|
Written by Tomas Rosa Bueno
|
|
Sunday, 25 July 2010 21:09 |
 In international politics, if an action seems reckless or callous and the
ones taking it are not certified loonies, usually it's because it was made to
look that way, on purpose. To send a message.
Take Israel’s attack in international waters on a civilian flotilla that
resulted in the death of nine Turkish passengers. There were many ways that
flotilla could have been prevented from reaching a Gaza port that did not imply
resorting to violence; and then again, if they didn't care about killing a
couple of passengers to send a first-level warning to all would-be humanitarian
Gaza friends, they could have waited until the flotilla had actually breached
the blockade and reached the territorial waters where they arguably have a right
to patrol and control, making whatever harm that befell the blockade-breachers
their own “fault” and giving Israel’s actions at least the appearance of
legality. But no, they had to do it in international waters in a way that made
it sure that violence would erupt. And killed nine unarmed civilians in the
process.
You can say whatever you want about Israel’s military, except that they are
incompetent – and they’re certainly not loonies. All the subsequent half-baked
excuses about “unexpected reaction” by the victims and the obviously biased
unilateral “investigation” of the incident are part of the show: Israel did not
make an “error” in deciding to attack the flotilla as it did, nor was the job
“botched”. The message was loud and clear: we will do whatever it takes to
prevent the breaching of the Gaza blockade, and we do not care what the rest of
the world thinks. So loud and so clear that despite the show of international
indignation about the killing of nine civilians in international waters and
despite all the saber-rattling about sending “hundreds” of flotillas, so far not
one thing has been done to hold Israel accountable for its actions, and the
Gazans are still abandoned to their fate, being collectively punished for having
cast the wrong ballot four years ago.
Furthremore, there was a second message being sent: they’re mad dogs, look at
what they have done and think of what they may do if we don’t appease them. That
this “appeasement”, in the form of sanctions against Iran, serves another
purpose is just part of the game: we give you an excuse, you watch our back, and
we both talk about something else while we do it. More than ever, what you do
does not matter, the important thing is what you are seen to be doing – and
“seeing” is open to manipulation of all sorts.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 is another example, in a larger scale. Once the
Afghan precedent was set and making a case for war based on flimsy and – as was
proved later – downright false evidence, in the face of the largest worldwide
mass demonstrations in recent history, the war plan was followed through to the
final invasion and occupation of a sovereign country, resulting in the nearly
complete destruction of Iraq’s economic infrastructure and in uncountable
thousands of civilian deaths. Again, the message was clear: we do not care what
the world thinks of it, we do not care about international law: we will wage
pre-emptive wars of aggression against any country, any time we deem fit, for
any reason we consider appropriate.
Those who said that Israel only employed the means at her disposal to keep
potentially dangerous goods from reaching the hands of Gaza “terrorists” were
right after all, and we were wrong as usual: the very dangerous idea that common
citizens could side-step governments and take the Gaza affair into their own
hands to end the blockade had to be quenched by any means, and a message had to
be sent to prevent any other such initiatives in the future – the safety of
those who own Israel and command the use of her military might was at stake. And
those who cited the needs of “world security" in response to the accusations of
"oil-grabbing" as the driving force that led to the invasion of Iraq were also
right, as we were again wrong: the war against Iraq was/is not about oil (though
having direct control of the world's third largest oil reserve is a nice side
effect): it was about sending a message, and setting a precedent: we have the
right to decide who can do what, and we will enforce this right by any means,
including by waging wars of aggression and killing civilians. And, through
manipulation, blackmailing and threats, we will do so with full support from the
very institutions that were created to keep us from doing it.
At a time when the emergence of new world powers is challenging the owners of
this world on all fronts, it was urgent to draw a line: we can learn to live
with trade competition and we can even encourage it within certain limits to
make ourselves more competitive, but we will not surrender the total control we
have on the world’s destinies. We will continue to take the ultimate decisions,
and you will continue to abide by them. Bully your own neighbors all you want,
as long as we keep bullying you – and, through you, your neighbors too.
There is a war going on, and they have been preparing for it, and fighting it,
even before their adversaries realized there was a dispute. Iran is the current
battleground of this war, the place where they will take a further step in
securing their power. This is why Turkey and Brazil could not be allowed to
negotiate a way out of the Iranian nuclear standoff, this is why the Tehran
Declaration had to be ignored and a new round of sanctions had to be imposed on
Iran: the only solution acceptable for them is that the Iranians forgo their
right to develop their own nuclear technology for civilian purposes, regardless
of their being entitled to it under international laws and standing
international treaties. And this “solution” has to be reached through their own
efforts and means, not through the intervention of meddling upstarts like Brazil
or Turkey. These countries have to be kept in their place as part of the problem
and cannot for a moment think they can provide a solution.
The current goal of the nuclear powers, which they have been pursuing steadily
for the past two decades, step by step, is to make the development of the full
cycle of nuclear technology for civilian purposes a monopoly of those who
already have it, the so-called NPT nuclear states. The means to this end are the
Additional Protocol to the NPT Safeguards, making intrusive inspections
mandatory for all countries (except the nuclear states, of course), and the
prohibition of international nuclear technology transfers, through new rules on
nuclear trade imposed by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Once the Iranian
precedent is set, and they have established their right to force a country to
renounce its rights, they will go about solving the remaining “problems”:
Brazil, Turkey, Argentina, South Korea, Pakistan, South Africa and ultimately
India, already the object of
heavy
bullying in NSG talks.
While Turkey
takes a
firm stand in the NSG against additional restrictions on the international
trade of nuclear technology and continues to be heavily involved in the Iranian
nuclear-program negotiations, Brazil, yielding to undeclared constraints from
unstated parties, stays home licking its
burned fingers and generally promises to behave. But as the Iranian example
clearly shows, “behaving” is not a guarantee of being left alone, and the
Brazilians may be assured they are the next in line for this special brand of
“compliance enforcement” if they abandon the battleground now and allow the
curbing of Iran to take place.
Source: CASMII
 |
|
Announcements
Weekly Stall
A weekly stall selling Islamic books and other merchandise, including exclusive framed portaits will be available on Thursday nights from 9pm until 10.30pm during the Dua Kumail Programmes at the Islamic Centre of England.
|
