Nuclear
Proliferation—Options In A Perfect Storm
David J. Jonsson
November 4, 2006
Nuclear proliferation is once again at the top of the U.S.
national security agenda; spurred by the progress of weapons programs in North
Korea and as the Iranian government
announced last week a doubling
of its uranium enrichment program. The chief of the judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi
Shahroudi, praised “the fasting people taking part in the rally [who] are
chanting slogans such as ‘death to America’
and ‘death to Israel.’”
His speech was on Quds Day, an Iranian holiday introduced by Ayatollah Khomeini
that is marked on the last Friday of Ramadan.
In my article of August 7, 2006: The Origins of the
Next Great War are Visible I said, “With every passing year following the
events of 9/11 the rise of Leftist/Marxist-Islamist Alliance has increased
global instability. By the beginning of 2006, nearly all the combustible
ingredients–far bigger in scale than those leading to World Wars 1 and 11 and
the Gulf Wars of 1991 or 2003–were in place.”
The question remains as to whether we face a Nuclear Holocaust or an
Economic Holocaust as I described in my paper, Structural
Changes–Destruction Of The U.S. Dollar.
“A
nuclear Iran means, at the very least, a realignment of power
dynamics in the Persian Gulf. It could potentially mean
much more: a historic shift in the position of the long-subordinated Shiite
minority relative to the power and prestige of the Sunni majority, which
traditionally dominated the Muslim world. Many Arab Sunnis fear that the moment
is ripe for a Shiite rise. Iraq’s
Shiite majority has been asserting the right to govern, and the lesson has not
been lost on the Shiite majority in Bahrain
and the large minorities in Lebanon
and Saudi Arabia.
King Abdullah of Jordan
has warned of a “Shiite
crescent” of power stretching from Iran
to Lebanon via Iraq
and (by proxy) Syria.”
See also: Caliphatism
- Establishing the “Islamic Kingdom of God on Earth“
Today in fact, things appear to be heating up in Mideast. The USS
Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) Carrier Strike Group (IKE CSG) entered the
Commander, U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations, after transiting the Suez Canal
Oct. 30, on a deployment in support of maritime security operations (MSO). The Enterprise
group was relieved by the Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group, which
departed Norfolk, Va.,
on Oct. 3 and transited the Suez Canal on Oct. 30. The
two carriers steamed side-by-side in the Red Sea on Oct.
31.
It is important to recognize that the Islamists, Russia
or China
controls all oil transit choke points. Over
40 million barrels per day of oil moves by tanker, in may cases though . Djibouti/Eritrea/Yemen;
connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea. 3 million-bbl/d flows through this choke
point. Egypt; connects the Red Sea and Gulf of Suez with the Mediterranean Sea. Oil Flows (2004E): 3.8
million bbl/d northbound, and 0.4 million bbl/d southbound. Northbound
shipments consisted of 2.5 million bbl/d of crude oil via the Sumed Pipeline
(nearly all of which came from Saudi
Arabia), 0.8 million bbl/d of crude oil via the Suez Canal, and 0.5 million bbl/d of
petroleum products via the Suez Canal. Southbound oil flows through the Suez Canal totaled 0.3 million bbl/d of
petroleum products, and 0.1 million bbl/d of crude oil.
Somali Islamists
fired test rockets on November 3,
2006 and prepared for war with the government as the United
States warned of possible suicide attacks
against neighboring countries. "The onus is on us to start the fight. We
will be the first to strike," one senior Islamist commander, Maalim Hashi
Ahmed, told Reuters by telephone.
Washington
accuses the Islamists of harboring al Qaeda militants and has asked for them to
be handed over.
The U.S.
warning came amid growing fears of a regional war after the Islamists and
government failed to meet face-to-face during three days of talks in Sudan.
The negotiations were postponed on Wednesday with mediators urging both sides
to exercise maximum restraint.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called on all
sides involved in Somalia
not to escalate tensions. Ethiopia's
enemy Eritrea
has been accused of arming the Islamists.
"There are concerns that the situation, the current
situation in Somalia,
might lend itself to wider violence in the region. And we're doing everything
we can to see that that does not happen," McCormack said.
According to a Stratfor report: “Many outside governments fear Somalia
will become a training ground for jihadists, and that SICC recruits
foreign fighters. This concern was reinforced Oct. 9 when
SICC leader Sheikh Sharif Ahmed -- formerly seen abroad as SICC's moderate face
-- declared a jihad against Ethiopia, which he said
had sent 35,000 troops to the defense of Somalia's interim
government. Ahmed's likely exaggeration of Ethiopian troop levels -- which more
realistically consist of several hundred troops in-country and a
several-thousand strong ready-reserve in Ethiopia -- is seen as a tactic to
inflame nationalist and Islamist sentiment that Somalians are unjustly
suffering from anti-Islamic foreign interference.
Having had its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania bombed by
jihadists operating out of the region, Washington wants to
prevent the Horn of Africa from being used again by jihadists to attack U.S. interests.
Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States established the
Combined Joint Task Force - Horn of Africa command center in Djibouti. Countries
within the region, including Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda, share these
concerns about Islamist threats. Ethiopia and Uganda are fighting
Islamist insurgency groups that the SICC could support, while Kenya wants to
prevent the SICC from becoming a threat to Kenya's internal
security and stability by interfering with Kenya's sizeable
Muslim and ethnic Somali population. These shared concerns could result in
greater cooperation with the United States.
