Lawcareer2007@aol.com
New York, United States

There are those in this world who still believe that America’s opposition Iran’s nuclear power ambition is altruistic and benevolent. There are equally those who share in America’s view, that leaders of Iran are irremediable lunatics who would annihilate and obliterate the world, as soon as Iran obtain nuclear arms.

But are these positions above tenable? Is it a mere coincidence that every developing country that aspires to attain nuclear capability is suddenly hounded by America and America’s loose "coalition" of an exclusive nuclear power club? It is no coincidence at all.

The post World War II world order which gave monopoly of power to America and a few European countries to dominate the world has become painfully outdated and outmoded. This is why I advocate the abolishment of veto power  that is currently reserved by America and a few European countries in the United Nation’s Security Council. The United Nation must be democratized.

There is continued inequality in the world, and in particular, at the UN. Bush pointedly ignored UN activities in New York regarding world environment, only for the Americans to have side conference in Washington DC at US State Department

Nigeria is frequently relied upon by the UN to engage in peacekeeping worldwide, and in Africa and West Africa in particular, and yet, Nigeria is not a member of the UN Security Council, and no African country is a member of the veto wielding group. And only this week, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Department of State, Jendayi Frazer had on Thursday pointed out that countries applying to become  members of the Council must meet certain criteria such as being fully democratic, responsible and stable.  This position is  just nonsensical! China is not an epitome of democracy, but it has always been a member of the UN Security Council, as well as happy owner of abundant atomic -nuclear arms. As President Yar’Adua rightly pointed out in New York this week, it is only logical, to include Nigeria at UN Security Council, Nigeria is an African representative and a major role player, in world affairs. It makes perfect sense to have an African representative, especially when African issues are discussed.

America stampeded the United Nations into resolutions against Iraq before the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. America engaged in outright deceptions and unmitigated lies, as precursor to invading and occupying Iraq. Iraq has since turned into a debacle, a quagmire and an unending inferno. The American people in majority opposed  President Bush and his administration on the march to war in Iraq. A majority of the peoples and governments of the world opposed  Bush’s Iraq war policy to no avail.

Notable among governments of the world that opposed America, was France which in fact, led the pack.
Now however, that was then, during the administration of Mr. Francois Mitterand, the new government of President Nicolas Sarkozy, is a different animal. Sarkozy and his foreign minister, Mr. Kushner, are both very vocal, aggressive and public in their support for President Bush’s regime change program against Iran. France has recently ratcheted up the rhetoric of punishments for Iran with sanctions and with the extreme measure of even a war.

The current government of France has stridently opposed President Bush and his wrong-headed invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, that was during the former President Mitterand of France.

Now, France’s new President Sarkozy seems to be in a mad-rush, mad-dash to kiss-and-make-up with President Bush and the war mongers, who are again beating war drums against Iran, as it was against Iraq
The new leaders of France are unabashed and unalloyed in their support for Bush anti Iran policies.
President Sarkozy of France and his foreign minister, at times, sound more aggressive and belligerent than the Bush everyone else among those against Iran aspirations to membership of the exclusive nuclear club. France vehemently oppose Iran’s efforts at nuclear capability acquisition, at least, in harshest words

The average American was lied to regarding the WMD excuses Mr. Bush used to invade and occupy Iraq or the untenable nexus between September 11, 2001 attacks and Saddam Hussein or his government. Iran will be invaded and occupied, based on lies and false pretexts. It is truly dejavu. History of  2003 is about to repeat itself! Iran’s oil is about to be commandeered; And the cornering and commandeering of oil resources in Persian Gulf would be complete! For those who never believed what some of us have said all along, Mr. Alan Greenspan, a prominent, high profile Republican of long standing, confirmed, corroborated and gave more credence to the fact that oil was the reason for President Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq.

