|
|
Analysis
Nuke
Armed Powers
for Continued Hegemony on Terror
by
K. Gajendra Singh
Unrepresentative UNSC Votes for continuation of
Apartheid NPT Regime
The 15-member UN security council unanimously
adopted on 24 Sep, 2009, a US-sponsored resolution aimed at reducing
nuclear weapons around the world. A US president for the first time
attended the UNSC session.
(Obama should first persuade the
Congress and pass the Health care bill or regulate the aberrant US
financial runaway train sector heading for catastrophe)
In line
with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), it
comprises the following key points:
State parties to the NPT must
comply fully with all their obligations and fulfill their commitments
under the treaty.
States that are not parties to the NPT must
accede to the treaty as non-nuclear weapons states.
NPT states must
pursue negotiations on steps relating to nuclear arms reduction and
disarmament and on a treaty on complete disarmament under strict
international monitoring.
All other states must join the effort.
NPT states must cooperate to ensure the NPT review conference next
year not only bolsters the treaty but sets realistic goals in the areas of
non-proliferation, the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and disarmament.
Nuclear Terrorism
All states must
refrain from nuclear test explosions as well as sign and ratify the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
The conference on
disarmament must negotiate a treaty banning the production of fissile
material for nuclear weapons or similar devices as soon as possible.
NPT member states must share best practices in order to improve safety
standards and aim within four years to secure all nuclear material from
the risk of nuclear terrorism.
All states should minimize as much
as economically and technically feasible the use of highly enriched
uranium for civilian purposes.
They should work to convert research
reactors and radioisotope production processes to the use of low enriched
uranium fuels.
All states must improve their national capabilities
to detect, deter and disrupt illicit trafficking in nuclear materials
throughout their territories.
Comments;
This is an ill thought and not duly deliberated move and unlikely to
succeed in its aim of disarmament since as the world knows the nuclear
weapons states are the worst culprits. US which is pushing it is fast
losing clout all around the world , Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central
Asia , Latin America etc .
If the idea is to coerce Iran and North
Korea, it will not succeed. Let us hope India would not be coerced into
acting against Iran, which Ms Clinton, Nick Burns and others expect from
India. Not another Sharm-el Shaikh please!
What about Israel which
has up to 200 nukes in its armory and has blackmailed its neighbors since
1973. Israel and Jewish community in USA control the US Congress, media
and financial sectors. Any American politician who thinks of standing for
an election must first pay obeisance to powerful Jewish AIPAC.
What will India do? Sign NPT as the resolution exhorts. What is India’s
status. NPT signed or not NPT signed or nuclear weapon state as PM told
the Indian Parliament in 2006. American interlocutors talk as if India has
signed NPT. Did India have a well thought out and coherent policy or just
depends on US promises, which US is not known to keep.
"The present
system for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons is at an end,
is bankrupt," said Mohamed El Baradei, head of IAEA said at Davos a few
years ago and remains true even now. He described "unworkable" the way of
thinking that it is "morally reprehensible for some counties to pursue
weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on
them for security and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and
postulate plans for their use" (NYT Feb 12, 2004) Former president Jimmy
Carter summed it up: "The United States is the major culprit in the
erosion of the NPT”
UN GA and the ICJ has lambasted NPT and its
implementation including general disarmament .The Seventh Review of the
NPT in 2005, after futile deliberations lasting 4 months, was an
unmitigated disaster with the Conference even failing to agree on a
consensus document or adopt a common resolution or a substantive
Chairman's statement, fuelling cynicism if the world would ever be free
from the fear of nuclear weapons holocaust.
As the Western
corporate outlets and poodle BBC will dominate the media along with its
subservient, uninformed. For ill-informed or West educated Indian media, I
am reproducing my comprehensive and in depth article dated May 11, 2006
which will help you in understanding the complexities and the true nature
of the problem.
The Nuclear Non- Proliferation
Treaty Is Dead
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13005.htm
http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=23254&s2=14
Mirror, mirror on
the wall, who are the greatest proliferators of them all!
"The
present system for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons is at
an end, is bankrupt." Mohamed El Baradei, head of IAEA recently at Davos.
“In most communities it is illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded
assembly. Should it not be considered serious international misconduct to
manufacture a general war scare in an effort to achieve local political
aims?” Dwight D. Eisenhower.
"ICH" -- The Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its apartheid regime is but a carcass now.
While the abhorrent South African regime is long gone, the major violators
of NPT -an iniquitous, non universal thrust down regime –held in place by
the five recognized nuclear weapons powers (NWPs), who also occupy the
permanent seats in the UN Security Council want this unethical and immoral
regime to continue.
There is an unholy alliance of cover up by the
NWPs, against the majority of the nations of the world, the non-nuclear
weapon states and others, who watch impotently this dangerous theatre of
the absurd and brinkmanship, in trepidation. Something is seriously wrong
with the political, economic and environmental health of planet Earth. And
something might give in soon, with NWPs carrying out prohibited
activities, among others deadly use of depleted uranium weapons. Mother
Earth, already damaged could cross the Rubicon beyond redemption.
The US has retched up the present conflict with Tehran, with ill
considered support from Europeans (who need Iranian gas as an alternative
to Russian monopoly). Russia and China would not allow a UNSC resolution
for possible US abuse later for an attack on Iran, as was done in
Yugoslavia and Iraq. US efforts for a mandatory UN resolution have been
thwarted by Russia and China. UNSC members have agreed to present Tehran
with a choice of incentives or sanctions in deciding whether to suspend
uranium enrichment.
While Sunni countries Turkey, Saudi Arabia and
Egypt in the region are lukewarm to Shia Iran, Tehran has gained support
from the biggest Muslim nation Indonesia.
USA and UK, with France
and Germany, not always in unison, are dancing a macabre dance of death
over NPT’s carcass against Russia and China, which in tandem with Tehran
is countering Western attempts to enter their strategic space.
But, when it comes to their obligations to NPT, the five NWP s close ranks
against the rest of the humanity.