“A senior U.S. official insisted the
exercise is not aimed specifically at Iran,
although it reinforces a U.S.
strategy aimed at strengthening America’s
ties with states in the Gulf, where Tehran
and Washington are competing for
influence.” Such actions raise the
question: Who is the enemy? Is the enemy simply the terrorists joined with the
“Axis of Evil” or should we be considering the “Oil Axis” – the alliance of Russia,
China, Iran
and Venezuela.
If it is the latter, America
and Western Europe must evaluate their options with
respect to Russia
and China.
Remember that Russia
has the stated goal of utilizing energy control for establishing geopolitical
supremacy. Russia
now controls the gas supply for Europe and jointly with Iran
has a major control of gas and oil supply to Japan.
Without the support of Russia
and China
neither Iran
nor North Korea
could continue their nuclear weapons program.
·
Iran
Declared War On America In 1979
·
Iran
Testing Long Range Missiles
·
Assembly of World Islamic Order And The Return Of
The 12th Imam
·
Dealing With Nuclear Proliferation
·
The
Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty
·
Transnational Organizations And
Nuclear Proliferation
·
Nuclear Proliferation Is Practically
Impossible To Prevent
·
The
History
·
The
Reasons Countries Develop Nuclear Weapons
·
Burma
A Potential Nuclear Country
·
Japan
Under Pressure To Respond To Impending Crisis
·
The
Knowledge Is Out Of The Tube
·
Getting
Closer To Home--Brazil Enriches Uranium
·
90 Miles
Off Of The Florida
·
The
Defense Should Not Rest
Iran
Declared War On America
In 1979
“How many Americans realize that Iran declared war on us
27 years ago - in 1979 - and has been killing Americans ever since…North Korea,
the world’s leading missile proliferator, and Iran are on the verge of starting
nuclear arms races in both Asia and the Middle East - both hubs of terrorist
networks that reach around the world - which could easily result in nuclear
material, perhaps even a weapon, ending up in the hands of a terrorist
organization. Did you know that Venezuela
is the leading buyer of arms and military equipment in the world today? Did you
know that Chavez is building an army of more than a million soldiers and the
most potent air force in South America-the largest
Spanish-speaking armed force in history? Did you know that Venezuela
will shortly spend thirty billion dollars to build twenty military bases in
neighboring Bolivia,
which will dominate the borders with Chile,
Peru, Paraguay,
Argentina and Brazil?
Venezuelan and Cuban officers will command the bases. This is what the
brilliant Carlos Alberto Montaner-a survivor of Castro’s bloody regime-calls “a
delirious vision of history,” and it is driven by a new alliance of dictators
from Iran, Cuba
and Venezuela
It is part of the grand design so proudly announced by
Ahmadinejad: the destruction of our civilization.” [This is portion of text of
a speech Republican senator Rick Santorum delivered around his state October
26, 27].
Iran
Testing Long Range
Missiles
According to a Reuters Report on November 2, 2006, Iran
fires missiles in war games, “Iran’s
Revolutionary Guards fired missiles carrying cluster warheads to shouts of “God
is the Greatest” at the start of 10 days of military maneuvers on Thursday,
state television reported. “Dozens of missiles were fired including Shahab-2
and Shahab-3 missiles. The missiles had ranges from 300 km (190 miles) up to
2,000 km (1,240 miles),” Iran’s main state television channel reported… As they rose,
Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guards who gave the
firing order, and other Guardsman were heard shouting: “God is the Greatest.”
“Russia
surpassed the United States in 2005 as the leader in weapons deals with the
developing world, and its new agreements included selling $700 million in
surface-to-air missiles to Iran
and eight new aerial refueling tankers to China,
according to a new Congressional study. Russia’s
agreements with Iran
are not the biggest part of its total sales — India
and China are
its principal buyers. But the sales to improve Iran’s air-defense system are
particularly troubling to the United States because they would complicate the
task of Pentagon planners should the president order airstrikes on Iran’s
nuclear weapons facilities…The Russian
sales in 2005 included 29 of the SA-15 Gauntlet surface-to-air missile systems
for Iran; Russia also signed deals to upgrade Iran’s Su-24 bombers and MIG-29
fighter aircraft, as well as its T-72 battle tanks.”
President Ahmadinejad gave a series of speeches
leading up to and on Quds Day. At an Iftar address on October 14, he discussed
his “connection with God” and said: “The president of America
is like us. That is, he too is inspired ... but [his] inspiration is of the
satanic kind. Satan gives inspiration to the president of America.”
Assembly of World
Islamic Order And The Return Of The 12th Imam
“According to
Mullah Khaz-Ali, a member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts, President Ahmadinejad and Hassan
Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah, are members of the
Assembly of World Islamic Order, which will soon be finalized by the Hidden
Imam when he emerges from hiding.”
“The Assembly of Experts is the
86-cleric organ [no women & no non-clergy] that can select and, if need be,
dismiss the Wali al-Faqih, the man who rules the Islamic Republic with
limitless powers. At the moment the Wali al-Faqih is Khamenei.”
“Mullah Khaz-Ali, speaking at a
meeting of the Hidden Imam exhibition, congratulated and embraced Ahmadinejad.
“I kissed Ahmadinejad,” he said, “because it was he who popularized our Hidden
Imam in that land where those filthy jerks run their Great Satan government.
Yes, he and Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah steadfastly persevere our Hidden Imam. They
are in fact in direct contact with the Hidden Imam but they’re being modest
about it! The reason for the delay in the emergence of the Ruler of All Time is
the low level of intellect and culture in society; the foundations must be
cultivated. Stupid people have some shame and come to your senses.”
Mr. Ahmadinejad delivered his Quds Day speech under a
banner that read, “ Israel
must be wiped off the face of the world.” He described the holiday as “a day
for confrontation between the Islamic faith with the global arrogance.”