We asserting here as well, that the invasion and occupation of Iran, when it occurs, will be because of oil in Iran. Owning or controlling the oil resources and the Persian Gulf, will confer strategic advantage on America and it "coalition" of allies. It should be clear to all now, that the next world struggle is for the reapportionment and reallocation of energy resources and the command and control of the Persian Gulf for military and strategic superiority.

 President Bush of the United States would have the world believe that he is against nuclear proliferation in the mode of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, SALT or Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, START reminiscent of the Détente and Deterrence era of more than 20 years ago.

The truth of the matter is that the USA and its allies have jointly and severally created the impression that they are selectively anti nuclear proliferation. In words, actions and collusions or silence at times, America and its supporters have demonstrated a selective opposition to the acquisition of nuclear capability by say, North Korea, Libya, South Africa, Iraq and now, Iran.

There is an attitude that have been pervasively and demonstrably proven by America and its allies, through their words and actions, to the effect that they are only interested in their self-interests! Which is, their interests maintaining monopoly and domination of possessing of atomic and nuclear powers in addition to WMD, conventional and unconventional weapons superiority. America’s zeal is unsurpassed it its efforts at preventing the acquisition of atomic, nuclear and WMD capabilities by those to whom America and its allies have no favorable disposition; There is a clear double standards in these haphazard determinations. India and Pakistan were once forbidden from atomic-nuclear capabilities, but now? They have it, even though General Pervez Musharaf of Pakistan was disfavored by the US as undemocratic leader of an Islamic republic a few years ago, now, he is an "ally" on the war on terror, his now a good pal

Why is it okay for some countries to possess dangerous weapons of atomic, nuclear and WMD, but some others cannot not? What are the set parameters or criterion for measuring who should and should not have these capabilities? President Bush ignored and disregarded the checks and balances that is embedded and entrenched in the US constitution, lied to the American people and began the war in Iraq. A mid-term elections in America in 2006 by a majority vote cast be the electorate, repudiated Bush’s Iraq policy, to the advantage of Democrats at the expense of Bush’s Republican party. Nevertheless, Bush and his Republican party continues to pursue and push full-speed ahead, their wrong headed policy that had been repudiated by a majority of the American voters and people! What is the essence of democracy and separation of powers, check and balances between the branches of US governmental arms, in light of these development?

Why should I prefer President Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq to the speculation that Iran or North Korea might misuse atomic-nuclear or WMD weapons? Why should I trust America, with dangerous weapons? America, the only country that has actually used or exploded atomic-nuclear weapons in attack against another country; Any more than I can trust country A or Country B? Why should I trust and prefer atomic-nuclear WMD weapons in the hands of , say, Israel, a country that has perennially disregarded UN resolutions for decades as it usurped Palestinian rights, or invaded Iraq and most recently, invaded Syria?
I will rather rely on my experience with American and Israeli behavior with the weapons and military advantage that both countries currently possess and not mere conjectures or speculations against Iran.

Why is it somehow acceptable for the US and its friends to have atomic nuclear weapons, WMD and all, despite known, and repeated misuse and abuse of such powers? Conversely, it is somehow, unacceptable for other countries to have this capabilities even though they have clean slate and unblemished record?

It bears repeating that America remains the only country on earth which has ever used atomic or nuclear weapons against another nation as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki Japan during World War II, to obliterate civilians, women and children, citizens of Japan. It was a complete devastation.

And yet, America is the "leader" among the countries with strong objections to any developing country that aspires to join or which becomes a defacto member of the nuclear power club of countries in the world

America’s objections  be seen not altruistic or benevolent. Are we to assume that America’s objections arises from its first-knowledge of the true ramifications and magnitude of atomic-nuclear WMD impact, when America used it? Or is America’s steadfast opposition more as a result of, not wanting others to have a competitive edge of the so-called, Mutually Assured Destruction, MAD?