Mohamed El Baradei, director
general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has described as
"unworkable" the way of thinking that it is "morally reprehensible for
some counties to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable
for others to rely on them for security and indeed to continue to refine
their capacities and postulate plans for their use" (NYT Feb 12, 2004)
Former president Jimmy Carter summed it up: "The United States is the
major culprit in the erosion of the NPT. While claiming to be protecting
the world from proliferation threats in Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea
... they also have abandoned past pledges and now threaten first use of
nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states."
Russian President
Vladimir Putin urged the international community on 10 May to pay
attention to the fact that the arms race has reached a new technological
level with U.S. defense spending 25 times higher than Russia's. He said
"It is too early to speak about an end to the arms race. In fact, it is
unfolding, and has reached a new technological level, thus posing a threat
of the appearance of an arsenal of so-called destabilizing weapons,"
Obligations and responsibilities of Nuclear
Weapons States;
Article VI of the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" which came into force on March 5,
1970 says;
"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue
negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of
the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on
a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective
international control."
The NPT signed in 1968 , based on a
covenant between NPW s and non-NPW s is now subscribed to by 187 states ,
the four very notable exceptions being Israel ,India and Pakistan (north
Korea left NPT in 2003), which possess nuclear weapons and Cuba, which
does not. India has always criticized NPT as discriminatory and unequal.
In 1995, NPT’s initial validity of 25 years was extended indefinitely,
with a review conference to be held after every five years. The last
dismal review was held in 2005.
"It is nonetheless the case that
states not endowed with nuclear weapons and signatory to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have always had a basis for considering
that the international cooperation provided for in that treaty to develop
civilian applications for the atom has stayed a dead letter, as has the
compensation promised in exchange for their renunciation of nuclear
weapons."
NPT is dead;
The
Seventh Review of the NPT in 2005, after futile deliberations lasting 4
months, was an unmitigated disaster with the Conference even failing to
agree on a consensus document or adopt a common resolution or a
substantive Chairman's statement, fuelling cynicism if the world would
ever be free from the fear of nuclear weapons holocaust. Any hopes to
transform the existing international proliferation control regime and
reduce, if not eliminate, the global nuclear danger promised in the 2000
review were just shattered. [USA and others in the West now use 911 as an
excuse].
The review proved that on the point of disarmament and
reduction of arsenals of nuclear weapons, the gang of five stick together
aggressively led by USA– No concessions. Period.
While the 5 NWP s
could be jointly held responsible for the ignominious end of the review,
USA, specially under the Bush administration has been staunchly opposed to
arms control and nuclear-arms reduction. Indeed it went back from the
commitments made in 2000, whereby they had agreed to 13 "Practical Steps"
which would put some flesh on their "unequivocal undertaking" to fulfill
their obligation towards complete nuclear disarmament under Article VI of
the NPT.
Instead "USA argued in 2005 that the problem with the NPT
regime lies not in the nuclear weapons-states' inaction over disarmament,
but in the lack of compliance with it by states such as North Korea and
Iran. The other four NWS s too colluded with the US in trying to shift
attention away from their failure to begin negotiations on nuclear weapons
reduction and ultimate abolition".
The US is now developing "usable
low yield" mini-nukes and would redesign earlier bombs for bunker-busting
of targets buried deep underground. Both US and UK are into further
research on Hydrogen bombs and to place nukes and other new lethal weapons
in space. In 1998 a Commission under Donald Rumsfeld had produced the
pro-"Star Wars" (Missile Defense) Report of the Commission to Assess the
Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States.
After Bush's
election in 2000," Washington has walked out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty and 'unsigned' the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The 2001 "Nuclear
Posture Review" recommended the revitalization of US nuclear forces, and
all the elements that support them, within a new triad of conventional and
nuclear capabilities.
In 2006 USA adopted a production schedule of
250 nuclear warheads per year and promises to extend its nuclear hegemony
over the earth to space. Under the cover of USA's never ending so called
war on terror all kinds of lethal weapons are being developed.
UK
has modernized its nuclear forces and assigned tactical missions to its
Trident. Paris said that its security "is now and will be guaranteed above
all by our nuclear deterrent."
So Russia and China are responding
.President Putin said Russia was "carrying out research and missile tests
of state-of-the-art nuclear missile systems" and that Moscow would
"continue to build up firmly and insistently our armed forces, including
the nuclear components". Moscow is also reportedly developing unique
new-generation nuclear weapons "not possessed by any country in the
world," while China has diluted its no-first-use policy and is "upgrading"
and modernizing its missiles.
And after September 11, 2001, all of
the 5 NWP have become even more addicted to nuclear weapons for
'security'."
El Baradei warned ,"In recent years, three
phenomena—the emergence of a nuclear black market, the determined efforts
by additional countries to acquire the technology to produce the fissile
material useable to nuclear weapons, and the clearly expressed desired of
terrorists to acquire weapons of mass destruction—have radically altered
the security landscape."
A peace activist Praful Bidwai moaned
after the failed 2005 review, "The bargain is simple. The bulk of the
world's states would foreswear nuclear weapons and accept a regime of
inspections to ensure that nuclear materials are not diverted to military
programs. In return, the NWPs-5 would earnestly initiate negotiations to
eliminate them, and meanwhile transfer no material/know how to allies such
as Israel."
Rebecca Johnson, an independent expert and director of
the Acronyn Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, an NGO commented: "From
start to finish, this conference did little more than go through the
motions, and was one of the most shameful exhibitions of cynical
time-wasting seen outside the Geneva Conference on Disarmament."
International legal position;
The non
NWPs have tried all forums to make NWP s to implement their obligations
under NPT.
International Court of Justice; Advisory Opinion on the
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, July 8, 1996:
"There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a
conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects
under strict and effective international control." Para. 105(2) (F).
"The legal import of [the NPT Article VI] obligation goes beyond that
of a mere obligation of conduct; the obligation involved here is an
obligation to achieve a precise result — nuclear disarmament in all its
aspects — by adopting a particular course of conduct, namely, the pursuit
of negotiations on the matter in good faith." Para. 99.