The chairman of the Expediency Council and a former
Iranian president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, [a
self-proclaimed moderate] who led Friday prayers, said Quds Day is an important
factor “between Islam and unbelief and the stage for Muslims’ jihad.” He added,
“The world’s 1.5 billion Muslims back this jihad.”
Mr. Rafsanjani also led Quds Day prayers on December 14, 2001. Then, he warned
of a coming confrontation between the “pious and martyrdom-seeking forces” and
the “highest forces of colonialism,” which “might inflame a third World War.”
Sadly, Mr. Rafsanjani is considered one of Iran’s
more moderate leaders.
The celebrations included proclamations by the country’s
leaders and activities for university students and artists.
Isfahan University’s
Mechanical Energy
College took first place in a Quds
Day competition for its design of a pilotless plane that can be used for
“suicide attacks.” The director of the Iranian Broadcasting Organization of
Music Production, Mohammad Mirzamani, composed a symphony dedicated to “the
victory over the Zionist regime,” and the country’s religious Web logs were
told to report on all the festivities.
Dealing With Nuclear Proliferation
Opinions differ as to how to deal with the potential for
nuclear proliferation. On the one hand, there are those who believe we can
arrest or at least delay proliferation and others – the realists who are
addressing what to do as more states go nuclear. Hawks have pushed for regime
change or military strikes, whereas doves have favored arms control,
negotiation and some even appeasement. But few decision-makers are seriously
considering what a post-proliferation world would look like, even though such a
world would inevitably require rethinking many of the policies that the U.S.
government and others now take for granted.
The reality of the
present world situation is that nuclear proliferation might have to continue a
while longer before it can be halted or slowed down: were nuclear tests and /or
a terrorist event to be conducted in full view again—the North Korea tests were
not sufficient for a wakeup call, the current generation of policymakers and
their constituents might realize that the use of even a small number of nuclear
weapons would lead to intolerable destruction.
The time for renewing a nuclear/security strategy is
necessary in an age of proliferation. Even fewer politicians and their
constituents are suggesting that such an assessment must address the political,
economic, environment, education and energy aspects.
The primary question is: What should the U.S.
do about the growing proliferation risk and what can we do as individuals or as
a group?
John F. Kennedy in his Inaugural Address spoke these
famous words:
“And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your
country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”
The reducing of the threat of nuclear proliferation cannot
be accomplished exclusively through military action, political negotiation, appeasement
and sanctions, it requires addressing political, economic, energy, education
and even the environment.
Possible examples of individual actions include: not
purchasing products made in countries which support goals that are not
consistent with good human rights policies, against liberty and freedom and are
anti-American. Another is not investing in companies supporting these
countries, providing the banking services and building their economies.
Economic action is a powerful tool, but the country using this tool must remain
economically strong and endure certain hardships.
The hawks argue that nuclear proliferation has been
stopped before, and it can and should be stopped in the case of Iran
and North Korea
as well. Unfortunately, with Tehran—as
with some of its predecessors—the price for Washington
will be relinquishing the threat of regime change by force. We have learned
from prior experiences with India and Pakistan in the 1980’s and 1990’s sanctions only increase the costs
of going nuclear; they do not reduce the ability of a determined government to
get the bomb.
The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty
The
NPT system proved reasonably successful for quite a long while. Although
they are less discussed than the failures, the nonproliferation successes—the
nuclear dogs that did not bark—are more numerous. Many non-nuclear-weapons
states did continue to develop nuclear energy facilities after the NPT was
signed, and some—such as Japan,
with its massive plutonium stockpile—kept nuclear materials and continued their
nuclear research in case the NPT regime fell apart. (Uncertainty about the
treaty was so strong at first that Japan
and other non-nuclear states insisted that they be allowed to review and renew
their membership every five years.) But the NPT and U.S.
security guarantees eventually reduced those countries’ interest in
proliferation. Other U.S.
allies were caught cheating— most notably South
Korea in the 1970s and Taiwan
in the 1980s— but they ended suspected military-related activities when Washington
confronted them and threatened to withdraw its security assistance. Egypt
sought nuclear weapons in the early 1960s, but it signed the NPT in 1968 and
ratified it in 1979 after striking a peace deal with Israel
that reduced its national security concerns. Belarus,
Kazakhstan, and
Ukraine were
nuclear powers from the moment of their independence, having inherited arsenals
when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. But they soon
handed over the weapons to Russia
in exchange for economic assistance, highly limited security assurances from
the United States,
and a chance to join the NPT in good standing. The NPT has been enough of a success
that at the 1995 NPT Review Conference, all 178 states that had ratified it
agreed to extend it permanently.
However, the NPT no longer is an effective tool for the
control of the spread of nuclear proliferation.
Transnational Organizations
And Nuclear Proliferation
Although most analysis deals with states going nuclear,
the nuclear proliferation and the availability of nuclear materials opens the
issue of dealing with transnational organizations such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah
and other related entities.
During the Cold War, most analysts considered it unlikely
that nuclear weapons would be used during peacetime; they worried more about
the possibility of a nuclear conflict somehow emerging out of a conventional
war. That scenario would still be the most likely in a post-proliferation
future as well, but the frequency of conventional wars in the Middle
East would make it a less comforting prospect. If a nuclear-armed
ballistic missile were launched while conventional fighting involving
non-nuclear-armed ballistic missiles was going on in the region, how confident
would any government be that it could identify the party responsible? The
difficulty would be greater still if an airplane or a cruise missile, or even a
suitcase were used to deliver the nuclear weapon.
