As somebody who is a vocal supporter of the Global Zero campaign (an initiative working towards the elimination of nuclear weapons), I don’t entirely believe Iran, or anybody for that matter, should be allowed to go nuclear. However, as my youthful idealism diminishes, I am slowly starting to believe that Iran has all the right in the world to develop a nuclear program, even if that means Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has control of a nuclear bomb. Would a nuclear Iran lead to a safer world? That is debatable, but completely irrelevant.
The world does not want to see Iran with a nuclear bomb because it has repeatedly expressed its desire to attack Israel (not with nuclear bombs, but still). That, to me, makes perfect sense. You don’t want a ridiculously aggressive country with something as catastrophic as a nuclear bomb since that can only mean destruction. But why the double standards? If we look at countries with nuclear weapons today, most of them are quite aggressive. Israel has repeatedly expressed its desire to attack Iran, and senior lawmakers have discussed the likelihood of such an attack. Likewise, the United States of America has carried out military operations in several parts of the world. Pakistan and India have constantly been bickering and they have history against them, having fought three wars in just 65 years.
By hindering Iran from developing its civil nuclear program, even if it does in fact result in Iran having a nuclear bomb, what the international community is in fact doing is stopping those countries who are playing it by the rules. On one hand, we have countries such as Israel, Pakistan and India, who actually have nuclear weapons despite not having signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). These countries are running with the help of international aid, rather than sanctions. Meanwhile, Iran, a signatory of the treaty, is being prevented from exercising its right to develop a civil nuclear program. If the international community is truly afraid of nuclear weapons going into the wrong hands, shouldn’t it impose economic sanctions on countries that have not even agreed to further the goal of nuclear disarmament? Do we really want a world in which those who play by the rules are sanctioned and those who violate them are rewarded?
I would like to see a world with no nuclear weapons. I don’t buy the argument that the world is a safer place with nuclear countries because their presence usually prevents wars. The world has matured enough to prevent wars through diplomacy, even without nuclear weapons in the peripheral vision of countries. The Global Zero program is one that is not expected to make much headway any time soon. Some countries have actually destroyed their nuclear weapons, but it is not expected that any more will follow suit in the near future. There is absolutely no ground under which Iran should be deprived of a civilian nuclear program. The five members of the Security Council of the United Nations, all nuclear powers, should get themselves in order before getting others to comply with stricter rules on global safety.
View the Original article
0 comments:
Post a Comment