"States
must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently never
use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and
military targets". Para. 78 (emphasis added). This "cardinal" rule of
humanitarian law is "fundamental" and "intransgressible". Paras. 78, 79.
"[T]he threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be
contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict,
and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law. However,
in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of
fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitely whether the
threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme
circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would
be at stake." Para. 105(2) (E).
After the ICJ 1996 opinion the
obligation to negotiate elimination of nuclear arsenals applies to all
states, especially those with massive arsenals.
The "Principles and
Objectives" after the 1995 review, reaffirmed the NPT disarmament
obligations and showed a road map. It called for negotiation of a
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by 1996, "immediate commencement and early
conclusion of negotiation" of a ban on production of fissile materials for
nuclear weapons use, and "the determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapon
States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons
globally, with the ultimate goals of eliminating those weapons, and by all
States of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective
international control."
“Since 1995, support for compliance with
the NPT disarmament obligation has been expressed in forums of every kind
and at every level, from organizations to professional associations to
towns to cities to national parliaments to the European Parliament to the
United Nations."
UN General Assembly
resolutions:
Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the
International Court Justice, res. 54/54 Q (1 December 1999, yes 114, no
28, abstain 22): "2. Calls once again upon all States to immediately
fulfill [the nuclear disarmament obligation affirmed by the ICJ] by
commencing multilateral negotiations in 2000 leading to an early
conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development,
production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of
nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination."
Towards a
nuclear-weapon-free world: the need for a new agenda, res. 54/54 G (1
December 1999, yes 111, no 13, abstain 39): "1. Calls upon the
Nuclear-Weapon States to make an unequivocal undertaking to accomplish the
speedy and total elimination of their nuclear arsenals and to engage
without delay in an accelerated process of negotiations, thus achieving
nuclear disarmament, to which they are committed under article VI of the
NPT."
Declaration on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear and
Thermonuclear Weapons, res. 1653 (1961, yes 55, no 20, abstain 26): Use of
nuclear weapons is "contrary to the spirit, letter and aims of the United
Nations and, as such, a direct violation of the Charter of the United
Nations," "contrary to the rules of international law and to the laws of
humanity," and "a crime against mankind and civilization".
According to journalist Seymour Hersh US is even planning to use tactical
nuclear weapons against Iran. Tehran has not flouted NPT and is asserting
its right to enrich Uranium up to 4% as fuel for power generation which is
allowed under the Treaty. For experimental reactors 6% purity is advised.
But for making a nuclear bomb over 80% purity is required.
So
Americans with corporate media 'manufactured consent' when polled recently
favored attack on Iran (to destroy its US media presumed Nuclear weapons
program), even as a majority are against handling of US war on Iraq, with
President Bush's approval ratings plummeting to 31%. Even the US experts
give 3 to 10 years period for Iran to manufacture a bomb. The technical
preparations, including power requirements cannot be hidden.
But
barring corporate media soaked US public and some Europeans , few now
believe Western leaders because of their and media's blatant spins, half
truths and lies on Iraq's WMDs, its nuclear bomb manufacture program and
Iraq's relationship with Al Qaeda, with all lies now exposed.
The
Germans were blamed for what the Nazis did to Jews, Gypsies and so called
other inferior races .There is a similarity in the western discourse about
their cultural superiority over non-Europeans. West claims to derive its
civilization and culture from the Greeks and hence the Cretian
civilization, which itself was derived from Egyptian and Phoenician. Both
are indebted to Mesopotamian, verily the mother of all civilizations,
which evolved mostly in Iraq and southeast Turkey.
A North- South
and racial divide on NPT has emerged. Like the rich Japanese, who were
accepted as 'honorary whites' by South African apartheid regime, white
Christian nations had to gulp China's entry in NWP s club. But China
signed NPT after having violated NPT spirit and norms. Its role in
proliferation to North Korea and Pakistan and of Western countries among
themselves and to Pakistan needs an unbiased inquiry. Both Iran and Libya
bought nuclear technology and material from Dr Khan's black market. But
what about Saudi Arabia with its massive assistance to Pakistan in the
project and their deep rooted defense ties. There were recently some
reports to this effect in the German media.
Origins of the Nuclear Arms;
Scientists theorized that an
atom could be broken down into a nucleus of positive protons and neutral
neutrons circled by negatively charged electrons .If neutrons bombarded
heavy metals like Uranium or Thorium , the latter would split releasing
enormous energy according to Einstein's formula of E=MC2. E is energy
released, M is the mass and C is speed of light i.e. 186,000 miles per
second. It is immense.
Natural uranium is composed of two isotopes,
Uranium-238 (99.3%) and Uranium 235 (0.7%) and is the most suitable metal
for energy release. When U235 is bombarded by a neutron, it releases on
average of 2.5 neutrons and enormous energy .But U238 absorbs neutrons and
does not split like U235 thus stopping the chain (continuous) reaction.
Hence enriching of U235 isotopes is necessary both for fuel and for Atomic
bombs. This is done by using high velocity centrifuges to separate U235
isotopes.
The Manhattan Project during the 2nd world war for US
Atomic bomb needed massive investment and was then the largest factory
under one roof, employing thousands of persons at its peak. Hitler's march
in Europe had led to many scientists to flee Europe and go over to USA and
Britain, who helped these countries in their Atomic bomb projects.
The US Manhattan Project succeeded and led to the first and so far
mercifully the last use of nuclear bombs, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in
1945. USSR soon developed its own bomb and soon erstwhile allies against
Germany and Japan, retched up the destructive potential to fusion
(Hydrogen) bombs, in which an atomic bomb is used to trigger fusion of two
heavy hydrogen (helium) nuclei, which releases enormous energy. Soon they
were helping out their allies. USSR cut its assistance to China only in
late 1950s.