One of the greatest fears about Iran or other rogue
nation’s possible acquisition of nuclear weapons, moreover, is that the entity
might give them to a terrorist group, which would dramatically increase the
likelihood of their being used. In some cases, for example Pakistan
did not transfer the technology, but A.O. Khan an engineer did transfer the
technology—purportedly without approval of the government. This technology
transfer was probably more for financial gain that ideological. Some argue that
the Iranian government would never condone such a transfer; others that it
would. There is no way of knowing for sure. What can be said, however, is that
the likelihood of a clandestine transfer of weapons and/or nuclear materials to
radical Islamist terrorists will increase if the number of Islamic and rogue
nation nuclear powers grows, if only because it would get more difficult to
identify the state responsible for the transfer so as to punish it.
It is important to recognize that all rogue nations are
not Islamist—examples of which are North Korea
and Burma.
However, the characteristics of these nations include their totalitarian
governments, restrictions on human rights, against liberty and freedom and
desire to destroy the hegemony of the United
States. It is also necessary watch the
countries as they form into trading and military defense blocks—such as the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Mercosur in South America and linking of
Russia, China and Iran with Venezuela and Cuba.
If an Islamist terrorist group acquired fissile material
or a nuclear bomb today, it would be hard to determine with certainty which
country had provided it. Attention would focus on Pakistan,
the only Islamic state currently in possession of nuclear weapons. However, it
should be noted that Kazakhstan
a signatory to the NPT has extensive nuclear enrichment capability resulting
from the prior weapons testing under the Soviet Union. Kazakhstan
is one of the major world sources of uranium. There are still some 800,000
nuclear sources in the country and extensive nuclear waste sites that could
provide material for a dirty bomb. But uncertainty would grow if more Islamic
states went nuclear, and retaliation would become all but impossible unless one
were willing to strike back indiscriminately at all suspect states.
Nuclear Proliferation Is Practically
Impossible To Prevent
A nuclear Iran,
for example, might support increased terrorism—think Hezbollah— against U.S.
forces in the region on the theory that Washington
would be reluctant to escalate the conflict.
On October 18 in the Financial Times—Nuclear
arms spread hard to stop, says Rumsfeld, Donald Rumsfeld is quoted as
saying: it was “practically impossible” to prevent countries from proliferating
nuclear weapons if they had that aim.
“This is one of the hardest things we do . . . There’s so
much moving around the world by land, sea and air that is is practically
impossible, not impossible, but certainly it would take a lot of countries
co-operating with a high degree of cohesion,” Mr. Rumsfeld told a military
audience in Alabama.
His comments came as Condoleezza Rice,
US secretary of state,
began a round of shuttle diplomacy in northeast Asia in
an effort to co-ordinate effective implementation of United Nations sanctions
against North Korea,
which include efforts to prevent the communist state from proliferating nuclear
weapons.
“The only thing that would do it [prevent proliferation] will
be a high degree of cohesiveness and co-operation on the part of the
international community,” Mr. Rumsfeld added. “And that has been something that
has been lacking.”
The History
Twenty years ago this month in Reykjavik,
Iceland, President Ronald
Reagan surprised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev with a proposal that both
nations abolish their ballistic missiles. There was even talk of eliminating
their nuclear arsenals. A second surprise was in store when Gorbachev readily
agreed, though with one hitch—the US
had to shelve its Strategic Defense Initiative. In spite of his dream of
nuclear abolition, Reagan refused to give up SDI, and the deal fell through.
Today we seem to be running on the opposite course. Even
as Reagan and Gorbachev dickered in Iceland,
the London Sunday Times ran a front-page story in which an Israeli
nuclear technician revealed that Israel
had produced more than 100 nuclear warheads. (The techie, Mordechai Vanunu, was
later kidnapped by Mossad, tried and sentenced to 18 years -- 11 in solitary --
for opening his big mouth.)
Israel
was the sixth nation to join the nuclear club. Just two decades after the U.S.
dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, five
nations possessed atomic weapons. The Soviets, were next, collecting the
necessary expertise from at least three spies at Los Alamos, most notably the
scientist and devoted German Communist Party member (alarm bells, anyone?) Emil
Fuchs. Britain,
which had been involved with the Manhattan Project, had its own bomb by 1952.
Eight years later the French joined the nuke club, and by 1964 Communist China
had the bomb. And now China
has the systems for delivery of the weapons.
With the end of the Cold War, many believed that nuclear
weapons would go the way of the USSR,
yet today the world seems to be on the verge of another tsunami of nuclear
proliferation. Now as before, there seems to be little the international
community can do to halt it.
Certainly this round of proliferation didn’t come out of
nowhere. North Korea
and Iran have
been signaling their nuclear intentions for decades. Pyongyang
is, according to the Washington Post, a double threat, because it has
shown itself to be a “virtual bazaar for spreading missiles, conventional
weapons and nuclear technology around the globe.”
Pakistan,
our supposed ally, hasn’t been a slouch either. Islamabad
reportedly has sent nuclear material and technology to North
Korea, Libya, and Saudi Arabia.
The Washington Post also talks of a “vast nuclear smuggling ring
emanating from Pakistan,”
led chiefly by A.Q. Khan, the German-educated father of the Pakistan
bomb.
The Reasons Countries Develop Nuclear
Weapons
Nations develop nuclear weapons for a variety of reasons.
Sometimes it is simply a matter of prestige or national pride, as in the case
of China and India.
Sometimes nukes are seen as necessary for a state’s very survival (Israel).
Most often nuclear armaments are acquired to counter an enemy’s arsenal (Pakistan,
USSR).
