Both represent clear and present harm to American national security and interests.
Still, there are times when the largest of future harms resides in cool text buried away in tedious documents read by few and acted upon by still fewer. Such is the case with a draft document currently being circulated by this year's capo of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Egypt, for the guidance of the one hundred or so countries holding membership in NAM. Deep in the bowels of this paper is Point 31.
Point 31 calls for all signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to refrain from transferring or allowing the transfer of any and all materials, equipment, and knowledge related to nuclear research and engineering to Israel unless and until that country joins the NPT. Point 31 also calls upon all signatories to the NPT (which, of course, includes the US) to disclose all information in their possession regarding the Israeli nuclear program including but not limited to a full release of all information relevant to previous transfers of equipment, technology, materials, and knowledge to the Jewish state. The Egyptian position paper is unclear if this requirement would be rendered null in the event Israel signs the NPT.
Egypt is, as it has been for many years now, plumping for the nuclear disarmament of Israel under the beguiling guise of creating a nuclear weapons free Mideast. The Egyptians are not motivated in this so far bootless quest by high minded desires to see the Mideast as an idyllic place in which heavy atoms eager to fission or light atoms equally happy to fuse are conspicuous by their absence.
The government and military command of Egypt like their counterparts throughout the Arab majority region recognize perfectly that Israel's nuclear capacity is the ultimate guarantor of Israel's existence, of Israel's capacity to defeat any hypothetical combination of adversaries, even one equipped with overwhelming superiority in the most technologically advanced warlike stores and munitions. This realization has a universal deterrent effect upon even the most zealous advocate of wiping the Zionist entity off the map.
Mark this well. It is the Israeli possession of nuclear weapons which assures Israel's survival and not any promises on the part of any and every American administration. History has proven to the satisfaction of the Israelis (at least) that the promises of an outside Great Power are not sufficient to deter a resolute and motivated enemy. They, in apparent contrast to President Obama and others in his administration, learned the single greatest lesson of World War II. That lesson is contained in the failure of the Anglo-French guarantees to Poland.
Sure, the agreement was signed. It was publicly declared to be the guiding light of national policy in both London and Paris. Yet, Hitler unleashed the panzers anyway. He was unimpressed by either the political will or material capacity of the French and British to intervene effectively on Poland's behalf.
Hitler was proven wrong. It took nearly six years and millions of dead. And, what good did Poland receive in the process? Ask the corpses of Katyn forest.
The government and people of Israel mean no disrespect to the US when they aver or imply that a country must look to its own resources to protect its own interests, chief among which is national survival. It is not so much that the Israelis do not believe the good intentions of the many American presidents (including Mr Obama) when they announce the linkage between Israel and the US, but rather, they know that reality may prove different when push comes to shove.
In this the government of Israel is no different from that of France under Charles de Gaulle. The Great Charles irked the US no end when he went his independent way with the creation of an all-French nuclear force. Small to be sure, but existing solely to protect French interests.
France was easily accepted as a nuclear power, a member of the NPT committed in theory to the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. In that status France is equal to the earlier developers of nuclear arms, the US, the UK, the USSR, and China. All of these members of the "Official" Nuclear Club are equally committed to the goal of a "nuclear free"world.
Whether the same can be said of the members of the "Unofficial" Nuclear Club, those countries which have nuclear weapons but are not subscribers to the NPT is arguable. India, Pakistan, and (in an intentionally ambiguous way) Israel constitute the "Unofficial" bunch. On a purely realpolitik basis it is quite unlikely that any are in favor of proliferation. But, none are legally committed to this which puts them at inherent odds with the five big guys of the "Official" club.
It is of more than simply passing interest that the Egyptian Point 31 mentions only Israel by name. Arguably there is not even an implication that the same strictures should apply to NPT signatories with respect to the other two members of the "Unofficial" group. Perhaps this is due to an Egyptian capacity to sleep soundly given that (a) Pakistan is a fellow Islamic country and (b) India is too preoccupied with either or both Pakistan and China to spare any bombs for Egypt.
More probably the Egyptian care in labeling is based on practical politics. Cairo has no desire to annoy fellow NAM heavyweight India or its colleague in the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC,) Pakistan. Assuring the full compliance of the juggernaut of the NAM or the slightly smaller bloc of the OIC means not ruffling any of the easily displaced diplomatic feathers of the highly nationalistic governments of India and Pakistan.
Point 31 does represent a diplomatic tarbaby for the Obama bunch. By so eagerly and publicly embracing the chimera of a "nuclear free" globe as well as a similar status for the Mideast, the Nice Young Man From Chicago has created a very pretty problem for himself.
Linking the threat presented by Iran with a reduction in nuclear weapons has boxed Obama quite well. It will be far, far more difficult to isolate Iran sufficiently at the current NPT review conference without giving some measure of support to the Egyptian position. At the same time, any support for Cairo's cleverly worded Point 31 will result in further intransigence on the part of Israel.
Obama has overlooked or willfully ignored the ground truth here. Without its ambiguous nuclear policy, Israel is a small, stationary target for all attackers from the suicide bomber to the combined conventional forces of the Arab "frontline states."
Obama has overlooked or willfully ignored the necessary corollary. No state can rely upon the promises of another when existential matters are involved. As Le grande Charles put it, "Is it believable that the US will put New York or even Chicago at risk to protect Paris or Lyon?"
Even if much lower stakes are involved, can any responsible government hand over the guarantee of existence to an outside power? Particularly one whose support for Israel seems to be evanescent to a degree previously unthought?
So far Iran has done a commendable job in enlisting the support of members of NAM as well as other "small" non-nuclear states with the contention that the West generally and the US in particular constitute an oppressive minority practicing the most hypocritical of policies with respect to nuclear energy. The addition of Egypt's Point 31 goes a long, long way to firm this pro-Iranian tilt at the UN.
Much of President Obama's approach deserves (cautious) commendation. But, his stance on a nuclear free world generally and a Mideast similarly lacking in nuclear weapons is misguided and counterproductive. If nothing else, Mr Obama, Ms Clinton, and others need to get a grip on the reality that pressuring Israel to join the NPT and relinquish its nuclear guarantee of national survival is as wrong as a cat barking.
Mr Obama, Ms Clinton, and the other high minded idealists of the administration also need to take a very firm grip on another reality. The opponent right now in the Mideast/Persian Gulf region is not Israel. It is Iran. And, on the diplomatic front as well as the practical one of developing a breakout capacity, Iran is winning.
This means, we--and the rest of the civilized world--are losing. Thank you, President Obama. Will you ever learn that vaporous words and invoking the shade of Saul Alinsky won't hack it in international politics? Before it is too late?
No comments:
Post a Comment