The weapon of hatred is facing America, by Fahed Fanek aljazeerah.info

aljazeerah.info Opinion Editorials

The ‘weapon of hatred’ is facing America

Fahed Fanek, Daily Star, 3/27/03

The US has launched it war on Iraq not because the country has developed nuclear weapons, but because it has not. America deals quite differently with countries that have succeeded in developing a nuclear potential.
America was irritated when India and Pakistan held nuclear tests a few years ago. But all Washington did was issue a few statements condemning the two states, as well as slapping relatively mild sanctions on both of them. These were subsequently lifted when the US realized it needed their cooperation in its war against Al-Qaeda. At that point, having nuclear weapons ceased to be a problem and became a legitimate pursuit.
The world knows that Israel has more than 400 nuclear devices, but America has never protested; Israel is, after all, a law unto itself and is allowed what is denied to others.
Most recently, North Korea announced it was resuming its nuclear program. There is every reason to believe the North Koreans already have a nuclear capability. So what did Washington do? It chose to settle the issue through diplomacy.
America will never attack Israel, its 51st state but what about the rest? What about India, Pakistan and North Korea? The US will never attack them either, for the simple reason that they already have deterrents. Iraq, on the other hand, is being attacked precisely because it has no weapons of mass destruction with which to retaliate.
Nuclear powers should not have the right to prevent other countries from possessing them; this is immoral. If America were serious in protecting the world from the threat posed by nuclear weapons, it should not distinguish between those who have such weapons now and those who might have them in future.
No Arab country has nuclear weapons; but should America have the right to prevent Arab states from arming themselves to the same level as Israel? How long should the Arabs be expected to sit by and watch a nuclear-armed Israel threaten them?
Nuclear nonproliferation is impossible to achieve so long as there are countries that possess such weapons. What is required is nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons production, possession and use must be outlawed. This cannot be achieved unless the big five nuclear powers declare their intention to disarm and implement the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The least they could do is declare that they would never use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear countries that have signed up.
This same approach should be adopted regarding other forms of weapons of mass destruction i.e. chemical and biological weapons. There are already international treaties in force that ban the use of such weapons, but many countries including the US continue to stockpile large quantities. What moral justification is there to use such weapons?
It is sad to see the 21st century world moving inexorably towards adopting the law of the jungle, where brute force is the primary means of settling disputes. Is force the only suitable instrument for world domination? What weapon can smaller and weaker nations employ to respond to the use of overwhelming force?
In his book Le Cri de la Gargouille, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin wrote that force alone could never dominate the world. Leadership, De Villepin wrote, needs more than brute force.
The world had already conceded American leadership before the neo-conservative Bush administration came to power. Each US president has long been considered to be the leader of the “free world.” Everyone saw America as the only superpower to oppose, which is in the interests of no country. Moreover, the US projected itself as a defender of freedom and human rights.
Yet, in an extremely short period of time, the Bush administration managed to turn the world against America, anger old allies, divide the EU and NATO and paralyze the international coalition against terrorism. All this just to wage war on a country that poses no threat to the US or to its allies.
If a regime needs to be changed to ensure world peace and security, then the regime in Washington is the one that should go. The Bush regime came to power in dubious circumstances, and since then has been relying on brute force in its conduct.
What can the world do to confront the overwhelming superiority of the US Air Force? Nothing more than face up to it with hatred of America, its policies and the Bush administration. It is possible that the weapon of hatred will prove more effective and more enduring than that of the American air force.
The destruction wrought by American warplanes even if they use their new 10-ton “mother of all bombs,” officially called the MOAB, or Massive Ordnance Air Burst can be repaired. Damage to US reputation and credibility needs far longer to put right, and then only after Washington admits the error of its ways.
Hatred, more importantly, is the godfather of terrorism. It produces terrorists on the one hand and provides them with support on the other.
Do wise Americans understand the potential results of their country’s aggressive policies, not only against the people of Iraq, but against the entire world, now that it has initiated a destructive war?

Amman-based Fahed Fanek is an economics and media consultant.

http://www.aljazeerah.info

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.