Regardless of the reason, when one state adopts nukes its neighbors are likely
to feel pressured to follow suit, no matter how much they oppose nukes in
principle. This will be the case for Saudi
Arabia if Iran
goes nuclear. The particular danger in the case of Saudi
Arabia is that it is potentially fighting
both the possibility of conflict internally against Al Qaeda and Shiite
factions.
Case in point: India
tested its first “peaceful nuclear” device, Smiling Buddha -- you didn’t think
Indians had a sense of irony, did you? -- in 1974. George Perkovich, author of India’s
Nuclear Bomb, notes that Delhi’s
reasons had little to do with security, but stemmed from an overwhelming desire
for global recognition and national pride. The proposed agreement (awaiting
congressional approval) to supply nuclear technology to India
negotiated by President Bush does not put India’s
weapons program and breeder reactor activities under the inspection control of
the NPT.
Following India’s
test, Pakistan
immediately began work on its own nuclear weapons program. Reacting to this
perceived threat from its neighbor, Pakistan
Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto said, “We will defend our country using any
means necessary and build a nuclear capability second to none. We will eat
grass for 1,000 years, if we have to, but we will get there.” Thanks to
technical assistance from China
and the expertise Khan stole from German and Dutch nuclear facilities, it
didn’t take anything like 1,000 years. Pakistan
successfully tested its first bomb in 1998.
Burma
A Potential Nuclear Country
Union of Myanmar, also known as Burma
or the Union of Burma by bodies and states which do not recognize the ruling
military junta (dictatorship).
It should come as no surprise that more and more countries—following
North Korea’s
lead, and sensing a weakening of the U.S.-EU alliance—are expressing an
interest in nuclear weapons. Even a nonentity, but recently significant energy
supplier for China
and India, like
Burma (The Australian July 6, 2006), has announced its intention to start
a nuclear weapons program, effectively daring the UN Security Council to stop
it. Iran, of course, has been playing the Security Council for a fool for years
knowing full well that the Security Council’s threats are about as effective as
a chocolate sauce pan. The U.S.
will not submit Burma
to the UN knowing that China
would block any resolution. Buddhist 89%, Christian 4% (Baptist 3%, Roman
Catholic 1%), Muslim 4%, animist 1%, other 2% per CIA Fact book. Burma has
borders with Bangladesh 193 km, China 2,185 km, India 1,463 km, Laos 235 km,
Thailand 1,800 km. Bangladesh is rapidly becoming an Islamist state and the
site a growing terrorist presence.
According to a Jamestown
report The
Roots Of Extremism In Bangladesh of January
13, 2005: “The rise of
radical political and religious parties like JeI promoted the growth of
madrasas in the country, mostly funded by certain Middle Eastern countries. The
prominent donors are the Saudi-based al-Haramain Foundation, UAE-based
al-Fujayrah Welfare Association and the Dubai-based Dar ul-Ansar and Muslim
Welfare Association. (Suggested reading is my earlier paper as a reminder: Dubai Ports –
Strategic Implications.) Although
none of these organizations have any offices in the areas where terrorist
groups are active, they operate through a network of preachers who not only
distribute money but also motivate the youth to join jihad.”
“Not surprisingly, Bangladesh
has been host to various terrorist groups anxious to recruit and train young
students coming out of these madrasas. One of the more prominent ones is Harkat
ul-Jihad al-Islami (HuJI), widely regarded as al-Qaeda’s operating arm in South
Asia. HuJI has been consolidating its position in Bangladesh
where it boasts a membership of more than 15,000 activists, of whom at least
2,000 are “hardcore”. Led by Shawkat Osman (alias Sheikh Farid) in Chittagong,
the group has at least six training camps in Bangladesh.
According to one report, about 3,500 Bangladeshis had gone to Pakistan
and Afghanistan
to take part in jihad. Barring who died, a large number of them returned home;
of these, about 500 form the backbone of HuJI.”
“According to the South
Asia Terrorism Portal: Both local
residents and foreigners are recruited into the HuJI. Besides, refugees from Myanmar
are a significant source of cadres for the outfit. They include stateless
Rohingyas, whose families have fled Myanmar
over the years allegedly due to religious persecution. Cadres of the HuJI are
primarily recruited from various Madrassas (seminaries). The Madrassas
essentially impart religious training and most of them are financed by Arab
charities. Reports also indicate that many HuJI recruits have seen ‘action’ in
the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, Chechnya and Afghanistan…The HuJI had
reportedly been formed drawing inspiration from Osama bin Laden and continues
to maintain active links with the Al Qaeda network and remnants of the Taliban
militia.”
China
is building a naval base in Burma.
Burma’s
military junta has attempted to buy nuclear weapons technology from North
Korea’s rogue regime in an alliance that
presents a frightening new threat to regional security. The highly secretive
Burmese state maintains the biggest army in Southeast Asia,
with a regular military estimated at about half a million people and a
paramilitary force of some 100,000.
Japan
Under Pressure To Respond To Impending Crisis
Japan
is being put under pressure to act resulting from the North
Korea nuclear test and simultaneously the
impact of cutting off oil access from planned suppliers.
According to an article in the Financial Times on October 25, 2006, Japan Hits Big
Setbacks In Push to Expand “Japan
will be required to revise its energy strategy. In accordance with Russia’s
strategy to use oil as a weapon for geopolitical control and to support Iran,
North Korea and
China; Russia
will redirect the LNG output from the giant project off Russia’s
Sakhalin Island
to China.”
This is yet another example of the Leftist/Marxist –
Islamist Alliance—the “Oil Axis” at work seeking world domination.
Just five months after its unveiling, Japan’s
ambitious 25-year plan to sharply increase oil and gas development is hitting
snags, suggesting Tokyo may find it
even harder than expected to stabilize the nation’s future energy supply.