Rockets, missiles and submarines were developed for
delivering nuclear bombs and for a second strike back response. Many times
the world stared at the onset of the Armageddon. U.S.A threatened to use
nuclear weapons, and even went on full nuclear alert, to prevent any
"Soviet aggression" in the Middle East, especially to protect Israel in
its pre-emptive and defensive wars of 1956, 1958, 1967, 1973, 1979 and
1982. Had there been some sort of technical hardware or software accident,
or misinterpretation of evidence, any of those alerts could have resulted
in a full scale nuclear war
There have been (at least) four major
false alarms, the most recent in 1995, that almost resulted in the US or
Russia launching its weapons in retaliation for a supposed attack. Now
there is an even more dangerous possibility with the use of nuclear
material for a dirty bomb by terrorists. West has threatened to attack
presumed 'rogue states' supporting such terrorist attacks! Who will decide
and how quickly?
Israel, the Nuclear Elephant
in the Room.
In all this
international discourse, little notice has been taken of Israel's arsenal
of reportedly 200-400 nuclear bombs. Israel did not sign NPT nor has it
publicly proclaimed a nuclear explosion. And the West has never discussed
this matter seriously in IAEA or UN or placed any sanctions against
Israel. Why? And it is the Israeli leaders who make the maximum noise
against nuclear bombs.
"Before the 1967 Six-Day War,
they (Israel) felt their nuclear facility threatened and reportedly
assembled several nuclear devices. By the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel had a
number of sophisticated nuclear bombs, deployed them, and considered using
them. The Arabs may have limited their war aims because of their knowledge
of the Israeli nuclear weapons. Israel has most probably conducted several
nuclear bomb tests."
In 1991 Seymour Hersh wrote a book "The
Samson Option ; Israel's nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy"
(The Biblical Samson, of course, brought down a temple that killed himself
and his enemies.), which derives from Israeli view that once they had the
bomb they are in a position to bring it all down on everyone if they felt
cornered .Israel used nuclear blackmail to force USA to airlift unlimited
military supplies during the 1973 Yom Kippur war. The threat of blackmail
continues to distort the US–Israeli relationship.
Reportedly,
Israel uses its long-range missiles and nuclear capable aircraft (and,
some say, submarines with nuclear armed cruise missiles) to deter both
conventional and unconventional attacks, or to launch "the Samson Option",
an all-out attack against an adversary should defenses fail and population
centers be threatened. In addition, despite Israel's insistence that it
"will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East,"
these systems represent an effective preemptive strike force.
A
trigger happy nation , Deputy US Secretary of State Eagleburger had to
stay put in Tel Aviv during the 1991 war on Iraq , to rein in the Israelis
from joining in which would have quickly unraveled the coalition George
Bush's father had assembled .
While the Israeli hawk Ariel Sharon
said "Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches," even dovish Shimon
Peres feels; "acquiring a superior weapons system (read nuclear) would
mean the possibility of using it for compellent purposes - that is forcing
the other side to accept Israeli political demands, which presumably
include a demand that the traditional status quo be accepted and a peace
treaty signed."
Unlike George Bush, Bill Clinton, at least
distanced himself from this 'Samson Option’, rightly. Defense analyst Zeev
Schiff opined in independent Haaretz: "Too many senior Israeli officials
have taken to issuing threatening statements vis-a-vis Iraq ....
Off-the-cuff Israeli nuclear threats have become a problem, even before
the onset of the Iraqi crisis. [or Iran now]... Washington may decide it
wants to distance itself from Israel in order to avoid being accused of
having conspired with us on an action we planned exclusively by
ourselves."
By late 2002 George Bush evidently approved Israel's
nuclear response to an Iraqi attack with biological and nuclear weapons --
before the United States invasion, according to the Scotsman.news, "
Sharon eyes Samson's option against Iraq." Israeli president Ezar Weissman
said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be
conventional."
At the very least, the unilateral possession of
nuclear arsenal by Israel in the region is enormously destabilizing and
remains the major problem.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert urged the
international community to oppose the Iranian nuclear program, saying
Teheran's ambitions threaten not only Israel but all of Western
civilization.
"The Iranian nuclear program should concern many
countries, especially those with global responsibility." He added that the
international front against Iran should include the United States, Europe
and other Western countries.
Only this week the head of Israel's
Military Intelligence, Major General Amos Yadlin, told the Knesset's
Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Iran would have acquired
nuclear bombs by 2010. Iran had succeeded in enriching uranium to 3.5
percent at the Natanz facility. "In order to manufacture nuclear weapons,
they have to be able to produce 25 kilograms of enriched uranium and they
are still at the stage of [producing] grams," he said.
Peres,
referring to Iranian President Ahmedinejad's so called call for Israel to
be "wiped off the map”, retorted this week that he should bear in mind
that his own country [Iran] could also be destroyed. [Surely Iran would
not dream of taking on Israel with its nuclear arsenal]
West as
usual has misquoted and then misused Ahmedinejad's statement, who had
actually quoted Imam Khomeini as saying, "This occupation regime over
Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," like Khomeini's prediction
that the Soviet Union would one day vanish. It wasn't to kill Soviet
citizens, but a desire for peaceful regime change, unlike what USA is
doing in Iraq. Of course what the Israelis are doing to Palestinians in
the latter’s' home land with western support since the 2nd world war is
there to see for everyone.
"The Israel Lobby
and U.S. Foreign Policy"
As for a symbiotic relationship
between USA and Israel, commenting on the furor caused by an article by
two respected US professors, Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer
of the University of Chicago on the "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign
Policy”, a well known Israeli journalist Uri Avnery commented - "If the
Israeli government wanted a law tomorrow annulling the Ten Commandments,
95 [US] senators (at least) would sign the bill forthwith."
He
related how his press conferences in USA, one on two state solution for
Palestine, 27 years ago, were widely attended with questions and answers
by the media for hours, but there was not a word in the US media next day.
Obviously the Israeli lobby had sent a word around. It shows pathetic US
subservience to Israeli lobby and exposes the so called freedom of media
in USA. But Uri Avnery said that the conclusion as to whether the tail
wags the dog or the reverse may be less straightforward. "The US uses
Israel to dominate the Middle East, Israel uses the US to dominate
Palestine" [Why, the whole region! Iran and beyond!]