Some believe that America did not invade North Korea but Iraq instead, because North Korea had the conventional army and the nuclear weapons to inflict heavy losses on America. Whereas, Iraq had been decimated , pulverized and crippled  since the first Gulf War and imposition of sanctions and no-fly zone.
It is also the case, that Israel would not have invaded Iraq some twenty years ago, or Syria, several weeks ago, had it been the case that Iraq and Syria, had the unfettered rights to the acquisitions of atomic-nuclear WMD capabilities as Israel have had. So, who does non-proliferation really protect?

Shall we believe that Americans and their allies are so kind and humane and as a consequence, they oppose Iran, Iraq, North Korea atomic-nuclear WMD capabilities ambitions?

Are we to believe that America and its allies are genuinely concerned and touched by the risks posed by "rogue-nations" which are, in the view of the Americans, these "rogue-nations" are led by persons certified by the Americans as irremediable lunatics, and as such, atomic-nuclear-WMD in the hands of persons determined by America to be incurable despots, tyrants  and dictators Perverz Musharaf? Would lead the world into apocalyptic catastrophic Armaggedon end of the world?

Or perhaps we are to believe that America and its allies are motivated by a desire to exclude developing countries from the atomic nuclear WMD exclusive club, it is to keep so, exclusive!                                                                                    
Discerning observance know that possession of atomic nuclear WMD is a deterrence to would be attackers, invaders and war mongers. We also know that this capabilities is a sorts of one-comeuppance against countries that do not possess these prized weapons.

Why should America and its allies, who indeed already have these weapons, be the ones to determine who is insane or fit or not, regarding the leadership of politically independent, sovereign nations with inviolate territorial integrity? Are some countries in the world at the cusp and verge of re-colonization? Or why must America and its allies be the ones to approve whether Iran acquires nuclear power for peaceful or some other purposes?

Israel has enjoyed and continues to enjoy, what it calls "Strategic Ambiguities" regarding whether it possesses atomic nuclear WMD or not. Israel has been able, enabled and emboldened by its friends and allies, including good old USA, to unilaterally bomb Iraq atomic nuclear facilities in 1981, in clear violations of international law; Israel again, recently violated Syria’s airspace and of course, violated international law as well as Israel audaciously, peremptorily, without provocation, bombed facilities in Syria. All this, give new meaning and credence to the rumor, to the effect that law is meant to restrain the weak and foolish, while the law protects the rich with powerful friends. International law, treaties, conventions and protocols is meant to restrain developing countries from the pursuit of their best national interests; While preserving upward acceleration and ascendancy of already powerful nations and their allies? Israel bombed Syria’s facilities this month, and neither the US, the Europeans or even the UN have held Israel to account, but why is this  so?

Israel builds apartheid wall, a wall which has intensified sufferings and immeasurable hardships for bedraggled Palestinians. All this, with a wink, a nod, financing and tacit approval by America. Could another country other than Israel indulged itself and get away with it, scot-free?

To be continued….

Robot  # 1 | 30.09.2007 09:48

Iran Gone Nuclear? Who Decides? Who is Afraid, Why? (I) Written by Paul I. Adujie ...Read the full article.