“On October 23, Exxon Mobil Corp. said it reached a
preliminary agreement to sell natural gas from a giant project off Russia’s
Sakhalin Island
to China,
instead of to Japan
as originally planned. This came several weeks after Russia ratcheted up
regulatory pressure that could jeopardize another Sakhalin gas project in which
the bulk of the planned output of nearly 10 million tons a year—about a fifth
of Japan’s current natural-gas imports -- was destined for Japan.”
“Earlier this month, Iran
canceled the right held by Inpex Holdings Inc., Japan’s
largest oil-development company, to participate in a $2 billion project in the
Azadegan oil field. At its peak, the project was expected to meet as much as 6%
of Japan’s oil
demand. The developments are a blow to Tokyo,
which had counted on the deals as a major component of its push to expand its
access to energy. Japan,
whose economy is the world’s second-largest, relies nearly entirely on imports
for its oil and gas, making it vulnerable to swings in global oil prices or
political tensions in energy-producing regions.”
The projects in Russia
and Iran are a
stark reminder of the challenges Japan
faces and the free-world as the “Oil Axis” of Russia,
China, Iran
and Venezuela
gain strength. In September, the Kremlin began meddling in a Sakhalin gas
project led by Royal Dutch Shell PLC that also involved
two Japanese trading companies, Mitsubishi Corp. and Mitsui & Co. The government has
accused Shell of violating environmental standards and threatened to pull its
permits.
The United Nations Security Council is considering whether
to impose further sanctions to pressure Iran to give up its uranium-enrichment
program, which the U.S. and others say is a precursor to atomic-weapons
production and the Iranians claim is for civilian energy use. If sanctions are
imposed, the Japanese government would have to halt its plans to provide loans
and low-cost trade insurance. That would make it difficult for Inpex to raise
enough money to fund the project, let alone make it profitable.
Now with October’s nuclear test in North
Korea, Japan
may feel pressured to go forward with its on-again, off-again enrichment
program, rather than rely for its security on a weakened U.S.
Three years ago Japan’s
chief cabinet secretary Yasuo Fukuda reiterated that “depending on the world
situation, circumstances and public opinion could require Japan
to possess nuclear weapons.”
This is but another example of Russia’s
use of environmental cover to gain increased control of oil resources. In
today’s Russia,
energy has become a fundamental tool in leveraging its policies. Along with the
issue of North Korean nuclear weapons, energy became a key point in dissuading
the EU from condemning Russia’s
actions in Georgia.
Russia’s
control of Georgia
is critical in controlling gas and oil supplies to Europe.
“Gazprom,
Russia's natural gas company, on Novemebr 2, 2006 threatened to double
prices to neighbouring Georgia next year, stepping up economic pressure
amid a tense dispute with the Caucasus
republic.”… Separately, Russia’s foreign ministry yesterday hit back at concerns
voiced by the US that Germany could become too reliant on Russian gas by
participating in a new pipeline under the Baltic Sea. The ministry said US
opposition appeared motivated “not by worries about Europe's energy security,
but the principle professed by certain American officials that good pipelines
are those that skirt Russia.”
Russia’s
control of energy, its stalling techniques with Iran,
and the coincidental nuclear test in North Korea
have allowed Russia
to distract the West and wield extraordinary power in the CIS. But what will
happen when those circumstances subside? Russian wolves will be full on
sustenance provided by the West and countries like Georgia
will remain starved. The West, meanwhile, may not have much of its cake left,
as most of it will have ended up on its face.
On October 18, 2006 Hiroshi Suzuki, Japan’s deputy cabinet
secretary said: Tokyo wanted to discuss other issues with Washington, including
the efficacy of its nuclear umbrella, which took on added importance in view of
the North Korean threat. Japan,
he said, maintained “solid adherence” to its three non-nuclear principles - not
to possess, develop or trade nuclear weapons.
Also Taro Aso, Japan’s
foreign minister told parliament Japan
had every right to discuss the desirability of possessing nuclear weapons, even
though he was against any change. His remarks prompted Mr Abe to say the
nuclear debate was “finished”.
Almost. According to the Financial Times in an interview
with Shinzo Abe on October 31, Abe
looks to new Japanese constitution. “Shinzo Abe, Japan’s new prime minister, said his government
would rewrite the constitution during his term, bringing to an end more than 60
years of living with a document written under US occupation.”
In his first newspaper interview since
taking office in late September, Mr. Abe told the Financial Times: “Japanese
people should themselves write a constitution that befits the 21st century.”
The existing document, written by American occupying
forces in 1946, includes Article 9, which renounces Japan’s
right to wage war or to maintain armed forces. “I believe this article needs to
be revised from the point of view of defending Japan,”
Mr. Abe said, adding that Japan
was now expected to play a role in international security that was not
compatible with its current constitution.
Japan
will bring forward its program for setting up a missile defense system
following heightened tensions in the region caused by North
Korea’s nuclear test, the Japanese defense
minister said on October 25. “Japan does not have the power to defend itself
against a missile attack,” said Fumio Kyuma, the new head of Japan’s Defense Agency. “We should try to bring
forward the timing [of missile defense deployment],” he said. North Korea’s recent missile and nuclear tests have
provided Japan’s more hawkish politicians with a sense of urgency in their calls for
stronger self-defense measures, particularly against a missile attack.