The author has
experience of successful Israeli attempts to blackout his articles in
media in many countries, but my voice cannot be silenced .It only confirms
what has been called the long hand of the Jewish lobby .But it has done
incalculable harm to Israel and credibility of the Jews, who are losing
friends and supporters fast. Watch for this space!
Another US ally has also profited from this
nuclear blackmail. Pakistan provides open support to Jihadis and
terrorists, who regularly carry out terrorist acts in Indian cities
including one against Indian Parliament in 2001 and in Jammu and Kashmir.
Pakistan feels secure against any retaliation because of its nuclear
bombs. Its open blackmail has not been condemned by NWPs. In fact West
uses such blackmail to pressurize India for concessions.
Robert Scheer wrote in Creators Syndicate last month. "The grim irony
in all this is that Pakistan never has been held accountable by the United
States for Khan's black-market nuclear proliferation racket, even though
such a bold scheme could not have thrived without significant support from
Pakistan's powerful military leaders. Of course, Khan, who was pardoned by
Pakistan's military dictator, doesn't have to worry that Bush is going to
order the CIA to spirit him to Guantanamo Bay for some rough Dick
Cheney-approved interrogations. Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia, is a tight
ally of the White House, despite having previously supported bin Laden's
old Afghan friends, the Taliban. Indeed, the Bush administration was so
eager to secure the friendship of Pakistan after the Sept. 11 attacks; it
perversely ended the boycott imposed on that country in response to its
development of a nuclear weapon."
Iran's
nuclear program;
Iran's nuclear program was started in the
1970s under the Shah with U.SA co-operation. But after the Shah's
overthrow following the 1979 Islamic revolution, the Nuclear Suppliers'
Group, a 45-nation cartel, ceased any relationship with Iran, although
Imam Khomeini had declared that making of atomic bombs was haram,
(illegal) and issued a Fatwa .This position has been reiterated by his
successor Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
During the Iran-Iraq war of
1980-88, Iran was reportedly in touch with intermediaries of the nuclear
parts black market run by Dr AQ Khan. At a meeting with a Khan
representative, Iran received a written offer for the delivery of the
makings of a nuclear weapons program. Iran bought P-1 gas centrifuge
designs to enrich uranium and a starter kit for uranium enrichment.
But Iran told the IAEA in 2003 that it decided not to pursue the offer
of parts for the core of a bomb. (Documents concerning the 1987 offer were
made available to the UN inspectors later). In 1992-94 Iran bought a
duplicate set of P-1 centrifuge designs, components for 500 used P-1
centrifuges and took delivery of a design for the advanced P-2
At
the same time in 1992, Iran and Russia signed a nuclear co-operation
agreement followed by a 1995 deal for the Russians to construct a
light-water civil reactor at Bushehr which is yet come on stream.
However, when Iran's deals with Dr AQ Khan became public, Tehran put its
enrichment of uranium program under international inspection in 2003, and
started negotiations with EU team; Britain, Germany and France, in an
attempt to end the US-led Western freeze on technological transfers,
including spare parts for civilian planes to Iran.
But the US
nuclear Ayatollahs had little intention of an agreed solution, except
total surrender by Iran. So Tehran removed the seals on nuclear material
this year to resume low-level enrichment in the presence of the IAEA
inspectors.
There might be some area of darkness about progress in
its enrichment program prior to 2003 but US approach appears like that on
Iraq, asking for more intrusive inspections, then for stricter monitoring,
and then create conditions for an attack. The Russian Foreign Minister
described it as déjà vu. Remember US and UK had declared that whatever
Saddam Hussein might do, the UN sanctions would not be lifted .They also
ensured that medicines and other health equipment did not reach Iraq.
According to UN reports between half to a million Iraqis, mostly children
and women died as a result. The two UN directors of this genocide like
program resigned in sheer disgust.
Iran maintains that it is in
fact fulfilling its obligations under the NPT. The IAEA found no smoking
gun in its report to UNSC after the latest visit to Iran.
Conclusion of the April, 2006 IAEA inspection report:
Under a Safeguards Agreement concluded with the IAEA – as
required under NPT, Iran agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to "verify" that
no "source or special nuclear materials" are being used in furtherance of
a nuclear weapons program. During the last three years, every report El
Baradei has made to the IAEA Board concluded that – as best as he can
determine – no proscribed materials have been so used. Both NPT and the
IAEA Statute and the Iranian Safeguards Agreement all guarantee Iran's
"inalienable" right to conduct research into – and to enjoy all the
benefits of the peaceful use of – nuclear energy.
The IAEA Statute
ensures – insofar as the IAEA is able – that "source or special nuclear
materials" are not used in furtherance of a military purpose as a
secondary mission. This what El Baradei has been saying. The crucial
points of his 28 April, 2005 report are;’
33. All the nuclear
material declared by Iran to the Agency is accounted for. Apart from the
small quantities previously reported to the Board, the Agency has found no
other undeclared nuclear material in Iran. However, gaps remain in the
Agency's knowledge with respect to the scope and content of Iran's
centrifuge program. Because of this, and other gaps in the Agency's
knowledge, including the role of the military in Iran's nuclear program,
the Agency is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurance
about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.
34. After more than three years of Agency efforts to seek clarity
about all aspects of Iran's nuclear program, the existing gaps in
knowledge continue to be a matter of concern. '
"This ambiguity is
being twisted by the Bush administration to make it seem as though Iran
has done something illegal. The report can be read to say that there is no
evidence that Iran is doing anything illegal."
The UNSC President's
statement which asked IAEA for the report was non-binding but listen to US
hawkish Ambassador John Bolton ," This is a real test for the Security
Council. There's just no doubt that for close to 20 years, the Iranians
have been pursuing nuclear weapons through a clandestine program that
we've uncovered."
“If the U.N. Security Council can't deal with the
proliferation of nuclear weapons, can't deal with the greatest threat we
have with a country like Iran — that's one of the leading state sponsors
of terrorism — if the Security Council can't deal with that, you have a
real question of what it can deal with." Sounds familiar to what George
Bush was saying before US led illegal invasion of Iraq.
Iran has
made two offers: set up a consortium to let other nations partially own
and operate its commercial enrichment facility, thereby removing the
secrecy around it, or, alternatively, a small experimental facility, with
little threat of nuclear proliferation, along with an ensured supply of
nuclear fuel, plus security assurances that it won't be attacked by the
U.S. or Israel.
But the U.S. is Not
Agreeable.
The Chinese Ambassador to UN said on 28th April
that his country was opposed to a tougher resolution which "would
complicate" the situation and lead to "the start of a series of
resolutions". Russia also expressed "reservations" about a Chapter VII
resolution .Russians, the Chinese and some Europeans, who have played
along so far with Washington are worried that US insistence on working
under Chapter VII of the U.N. charter, which paves the way later to use
sanctions or military force. A re-run of the Iraq war.
Afraid of
the direction US was taking French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin
told a media conference in Paris on May 4 that "My conviction is that
military action is certainly no solution." He added that "You know as I do
the situation in the Middle East, in Iraq and the Near East, the idea that
by waving the magic wand for a military shortcut we are going to solve the
Iranian problem doesn't seem to me today to be something to talk about."
Mohamed ElBaradei has made clear his hope in conversations with
diplomats that pragmatism will eventually dictate that Iran be allowed
some limited form of enrichment, monitored constantly by his agency.
US, Israel and Iran;
On March 20 in
Cleveland, to a question about the influence of apocalyptic Christian
theology on his policies, Bush gave a long winded reply and the threat he
saw from Iran. He said, "Now that I'm on Iran … the threat from Iran is,
of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. It's
a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance.
I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might
to protect our ally, Israel."
Bush has made Israel a focus,
"because he is not very attuned to the history of the situation and he has
some really strange advisers who do not understand the broader
implications of this, in terms of the vast majority of the American
public."
Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-L.I./Queens) said Bush's focus
increases the likelihood of a backlash against Jews and Israel if a
U.S.-led war on Iran turns sour. "It's a horrible thing to do, it's
dangerous," he said. "If something goes wrong, it's a setup to say we did
it for Israel and not for America, and to blame the Jews."
Asked if
he thought that was President Bush's intent, Ackerman said "I don't
believe in accidents and coincidences in this business. They choose their
words very carefully. This is not the first time the president has said
this, but now it looks like it's their whole program." Some in the
Administration have even suggested that strong U.S. action could be
necessary to keep Israel from acting on its own.
"One of the
concerns people have is that Israel might [attack Iran] without being
asked," said Vice President Dick Cheney in a radio interview, "that if, in
fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear
capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their
objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to
act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the
diplomatic mess afterwards."
On the day IAEA submitted its report
Bush said, "The Iranians should not have a nuclear weapon, the capacity to
make a nuclear weapon, or the knowledge as to how to make a nuclear
weapon." [What does it mean except to suggest to Americans that Iran is on
the way .The same tactics were used against Iraq by spins, half truths and
lies?]
After a show of national technical pride and bombast about
joining "the nuclear group" i.e. enriching some grams of Uranium to 4%,
Iran offered that IAEA could conduct spot inspections of its
uranium-enrichment activities, but only if the threat of U.N. sanctions
were lifted .But Secretary Rice scoffed at Iran's offer and said on ABC
program, "I think they are playing games. But, obviously, if they are not
playing games, [then] they should stop the enrichment," she said
"The international community's credibility is at stake here. And we have a
choice, too. We can either mean what we say, when we say that Iran must
comply," said Rice. "Or we can continue to allow Iran to defy [the
international community's will]." Again the presumption to speak on behalf
of the world!
In Washington, Robert Joseph, the State Department's
top proliferation official, took a very strong line saying that US is
determined to ensure that "not one centrifuge spins" in Iran.
General Powell commented: "I don't know that there is a very robust plan,
or menu of sanctions. I think that the menu of sanctions would be quite
limited ... mean those that could actually get through the Security
Council." The Iranians can handle them.
Asked if the US would
consider a nuclear strike, he said: "No, nuclear weapons have not been
used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”I think it most unlikely that anybody
would seriously contemplate use of a nuclear weapon in the 21st century
and especially for such a purpose".
UNSG Kofi Annan told a Spanish
newspaper, "I think the issue is being handled properly by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. I still believe that the best solution
is a negotiated one, and I don't see what a military operation would
resolve. I hope that a negotiating spirit prevails and that the military
option is just a fruit of speculation."
Significantly there have
also been warnings from several prominent US politicians. Republican
senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the influential senate foreign
relations committee, urged less haste in taking action and suggested that
direct talks between Washington and Tehran "would be useful". There was a
need "to make more headway diplomatically", he added. Former White House
counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke argued armed conflict with Iran
could backfire and prove even more damaging to US interests than the war
with Iraq.
But faithful Tony Blair said in the House of Commons:
"It's important we send a signal of strength" against a regime that has
"forsaken diplomacy" and is "exporting terrorism" and "flouting its
international obligations". A British commentator observed "Coming from
one who has exported terrorism to Iran's neighbor, scandalously reneged on
Britain's most sacred international obligations and forsaken diplomacy for
brute force, these are Alice-through-the-looking-glass words."
The
new British Foreign Minister ,Mrs. Margret Beckett , who probably replaced
Jack Straw for the latter's statement that a military strike on Iran was
"inconceivable", when she was in New York for SC consultation on the Iran
question , told the media "it's [military strike on Iran ] not the
intention".
In spite of a slap by the British electorate in recent
municipal elections, and party pressure Blair refuses to resign .He is
trying to improve his legacy. It would be a litany of spins, half truths
and blatant lies. Some wannabe Winston Churchill!
Russian view;
President Putin, warned
against too great an intervention by the Security Council – a path Moscow
feels could lead to confrontation. "We think that the IAEA must continue
to play a key role and it must not shrug off its responsibilities to
resolve such questions and shift them on to the UN Security Council," he
said at a summit with Angela Merkel, the German chancellor.
Russian
Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said, "One can speak of
sanctions only after the appearance of concrete facts proving that Iran is
not engaged exclusively in peaceful nuclear activities," according to the
ITAR-TASS news agency.
Reacting to Dick Cheney's recent accusation
that Russia was using oil and gas exports to "intimidate and blackmail"
European neighbors, "interfering with democratic movements" in places such
as Ukraine and "unfairly and improperly restricting" civil rights, Sergei
Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, replied, "I believe such statements
won't undermine efforts we are making together with the United States ...
to build a fair world without conflicts." He added, "Russia expects to be
perceived as an equal partner in the world arena without whose involvement
it is impossible to solve a single problem." [There is a litany of overt
and covert US interference and pressure and use of dollar power around the
world which includes even on the US –Indian nuclear agreement.]
The cool response to Cheney's frustrated angst underlines that Russia has
become a global player again, whether it is about Syria, Iran or Hamas,
global warming or energy security, with its coffers brimming with
petro-dollars, a result of high crude prices, following the US
entanglement in Iraqi quagmire and resurgent Russian nationalism .Russia
is back in the middle east and is supplying arms and missiles to Syria and
Iran.
Russian First Deputy Defense Minister Gen Yuri Baluyevsky
confirmed that it would implement the contract to supply nearly 30 Tor-M1
complexes to Tehran to defend the key state and military facilities,
foremost nuclear facilities in Isfahan, Bushehr, Tehran and in the east of
the country. The contract, worth 1.4 billion U.S. dollars, is the biggest
arms deal Iran and Russia have ever concluded. Tor-M1 is an all-weather
air defense system which is intended to ensure effective protection from
cruise missiles, guided bombs, warplanes, helicopters, and pilot less and
remotely controlled attack aircraft.
Prominent
US Physicists protest at US plans to use nukes against Iran;
Following media reports of US plans to use tactical nuclear weapons
against Iran, 13 of USA's most prominent physicists, including 5 Nobel
laureates and three past presidents of the American Physical Society,
wrote a letter to President Bush, calling U.S. plans to reportedly use
nuclear weapons against Iran "gravely irresponsible" and warning that such
action would have "disastrous consequences for the security of the United
States and the world."
The letter was initiated by physics Prof
Jorge Hirsch of the University of California, San Diego, “who last fall
put together a petition signed by more than 1,800 physicists that
repudiated new U.S. nuclear weapons policies that include preemptive use
of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear adversaries"
The letter
said, "We are members of the profession that brought nuclear weapons into
existence, and we feel strongly that it is our professional duty to
contribute our efforts to prevent their misuse. Physicists know best about
the devastating effects of the weapons they created, and these eminent
physicists speak for thousands of our colleagues."
"The fact that
the existence of this plan has not been denied by the Administration
should be a cause of great alarm, even if it is only one of several plans
being considered. The public should join these eminent scientists in
demanding that the Administration publicly renounces such a misbegotten
option against a non-nuclear country like Iran.”
Even Pope Benedict
XVI called for "serious" talks with Iran to reach a solution. The Pope, on
his 79th birthday, urged "serious and honest" negotiations with Iran to
reach an "honorable" solution for all parties. He also appealed for peace
across the world including the Middle East.
Emerging Problems in Far East;
US continues to blow hot and
cold on North Korea, which has declared that it has nuclear weapons. North
Korea has escaped 'regime change' because Washington is afraid of
retaliatory attacks on its 35,000 plus troops stationed in South Korea.
When asked why Saddam Hussein was chosen for regime change from among
dictatorial regimes , Dick Cheney told Prince Hassan of Jordan that it was
"doable" (as if it was USA's divine right). It sums up the US nuclear
policy towards non-allies and sends a chilling message around.
Pyongyang has at the back of its mind half a century of US nuclear
intimidation, beginning with the Korean War, when ' military commanders
Douglas MacArthur and Matthew Ridgway, presidents Harry Truman and Dwight
Eisenhower, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all at one time or other
favored a nuclear attack on north Korea and were restrained only by the
fear of possible Soviet retaliation.'
It has often been suggested
that China could bring Pyongyang around to an agreement by simply
withholding aid and trade. This is undoubtedly true, but Beijing has said
more than once, openly and up front, that it will not so. Nothing
two-faced about it! "The Chinese are not particularly worried whether
North Korea has an atomic bomb. They don't believe Pyongyang would be
stupid enough to drop one on them. Historically, China has not been
concerned about nuclear non-proliferation. “As with Pakistan too.
The solitary nuclear bombs victim Tokyo proclaims "three non-nuclear
principles" i.e. non-production, non-possession and non-introduction into
Japan and has a "peace constitution". But the core of its defense is
nuclear weapons, never mind they are American, assuring "that any enemy
attacking or threatening it with nuclear weapons would be devastated by
American nuclear counter-attack." But it is also in the process of
becoming a nuclear superpower, as it has both enrichment and reprocessing
facilities, and is developing a fast-breeder reactor." Its stocks of
plutonium amount to more than 40 tons, the equivalent of 5,000
Nagasaki-type weapons. Its determined pursuit of a nuclear cycle, giving
it the wherewithal to be able quickly to go nuclear should that Rubicon
ever be reached,-- is in defiance of the February 2005 appeal from the
IAEA director general for a five-year freeze on all enrichment and
reprocessing works."
Almost half of Japan's population fears the
country could face war again, with north Korea's nuclear program and
China's massive military build-up considered major threats to peace,
according to the Cabinet Office survey, published recently in all major
Japanese newspapers It said that 45 per cent of respondents believed Japan
may become caught up in a war with 63.7 per cent of respondents citing
north Korea's nuclear threat as a possible cause of regional conflict,
followed by terrorist attacks and the rapid modernization of China's
military.