fxo  # 2 | 30.09.2007 20:08

I realize we all have our rights to be lead by the nose by whom ever we choose. But as a Nigerian if you are going to join a bandwagon, please do join it powered by solid facts not concocted reasonings emanating from a questionable individual. From time immemorial when there is a war, the winner gets the prerogative to determine the way forward. So the idea that after the 2nd world war the Americans/British/Russians should have said to the Germans, Japanese, Italians, Vichy French and Spaniards please get back to work and start building weapons so that we can do this a 3rd time is ridiculous and historical inconsistency. In the old days ( and this was the practice even in Africa) when you fight and win a war, you burn the loser's city and gods, you take away as slaves men between the age of 16 and 40 after putting the noblemen and royals to the sword. Yes we are well past such practices but lets not pretend that is not the cultures from whence we have come. I for one am more threatened by a system with no policing as you suggest as opposed to a system of checks and balances. I am Nigerian but believe me I have no faith in the quality of people who represent us and cannot picture them in a position that involves taking a decision that would impact on the entire world, no sir not right now. I am not going to jeopardize the health of the rest of the planet by putting the likes of Speaker Patricia Etteh in positions of influence, no sir no . Maybe sometime in future yes. But not today. Don't get me wrong, I don't think only China, Russia, France, UK and the USA have the capacity to make the right choices, but believe me I will not stand to watch my contribution s to the world as a consummate and discipline professional measured against the performance of the likes of Yar'Adua and Patricia Etteh. If Africa is to be represented and respected lets put our best forward not the dregs of the class. On the use of the atomic bomb, please do not cheapen the sacrifices of the men and women who lost there lives in the 2nd world war. The Japanese, with what we know of their culture would have continued with a suicidal approach to the war if not for the atomic explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The leaders of Iran have said it repeatedly what there intentions are. The president of Iran in his first few months in office repeatedly said he wants to wipe Israel off the earth. We all know that nobody makes so much noise about building electric power plants. Iranians are not the most comfortable people on the planet so what priorities are their leaders setting is'nt better health care, housing, qualitative education, computer literacy, industrialization of great importance to the majority as opposed to some divisive nuclear adventure. If he has a Nuclear weapon he would have the tool to put his mouth where his weapon is as far as Israel is concerned. Then who next, maybe India after all India is an Hindu nation,then maybe fire on Lagos ( we have women who don't cover and we have a large population of infidels who do not proclaim Islam) So some people already have it, you actually think we should put more nuclear weapons in the hands of everyone just for the fun of it. Especially when there intentions obvious. Lets not throw out the baby with the bath water, you do not like America or its president, fine. That does not make it okay for Iran to threaten the rest of us ,play one against the other to achieve some nuclear milestone. A few year down line we will be pushed in a direction we would wish we have avoided, unfortunately we might be saddling another generation with this problem. Ask the Germans, they have to constantly try to convince everybody they are not racist because some generations ago their predecessors allowed an unfortunate ideology to strength and take root, The Nazi

Oghre  # 3 | 01.10.2007 11:55

fxo, You sir have spoken my mind, I will add nothing else as you have done a fantastic job. I like Paul Adujie but sometimes political correctness beclouds his judgement. A smart man with brilliant articles cannot see the threat posed by former sword wielding jihadists who wants to upgrade to city grade-wiping bombs. I am disappointed by Paul’s Article this time round. The warning signs are there but his research (or lack of it) is his demise here.

Abujaboy  # 4 | 02.10.2007 08:47

Where to begin? How can someone be wrong about history, the U.S., Iran, and the U.N. all in one article? But he has done it.

