Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5
The West and Israel: Selective Treatment
[wpcol_1half id=”” class=”” style=””]
Israel is one of the three states that has not signed or ratified the treaty on nuclear proliferation, the other two being India and Pakistan. It has also refused to place its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards as required by Article III of the NPT. The general Israeli conviction on why states adhere to the NPT is mainly because they are sheltered within defensive alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) or they do not have an identifiable adversary8. European countries are seen to be more secure under the NATO joint defense pact. Israel without genuine allies in the Middle East region finds its security under constant threat from countries like Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. Unlike European countries, it alone, would provide for its own defense. It therefore sees nuclear weapons as the ultimate guarantee to its security and the most potent aggressor in the Middle East region, would think twice before attacking it.
For its nuclear reactor design and construction, Israel sought assistance from France. The two governments saw an independent nuclear option as a means by which they would maintain a degree of autonomy in the bipolar environment of the Cold War9. Much of the proliferation which has occurred can be traced to actions by parties to the treaty. This has weakened the effectiveness of Article I of the NPT which places the nuclear weapon states under the obligation never to transfer nuclear explosives and information concerning their design to non-nuclear weapon states. To a large extent, therefore, the increasing dangers of nuclear proliferation caused by the expanding nuclear programs of countries like Israel have been brought about by the NWS themselves. Israel could not have developed its nuclear weapons potential without some materials or equipment from the major Western nuclear suppliers such as France and the USA which are party to the NPT10. Non parties to the NPT should not benefit from nuclear technology provided for by the NWS. So far as the treaty is concerned, unlimited access to peaceful nuclear technology is only open to NPT members.Iran is not receiving the benefits provided by Article IV of the NPT because nuclear assistance is being awarded as a political prize to prospective friendly states like Israel which are not NPT members. Israel to date is believed to have between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons. Iran has no known nuclear weapon. The clear evidence of Iran’s efforts to enrich uranium has fuelled American concern. However it is generally accepted by the West that Israel has produced nuclear weapons, and is an undeclared nuclear weapons state. Near Acceptance of Israel’s nuclear weapon status by the Western countries has damaged the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has hampered a peaceful solution of the conflict with Iran over its nuclear program. Iranians have questioned the logic behind the United States’ pressure over their nuclear program while turning a blind eye on Israel’s nuclear weapons. This has been a source of tension and resentment in Israeli-Iranian and American-Iranian relations.The Western world does not pay much attention to Israel’s nuclear proliferation as it is doing to Iran’s.
[/wpcol_1half]
[wpcol_1half_end id=”” class=”” style=””]
The underlying problem is that the Americans have tended to give unqualified support for Israel’s policies regardless of whether they breach the NPT or not11. This support is likely to continue irrespective of which government is in power in America, be they Democrats or Republicans. In contrast many believe that Israel’s actions are not only a major obstacle to the peace process in the Middle East but they actually stimulate Iran to make nuclear weapons as a deterrent against it (Israel). Since 2002, the United States has argued that Iran does not need nuclear power due to its abundant oil and natural gas reserves. Oil power is deemed to produce more energy than nuclear power. The American government is convinced that the primary purpose of Iran’s nuclear program is for the development of nuclear weapons. Israel’s weapons are deemed to be in safe hands as compared to Iran if it is to acquire such weapons. George Bush Junior’s Administration argued that having vast oil and gas reserves, Iran does not need nuclear energy12.The Obama Administration also strongly believes that the Iranians should be stopped by all means possible in their nuclear ambitions. Article IV of the NPT clearly states that it is the right of NNWS to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without any discrimination. The American argument is not necessarily valid in the sense that many countries that are rich in fossil energy resources, including Britain and Russia, rely on nuclear power for a significant portion of their energy needs.
From the preceding discussion it can be noted that the United States’ resistance in accepting Iran’s nuclear power ambitions lies in Middle East geo-politics. The USA is contended by Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons because it is assured that strategically Israel will protect its interests in the region. This region has about two-thirds of the world’s proven oil reserves and its oil is still the cheapest to pump and produce13. The United States remains too dependent on the region’s oil and loss of American lives in the region is the price of its dependence. The Iraq invasion is one proof of such a price. The main goal of the United States and European Union is to dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as to serve their national strategic interests in the Gulf region.
The reluctance by the Western countries to condemn Israel’s nuclear program proves that NPT provisions and binding principles no longer form the basis of global non-proliferation efforts but rather that Western countries especially the United States, France, Germany and Britain are increasingly deciding between good and bad proliferation. With regard to the Middle East, the USA rightly worries not only about the potential use of nuclear weapons themselves, but about the potential political leverage bestowed to those who would possess them14. Nuclear weapons in Iranian hands would mean a greater Iranian hand in the Middle East affairs which would in turn reduce Israeli as well as American influence in the region. Israel has through selective treatment managed to develop its nuclear weapon program while Iran which is a member of the NPT is being denied access to peaceful nuclear technology. This privileging of Israel has been an incentive for Iran to continue with its nuclear enrichment program.
[/wpcol_1half_end]
You might also want to read[srp srp_number_post_option=’5′ srp_widget_title=’ ‘ srp_thumbnail_wdg_height=’60’ srp_thumbnail_wdg_width=’60’ srp_include_option=’2778, 2295, 2211′ srp_thumbnail_option=’yes’ srp_content_post_option=’titleonly’] |
Iranian’s nuclear achievements are not fulfilled on the expectations of US as to learn more from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors.