saying things that may weaken Tepco” -Prime Minister Noda in March 2011
http://enenews.com/?p=30642
The NUCLEAR FIX HAS BEEN IN SINCE 3/11/11
We should get rid of the IAEA and put the nuclear policing back into the UN where it belongs; then they need to inspect every Country for Nukes and supervise their storage and use...
Any country that does not allow inspections by a large group of nuclear experts get black balled by the rest of the Planet...
We all need to put regional problems behind US and get to the bottom of the real Nuclear Problem before there are additional Fukushima's and or worse!
But what of Israels 300 Nukes??? Funny how that never makes the discussion!
Time for a change Israel!!
There will come a time, in the 2020s and 2030s when the inevitability of global deployment of breeder reactors will be witnessed in an ever accelerating fashion. The only decision elected representatives or heads of state will have to make is - "do we choose Fast/Solid-Fuelled/Liquid Metal ones or Thermal/Liquid-Fuelled/Molten Salt ones?" See: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/breeder-reactors-it-is-but-will-it-be.html
I wrote a personal letter to Kumi Naidoo, beseeching him to get Greenpeace membership behind Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) to persuade the powers that be that Molten Salt Breeders are by far the safest and most affordable choice, when the time comes.
I got the 'Party Line' reply spouting, with utmost conviction' that the insane and socially destructive 'Energy [R]evolution' would do the trick. It is demoralising to think that people in their commanding positions, with the control of such a powerful membership can believe such tripe.
When there is nowhere else but the dustbin of history for their 'Energy [R]evolution' policy, I hope Greenpeace leaders have the courage to admit to their membership that they were wrong all along.
It’s a policy fierce enough to cause great suffering among Iranians—and possibly in long run among Americans, too. It might, in the end, even deeply harm the global economy and yet, history tells us, it will fail on its own. Economic war led by Washington (and encouraged by Israel) will not take down Iranian government or bring it to the bargaining table on its knees ready to surrender its nuclear program. It might, however, lead to actual armed conflict with incalculable consequences.
The United States is already effectively embroiled in economic war against Iran. The Obama administration has subjected the Islamic Republic to most crippling economic sanctions applied to any country since Iraq was reduced to fourth-world status in the 1990s. And worse is on horizon. A financial blockade is being imposed that seeks to prevent Tehran from selling petroleum, its most valuable commodity, as way of dissuading the regime from pursuing its nuclear enrichment program.
Historical memory has never been an American strong point and so few today remember that global embargo on Iranian petroleum is hardly a new tactic in Western geopolitics; nor do many recall that the last time it was applied with such stringency, in the 1950s, it led to the overthrow of the government with disastrous long-term blowback on the United States. The tactic is just as dangerous today.
good short read: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_washingtons_iran_policy_could_lead_to_global_disaster_20120414/?ln
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.
2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.
Article X. Establishes the right to withdraw from the Treaty giving 3 months' notice. It also establishes the duration of the Treaty (25 years before 1995 Extension Initiative).
UN CHARTER VII ARTICLE 51:
Provides for the right of countries to engage in military action in self-defense, including collective self-defense (i.e. under an alliance) FOR IRAN TO RETALIATE WITH EQUAL FORCE IF ATTACKED.
If the SFP (Spent Fuel Pool) in #4 collapses or fails to be kept cool FOR ANY REASON, in a very short time, all the fuel rods in it will destroy themselves by becoming a huge molten mass. This new radioactive mass will make the ENTIRE Fukushima complex (including reactors #5 and #6 (and their SFP's) into not only the Worlds biggest nuclear disaster but it will be so radioactive that the entire complex will be off limits to humans! This new uncontrollable molten mass will spew so much radioactivity (and keep doing so for the rest of our lives) that it will change life as we know it, because it will be spread Globally by the jet stream and or Ocean currents.
BTW: If you have not seen the 1959 movie "On the Beach" you should, it describes a very similar situation...
TEPCO MUST DO 3 THINGS ASAP TO PREVENT THIS:
1. TEPCO should be filling the entire #4 building with concrete ASAP in order to create a "Seismic Vessel" to completely encapsulate the SFP making it impossible for it to collapse, because the new "Seismic Vessel" would be one gigantic unit...
2. TEPCO should have no less than 4 backup generators and 4 pumps that EACH could provide ENOUGH emergency power and water should ANYTHING happen to prevent the normal pumps from functioning. Note this includes protecting all the fuel, storage tanks, piping and controls so that it would make these pumps and their generators completely BOMB PROOF so nothing could prevent them from functioning 24/7/365 and then TEST ONE UNIT EVERY DAY UNDER ACTUAL LOAD, so that the on site workers become expert at shifting pumps!
3. TEPCO should build and then fill enough tanks to provide standby cooling freshwater for at least one week, so that no matter what happens, the #4 SFP will be kept cool without using seawater, (which could serve as another backup source of water) if the freshwater proved to not be enough for some unknown reason!
I like the Greenpeace energy plan, but it's missing one huge and necessary part:
Waste bio char and bio fuels.
Waste bio char is massively carbon negative, and provide the 24/7 backup necessary for solar and wind, long haul and air transport fuels, plus the oils and chemical needed for plastics and industry. Waste fuels use the existing fossil infrastructure, but clean without the heavy metals and radiation fossils have.
Waste fuels are land and water negative, it's win win win. Close the loop.
http://www.biochar-international.org/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/oregon-fuel-cell-maker-lands-500-million-order-with-austrian-company/2012/01/10/gIQAlGJsoP_story.html can run on waste bio gas.
http://energy.aol.com/2011/12/28/biomass-facility-at-savannah-river-set-to-save-doe-nearly-1-bil/
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0907062.pdf WA state report on waste bio char
You also should promote plug in commuter cars charged while folks are at work by clean solar power. This allows solar to provide as much as 60% of our total energy needs and reduce the need for waste bio fuels to a sustainable level.
Are you making a general statement or are you talking about Iran specifically? If the former, then all the countries like Japan, Brazil and Argentina that have nuclear power stations are also suspect. If your statement is about Iran, then please provide the evidence. I guess the statement of 16 US intelligence agency to the contrary is not enough for you. Did you receive a divine missive from God like Bush did?
That fact that some countries may not have chosen to pursue nuke weapons, does not change the fact that nuke power provides cover for weapons.
The countries that did produce bombs, did use nuclear power to help and cover.
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/nuclear_proliferation_and_terrorism/reprocessing-and-nuclear.html
http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/23205/Sagan_Causesof_NuclearWeaponsProliferation.pdf
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Iraq/andre/ISRI-95-03.pdf
"CANDU reactors are the only commercially available nuclear reactors that produce both plutonium and tritium. India's first nuclear explosion in 1974 used plutonium from a heavy water reactor that was a gift from the Canadian government."
http://www.ccnr.org/india_press.html
You have nothing, but nonsense.
I can list agencies too: cia, NSA, NRI, nra, so what?
Why is the world on Iran's case?
Everyone is wrong, but you?
"Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are the Janus faces of nuclear technology: you cannot have one with out the other." This is another falsehood. You do not need to develop nuclear weapons if you just want nuclear energy.
The author misunderstand the issues. Iran is within its rights and subscribed to the NPT. All major intelligence agencies agree that Iran is not developing nukes. Yet the Western politicians continuously lie claiming that Iran intends to develop the bomb. In contrast, Israel already has the bomb and refuses to sign the NPT. So, is there a doubt about what the solution should be?
In fact even if Iran totally gave up its nuclear program, the hostility of the US and Israel would not change, and some new excuse would be cooked up to replace the pretextual "nuclear weapons threat" from Iran.