How will Japan react , a country totally opposed to
nuclear weapons but with technical capability to produce nuclear weapons
with delivery vehicles within a short time .Without any satisfactory
agreed law and regime on the nuclear question, the situation might get out
of hand . Who knows, with their expertise on miniaturization from trees to
music systems what the Japanese might come up with?
Conclusions;
Phyllis Bennis wrote last
month in 'Foreign Policy in Focus'.
“At the end of the day Iran has
been pretty clear about what it wants. It doesn't seem to want an actual
nuclear weapon (both the late Ayatollah Khomeini and his successor have
issued religious prohibitions, or fatwas, against such weapons) although
there's little doubt that President Ahmadinejad appears to believe that
posturing aggressively about "going nuclear" will help his flagging
domestic ratings. (Sounds familiar?) What Iran really wants, and has asked
for, are serious negotiations with the U.S., based on equality, not
humiliation? And at the end, a security guarantee that neither Europe nor
the UN, but only the U.S. itself--the world's "sole super-power" and the
only nuclear weapons state threatening to actually use its nuclear
arsenal--can provide.
“For all sides, talk is crucial. Nuclear
weapons--in anyone's hands--are a nightmare that should be abolished once
and for all, as the now-fading Non-Proliferation Treaty anticipated so
many years ago. Certainly Iran should abjure any search for nuclear
weapons--but that's not going to happen alone. What we need--what we ALL
need--is a weapon of mass destruction-free zone throughout the Middle
East. So not only no nukes for Iran, but let's be sure Israel signs the
NPT and places its unacknowledged but highly provocative Dimona arsenal of
200-400 high-density nuclear bombs under international supervision, and
then allows the inspectors to destroy them. Let's be sure no country in
the Middle East is running a chemical--or biological-weapons program--the
poor countries' nuclear weapons substitute of choice and an unfortunate
inevitability as long as Israel has a nuclear monopoly in the region.
"And it's way past time for the U.S. to make good on its own NPT
obligations to move towards full and complete nuclear disarmament. As long
as Washington laughs off that obligation, and officially rejects it, it is
hard to imagine why any other countries should take seriously a U.S.
demand that take nuclear weapons off their agenda.
“Ironically
enough the U.S. is already on record supporting just such a WMD-free zone
in the Middle East. Article 14 of UN Security Resolution 687, that ended
the 1991 Gulf War and imposed crippling sanctions on Iraq, states that
disarming Iraq should be viewed as part of "establishing in the Middle
East a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to
deliver them.
"The language was written by the U.S. It's time we
held Washington accountable to that pledge."
Not with the current
US administration. It will remain a pipe dream.
USA's Geopolitical Nightmare;
Calling
it "The US's Geopolitical Nightmare", F. William Engdahl wrote in Asia
Times this week that "In the space of 12 months, Russia and China have
managed to move the pieces on the geopolitical chess board of Eurasia away
from what had been an overwhelming US strategic advantage, to the
opposite, where the US is increasingly isolated. It's potentially the
greatest strategic defeat for the US power projection of the post-World
War II period." This is the most apt summing up of US strategic debacles.
Iran has been invited to join Shanghai Cooperation Council as a full
member. There are proposals to give the Council military teeth and make it
a counterpoise to rampantly spreading NATO. Russia, China and other
members from Central Asia carried out the biggest ever joint military
maneuvers in August, 2005,along the Russian and Chinese coast to warn off
USA after its attempts to usher in 'franchised street revolutions' in
Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan had misfired.
In the latest maneuver
President Ahmadinejad wrote to President Bush proposing "new ways" to
resolve their differences. It was the first letter from so high an Iranian
leader to a US president since Washington broke off relations after the
1979 hostage crisis. USA has derided the letter. But remember, it was in
Persia that the game of Chess was invented – checkmate stands for
Shahmat i.e. the king is dead.
USA did not participate in 9
May elections for the UN Human Rights Council which was created on March
15 to replace its predecessor Human Rights Commission, because Washington
was opposed to its constitution. In the UN General Assembly vote for
constituting the Council, which Washington opposed, USA had support from
Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands, while 170 nations voted for it.
Countries like Cuba, Russia and China, much to US chagrin have now been
elected with India getting the maximum number of 171 votes. This should be
an eye opener to Washington of its isolation in the international
community.
As with many geniuses, who hover between craziness and
acute lucidity, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, mercurial physicist J Robert
Oppenheimer, who led the technical side of the Manhattan project for the
Atomic bomb, refused to head the hydrogen bomb project. While the atomic
bomb Oppenheimer had built represented destruction of 10,000 tons of TNT,
the hydrogen bomb represented 10 million tons of TNT.
On defense
against nuclear terrorism, Oppenheimer felt there was none. At a Senate
hearing he was asked "whether three or four men couldn't smuggle units of
an [atomic] bomb into New York and blow up the whole city", Oppenheimer
responded, "Of course it could be done, and people could destroy New
York." When a startled senator then followed by asking, "What instrument
would you use to detect an atomic bomb hidden somewhere in a city?"
Oppenheimer quipped, "A screwdriver" [to open each and every crate or
suitcase].
In fact, Oppenheimer along with his mentor and friend
Danish physicist Niels Bohr suggested to politicians in USA and UK that an
international agency be created to handle nuclear technology and weapons.
Political and military leaders in US and England thought the two
physicists were mad. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill quipped that
Bohr be locked up, while President Harry S Truman vowed never to see that
expletives Oppenheimer again.
Perhaps the world has finally
arrived at a very grave if not one of the gravest of the cross roads in
its history. But the politicians still rule the world.
(K Gajendra Singh, served as Indian Ambassador to Turkey
and Azerbaijan in1992 -96. Prior to that, he served as ambassador to
Jordan (during the1990 - 91Gulf war), Romania and Senegal. He is currently
chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies, in Bucharest. The
views expressed here are his own. - Email-Gajendrak@hotmail.com)
September 26, 2009
Top
|
Analysis
|
|