The Knowledge Is Out Of The Tube
Nuclear arms races might emerge in regions other than the Middle
East as well. Asia features many countries
with major territorial or political disputes, including five with nuclear
weapons (China,
India, North
Korea, Pakistan,
and Russia). Japan
and Taiwan
could join the list. Most of these countries would have the resources to
increase the size and quality of their nuclear arsenals indefinitely if they so
chose. They also seem to be nationalist in a way that western European
countries no longer are: they are particularly mindful of their sovereignty,
relatively uninterested in international organizations, sensitive to slights,
and wary about changes in the regional balance of military power. Were the
United States to stop serving as guarantor of the current order, Asia might
well be, in the words of the Princeton political science professor Aaron
Friedberg, “ripe for rivalry” -- including nuclear rivalry. In that case, the
region would raise problems similar to those that would be posed by a nuclear Middle
East.
On October 16 Speaking
at a conference in Vienna on tightening controls against nuclear proliferation, IAEA
Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said there is a real danger that the 30
so-called threshold countries could have the capacity to develop nuclear
weapons in a very short time. “The lack of international security and the
failure of non-proliferation agreements make it difficult to convince these
‘virtual new weapons states’ not to develop their own nuclear programs,”
ElBaradei told reporters. He told
The Times a country -- not necessarily a superpower -- with good intentions
about using nuclear power could develop a bomb “based on their sense of
security or insecurity.”
“The knowledge is out of the tube ... both for peaceful
purpose and unfortunately also for not peaceful purposes,” Mr. ElBaradei said.
“It’s becoming fashionable for countries to try to look
into possibilities of shielding themselves ... through the possibility of
nuclear weapons,” he said, adding: “Another 20 or 30 would have the capacity to
develop nuclear weapons in a very short time.”
According to the UN official, these “20 or 30”
specifically potential nuclear powers includes:
Australia,
Argentina and South
Africa: countries he said have recently
announced to be considering developing enrichment programs to be able to sell
fuel to states that want to generate electricity with nuclear reactors.
Canada,
Germany, Sweden,
Belgium, Switzerland,
Taiwan, Spain,
Hungary, the Czech
Republic, Slovakia
and Lithuania:
Nations which either have the means to produce weapons-grade uranium if they
chose, could quickly build such technology, or could use plutonium waste for
weaponization.
Japan,
which also says it has no plans to develop atomic weapons, but could make them
at short notice.
South Korea,
which also has spent reactor fuel and was found a few years ago to have
conducted small-scale secret experiments on making highly enriched uranium that
would be usable in warheads.
Finally, Thailand, Mr. ElBaradei’s home country of Egypt,
Bangladesh, Ghana, Indonesia, Jordan, Namibia, Moldova, Nigeria, Poland,
Turkey, Vietnam and Yemen. These countries are “considering developing nuclear
programs in the near future,” according to the UN official’s speech.
Could the U.S.
government really destroy all of an adversary’s nuclear weapons in a nuclear
first strike? Does Washington
want that ability? And what--if anything--should be done about it? Peter C. W.
Flory Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy writing
in Foreign Affairs, September/October 2006, Nuclear
Exchange: Does Washington Really Have (or Want) Nuclear Primacy?
“This administration has continued the policy of
previous administrations in that it does not rely on the ability to conduct a
nuclear first strike to ensure the survival of the United
States. The Department of Defense’s force
posture of dispersed ICBMs and survivable ballistic missile submarines is
designed to make clear to any adversary that might contemplate a first strike
against the United States that in the aftermath of such an attack the U.S.
military would retain the ability to respond with such devastating force that
an aggressor could not stand to gain. This is not a first-strike posture.”
Getting Closer To Home--Brazil
Enriches Uranium
How Brazil Spun the
Atom “While Iran
grabs headlines, Brazil
is quietly, and without belligerence, preparing its centrifuges to start
enriching uranium according to an article in Spectrum (IEEE Journal) of March 6, 2006. Brazil will soon produce enriched uranium in industrial quantities to fuel its
two nuclear power reactors. Brazil’s achievement comes at a time when concern is
running high over another enrichment program, in Iran. Both countries are parties to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—the foundation of the international regime that
seeks to limit the spread of nuclear weapons—but Brazil’s program is notable
for its differences from Iran’s: Brazil has consistently fulfilled its
obligations under the NPT, and the country has forsworn nuclear weapons
ambition since a democratic government replaced the military dictatorship that
ruled the country from 1964 to 1985.”
“With its new Resende plant, Brazil
is joining the exclusive club of nations that operate commercial-scale
centrifuge facilities. These include Germany,
the Netherlands,
and the United Kingdom—
these three forming the Urenco Ltd. consortium—plus Russia,
China, and Japan.
The United States
and France
enrich uranium through a different process called gaseous diffusion, although
both countries plan to build centrifuge plants.”
“All over the world, uranium centrifuges and other
enrichment technologies are treated as state secrets and subject to stringent
export controls. That’s because the same equipment used to enrich uranium into
reactor fuel can, with only minor modifications, also enrich it to a far higher
level to serve as bomb-grade material. So while enrichment technology provides
the lifeblood of the nuclear power industry, it can also be instrumental to the
production of nuclear weapons.”
90 Miles Off Of The Florida
The thoughts of an Islamic terrorist state located 90
miles off of the Florida coast
should enough to keep the people of America
and even President Bush up for weeks.
According to AKI Adnkronos International, Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, the president
of the Majlis, the Iranian parliament, who is related by marriage to Ayatollah
Seyyed Ali Khamenei, the spiritual leader of the Islamic republic, met on February 13, 2006 with the president
of Venezuela,
Hugo Chavez. Haddad Adel arrived in Caracas
on Sunday night with a delegation including agriculture minister Mohammad Reza
Eskandari and industry minister Ali Reza Tahmasebi. After the visit to Venezuela,
Iran’s main
ally in Latin America and within OPEC, the Iranian
delegation is set off to travel to Cuba,
Brazil and Uruguay.
