Thursday, 28th March 2024
To guardian.ng
Search
Breaking News:

Nuclear weapons – proliferating nonsense (3)

By J. K. Obatala
18 February 2015   |   11:00 pm
BUT that’s not the only reason for the lapse. The astounding renunciation of nuclear weapons, in Sub-Saharan Africa, illustrates both intellectual vacuity and, more importantly, the awesome effectuality of contrived disinformation and deceit, on the part of the nuclear armed states.      I have no intention of reviewing or critiquing the treaties. Nevertheless, it is…

BUT that’s not the only reason for the lapse. The astounding renunciation of nuclear weapons, in Sub-Saharan Africa, illustrates both intellectual vacuity and, more importantly, the awesome effectuality of contrived disinformation and deceit, on the part of the nuclear armed states.

     I have no intention of reviewing or critiquing the treaties. Nevertheless, it is hard to read some of the more salient suppositions, without a sense of political woe and racial foreboding—without wondering what future a people could hope for, who have entered this type of agreement.

     The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) opened for signature in 1968. It came into force in 1970 and, 25 years later, was extended indefinitely. With 190 signatories, NPT has greater adherence than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement–“a testament to [its]…significance,” Wikipedia surmises

     The Treaty, it reports, is designed “to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament”.

      North Korea acceded to NPT in 1985, Wikipedia says, but never came into full compliance. It formally withdrew in 2003. Israel, Pakistan, India and newly created South Sudan have never been part of the treaty.

     India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested explosive devices and admitted to possessing weapons. Israel has also tested bombs—but has an official policy of denial. South Africa, which tested a nuclear device during the apartheid era, has presumably disarmed and dismantled its bombs.

     In addition to “non-proliferation,” “disarmament” and the right to “peacefully use nuclear technology” are the “pillars” of NPT. Its member states are committed and bound, never to purchase, build or otherwise acquire explosive nuclear devices or the associated technology and materials.

     The Pelindaba accord rests essentially on the same three pillars. But it has a distinctly regional focus and is decidedly more declamatory–replete with sweeping platitudes and grand principles, designed to appeal more to emotion than reason.

     “Protocol I” proclaims, for instance, that the signing parties are “Convincedof the need to take all steps in achieving the ultimate goal of a world entirely free of nuclear weapons as well as the obligations of all States to contribute to this end.” 

     This protocol asserts further, that the Treaty “…constitutes an important measure towards ensuring the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, promoting cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, promoting general and complete disarmament, and enhancing regional and international peace and security”.

     Accordingly, the signatories have, under “Article 3,” renounced all nuclear explosive devices. They have agreed not to do research on, manufacture, stockpile or possess nuclear weapons or weapons-related material.

     Finally, the signatories expressed, in the “Preamble,” their naïve belief that “the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone will protect African States against possible nuclear attacks on their territories”.

     It wouldn’t take a lot of effort, to convince me that this horrifically ill-conceived document was drawn up by junior secondary school pupils—whose wicked teacher had, without their knowledge, given them hallucinogenic drugs!

     Indeed, you’d have to go to a stable where horses are kept, to find purer manure! Neither the “pillars” of NPT nor the childish platitudes of the Pelindaba accord address Africa’s strategic interests—which differ from those of the global nuclear elite, who almost certainly foisted this Treaty on Africa.   

    First, the goal of “eliminating nuclear weapons entirely” is unreachable, diversionary and, in my opinion, undesirable. The nuclear powers are never going to disarm. It is the nuclear states who fund the anti-nuclear movement —which doesn’t bulge them, but helps dissuade would-be atomic interlopers.   

     If nuclear weapons were eliminated, I’d probably start training as an astronaut, even at 72. I’d rather be fired off to another world, than live on a planet where war between industrialized states is, once again, feasible.

     Without the discipline imposed by mutually assured destruction (MAD), we’d be in World War III almost overnight! NATO and the U.S.A., for example, have itchy trigger fingers. They like to rush into other people’s countries with guns blazing—which they really want to do to Russia, over Ukraine.

     But as Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the then Soviet Union, reminded U.S. President John F. Kennedy, in the early ‘60s: Russia has some “nuclear salve,” to sooth the American itch! 

To be continued.

0 Comments