Coming to Terms with Iran’s Nuclear Programme

March 4, 2007 at 1:06 am | Posted in Britain, EU, Germany, Iran, Israel, Nuclear, USA, Zionism | Leave a comment

Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons and less still of using them
Michel Rocard, the former prime minister of France, leader of the Socialist Party and member of the European Parliament writing in Haaretz contemplating military action on Iran, states:

“First, resorting to force is simply not realistic. A nuclear strike would have incalculable consequences, and the Muslim world would in this case stand together. Nor is a conventional attack possible, as Israel has no common border with Iran and most of the American army is tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

He further opines:

“The only possible framework for negotiations is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), concluded in 1968. Iran was one of the first countries to sign and it cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for more than 30 years – a relationship that deteriorated only in the last three years. But the current climate of mutual wariness between Iran and the self-proclaimed triad of Germany, Great Britain and France (with sporadic U.S. support) is not propitious to effective negotiations.

The West’s aim, announced by the U.S. and adhered to by the triad, is to force Iran to give up uranium enrichment. Yet the NPT is clear: Any signatory that gives up nuclear weapons and accepts the IAEA’s absolute and unconditional control is entitled to produce electric energy from civil nuclear sources, and to receive technical and financial support from the international community, if necessary. Iran’s oil resources are not infinite and it wants to have complete control over the civil nuclear field – a basic right as an NPT signatory.

I cannot see how a negotiation aimed at getting Iran to unilaterally renounce a right recognized for all NPT signatories simply in order to build confidence in the West could be successful. Uranium enrichment is certainly the first condition for making bombs, but the level of enrichment must reach about 95 percent, compared to the 3.5 percent needed for energy production.”

The solution to the current nuclear dispute is remarkably simple: the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany need to put aside their Zionist foreign policy agendas and look at the situation logically: Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons and less still of using them. Iran does however have a legitimate need and desire to produce its own nuclear energy. Thus the U.S. and the European troika could end this crisis, which is entirely manufactured, by simpling accepting Iran’s nuclear energy programme. To do so would no doubt involve some loss of face, however there is no appetite in the United States or Europe for a war with Iran, therefore any deal that ends the crisis and averts this possibility would be widely welcomed as a victory for diplomacy.

European Holocaust Denial Law Scuppered

January 28, 2007 at 5:51 pm | Posted in EU, Freedom of speech, Germany, Holocaust, UN | 11 Comments

Germany’s attempts to use the EU presidency to persuade all 27 member states to criminalise any dissent from Germany’s official “Holocaust” narrative looks set to be be scuppered. Whilst Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Poland, Romania and Spain have various denial laws vis-à-vis acts of genocide committed during the Third Reich, and all member states endorsed the UN Grand assembly resolution passed this Friday, which unreservedly rejects “any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part, or any activities to this end”, they are unlikely to endorse “denial laws”, which most member states view as draconian and in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights. This Friday, the Italian Parliament rejected such legislation, after it was adamantly opposed by some 200 historians upon the grounds of suppression of academic debate and infringement of freedom of speech.

It is well that this is being resisted: the Holocaust is a conflation of the certain with the uncertain; the rational with the irrational; the subjective with the objective. There never was a “Holocaust” – the Holocaust is an illusory moral and religious interpretation of acts of genocide committed during the Third Reich. Holocaust denial laws are not concerned with the historical episode; they are concerened with State mythology.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.