I Love Nigeria  # 5 | 02.10.2007 08:59

These are some of what I was struggling to say, which have been rendered below more elegantly, by Professor Lai Olurode Culled from The Guardian Newspapers October 2, 2007 Backlash of America's moral elasticity http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/editorial_opinion/article04 By Lai Olurode ONE of the distinctive features of America's political practices and which recommends it to the world at large and the developing countries in particular which have difficulties managing pluralism is America's capacity to accommodate diversities. America affords every group, regardless of their idiosyncracies to flourish to the extent to which America's historical realities could afford. Secondly, over the years, America has continued to attract more immigrants from the liberated colonies than even the former colonial overlords are willing to do. Through its diversity visa lottery programme, America seeks to draw people from countries that are considered to be under-represented in its population. And these are happening when the European Union is hardening its immigration regime on Africans. Thirdly, until recently, America has the most generous provisions for acquiring its citizenship by foreign born. It is only in America that someone like Barak Obama can dream so big. The fourth point relates to Islam and global politics today. Though, America is generally perceived in the Muslim world to be fighting Islam, but in reality, it is doubtful if any country outside the Muslim nations commit more resources to the understanding of Islam than America. Leading American and western political theorists were initially so confident in the triumph of America's values globally once the Soviet Union was dismembered, thank to glasnost and perestroika. America naturally assumed that that it had obtained a licence to ride roughshod over the rest of the globe. The eventual Macdonization of the world had been accomplished, so it thought. A major pre-occupation had become the exportation of the manual on liberal democracy to the developing countries and these became an enterprise of a sort and around which many fat consultancies were built.. With America's previous adversary yet to recover from the doldrums into which it had been thrown since the collapse of the Berlin wall, America has not only increased its cultural presence globally, America's military presence globally never reached its current status even at the climax of the cold war. On several occasions, America had defied the United Nations and without any sanction being contemplated. On occasions, it had resorted to crippling the activities of the UN by simply withholding its subventions, and these can be substantial. Only America could breath life into and out of international protocols and treaties. America chooses which international law to obey. And this is America's death knell. None to check and moderate America's excesses. The countries of the world that had looked up to America with envy, pride and great admiration for reasons of its respect for the rule of law soon discovered, to their chagrin that convenience and interest rather than any abstract concept as the rule of law constitutes America's ground norm. It was laid bare that there was no overriding morality that drives America's engagement with the world. America's friends become befuddled at reconciling the patent contradictory postures on broadly similar issues. In the eyes of the oppressed people the world that had looked up to America, America's morality becomes so elastic that it can be constructed to fit and justify even grotesque settings. It could decide to lend support to dictators as it could to those who espouse freedom. Thus though, Egypt is a darling, Zimbabwe is under a dictator. It cannot be democracy if Hamas won an election. Israel is to have nuclear weapon but not Iran. Consistency and fairness can readily be sacrificed on the alter of convenience. The resulting backlash is the dymistification of America. The increasing challenges to the U.S. global hegemony and the growing ant-U.S. feelings are being fed by America's failure to uphold its long cherished value of doing justice in all cases and to all manners of people. Inconsistency and moral elasticity are the natural habitat of hostility and political disenchantment. And the challenges to the U.S. increasing visibility are coming from the most unlikely sources. From Iran to Iraq and from Zimbabwe to Venezuela and to parts of Africa, people are expressing anti-U.S. sentiments. I have listened to favourable comments on the BBC about Robert Mugabe's address at the UN. Robert Mugabe, usually at his best when in a belligerent mood, pointedly said of the president of America. W. B.Bush 'His hands drip with innocent blood of many nationalities. He kills in Afghanistan. And this is supposed to be our master on human rights. What rank hypocrisy'. We should not make the mistake of believing that the presidents of Zimbabwe, Iran and Venezuela are admired by many but symbolically, they spoke the minds of millions who are flabbergasted by the patent elasticity of America's morality. Frustration is the push that is forcing people to latch on Mugabe's and similar invectives. Unfortunately, there had been instances when the U.S. officials had had been at the receiving end of this backlash. Sometimes ago, the fiery London mayor, Ken Livingstone, a labour veteran, hit at the U.S. ambassador to Britain, Roberts Holmes Tuttle, for failing to pay tolls on the U.S. embassy cars. In normal times, this lapse could have been overlooked. Ken Livingstone was known to be opposed to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. And in his letter of resignation in 2003, the U.S. ambassador to Greece was quoted to have written inter alia thus: "Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs are fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal. The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests". I also have a personal experience of this backlash. Recently, l was involved in an academic engagement under the sponsorship of an American organisation in East Africa. I was advised to play down the American connection in order not to provoke hostility and suspicion from the local population. I just marvel at the everyday experiences of those who in the course of their duties have to parade their American identity. The U.S. really needs to return to the golden era of its foreign policy when its interests and those of the majority of the world are not diametrically opposed. This would reduce global tension and acts of terrorism. The U.S. itself would be relieved of the monumental human and material costs of policing the world. The U.S. moral authority would be restored and this would signal the demise of moral elasticity and moral ambiguities. The world would be better for this and America can re-channel resources that are tied down in military campaigns toward human development. The time has come to end the indefinability of America's morality. Professor Olurode teaches Sociology