Venezuela is
mining uranium from a clandestine mine.
In his first foreign visit as Iran’s newly elected
president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Cuba and Venezuela before heading to the
United States for a UN summit in September last year. Ahmadinejad met with
Venezuelan president Chavez and the Cuban leader Fidel Castro.
While the Cuba
visit itself may be of little consequence, the invitation offers a reminder
that our Cuban neighbor is ceaselessly working to pursue anti-American foreign
policy. It also offers a heads-up that Iran’s
nuclear aspirations may as well be Cuba’s.
The Defense Should Not Rest
The solutions for dealing with proliferations are not static
and no one solution will provide a permanent solution. Each day will present
new challenges and each must be met for the protection of civilization. The
solution does require the cooperation of countries working together realizing
the danger and potential destruction that would issue forth. Today, most of
emphasis has been placed of countries developing weapons. The control and
security is not one-dimensional. This is not the time to hit the pause button
on addressing the total security issue. Security does not stop at the
negotiating table. We must address the issue globally.
To bolster the efficacy of deterrence in a world of small,
closely located nuclear powers, it would be necessary to deploy surveillance
systems that could identify and warn against aircraft movement and missile
launches. These systems might be operated on a national or a multilateral
basis; in fact, a number of states in exposed regions could contribute to
collective efforts to detect airborne threats.
The construction of such a regional surveillance system,
moreover, would put in place much of the infrastructure needed to support
another useful tool: some form of missile defense. Skeptics of missile defense
have often ridiculed, with some reason, the notion that such systems can be
effective against nuclear weapons or large numbers of missiles. What they
overlook, however, is that even leaky or somewhat ineffective defenses can play
a constructive role in deterring an attack from a nuclear power with a small
arsenal or lowering the odds that a full-scale nuclear conflict will erupt from
a single use (of whatever origin). Witness Japan
moving ahead with their missile defense system.
Other kinds of defense could also help lower the odds of
an attack or mitigate its terrible consequences. Government officials whether
in the U.S. Asia or Europe should develop the capacity
to evacuate those cities at risk of a direct attack or of being in the path of
nuclear fallout, as well as stockpile radiation meters, build fallout shelters,
and implement other measures first devised in the 1950s. Civil defense came to
be seen as a grotesque joke when the Soviet Union
acquired tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. But, like missile defense, it
could play an important role in a world of smaller nuclear powers.
Should a nuclear bomb get through nevertheless; it would be
critical for the government of the targeted state to respond with policies
other than doing nothing or ordering indiscriminate retaliation. One option
would be to launch a massive non-nuclear military campaign against the
responsible party to make sure that such an attack was never repeated. But even
with all the will and money in the world, such a response simply could not be
summoned up out of the blue; it would require careful planning and preparation.
Many of the countries potentially developing nuclear
weapons gain their funding through the sale of oil. Removing the sources of
funding would significantly reduce the risk of nuclear weaponization. Examples
include Iran, Venezuela,
Saudi Arabia, Burma,
and etc. Energy independence can be a deterrent to nuclear proliferation.
Drug trafficking, Internet porn, sex slaves,
counterfeiting and other endeavors are also providing funding for the
activities.
Open borders allow the potential transfer of WMD. This
requires both the countries that have nuclear materials, such as Kazakhstan
and those seeking security such as the EU and the United
States to have adequate border control.
Security is also important with regard to technology
transfer, shipment of materials, plans and manufacturing technology. A.Q. Khan
and Emil Fuchs transfer of nuclear technology are examples. The technology
transfer of missile technology—not components from the U.S.
to China
allowed their development of intercontinental missiles. With electronic
transfer, North Korea
may transfer their technology to other countries; inspecting ships will not
solve this problem.
The U.S.
also needs materials and metals, such as rare earths from China
and titanium from Russia
to maintain our weapons program. Unless we have plans for our security, we are
at risk for defense. Shutting down a mining operation for Rare Earth in the U.S.
because of an environmental concern can be just as devastating to our security
as the transfer of nuclear material to a rogue nation.
Shut down nuclear programs in countries mentioned above
result in large numbers of trained scientists and engineers without jobs. These
scientists and engineers, most of which are in need of work migrate and seek
paying jobs. Some move to countries to develop their weapons. The closure of the
South African and Argentine program are prime examples.
Without the adequate supply of trained and committed
scientists and engineers, with appropriate security clearances, we cannot
achieve security.
Peaceful coexistence does not require friendly relations
or appeasement, but it does mean exercising mutual restraint. Relinquishing the
threat of regime change by force may be necessary and acceptable price for the United
States to pay to stop Tehran
or Pyongyang from getting the bomb
and the delivery systems. But this alone will not prevent the nuclear
proliferation and a potential nuclear and/or economic holocaust. The combined
forces of the Leftist/Marxist – Islamic Alliance and the Oil Axis have the goal
of world domination.
David J. Jonsson is the author of Clash
of Ideologies —The Making of the Christian and Islamic Worlds,
Xulon Press 2005. His new book: Islamic
Economics and the Final Jihad: The Muslim Brotherhood to the
Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance
(Salem
Communications (May 30, 2006). He received his undergraduate and
graduate degrees in physics. He worked for major corporations in the
United States and Japan and with multilateral agencies that brought
him to more that fifteen countries with significant or majority
populations who are Muslim. These exposures provided insight into the
basic tenants of Islam as a political, economic and religious system.
He became proficient in Islamic law (Shariah) through contract
negotiation and personal encounter. David can be reached at: djonsson2000@yahoo.co.uk
|
The
View From The Peak