~e; nuclear war and peace treaties

[brian carroll <human@electronetwork.org>]

the following 'commentary' was part of the next newsletter yet
is being sent separately, so if the topic is not of interest please
delete the post.  there is every indication from most every news
source that the situation in the middle-east and Iraq is dire, and
now with problems in Iran, could be getting even worse if the
same political approaches and policies lead to further crises.
this is said in the .US by way of both political campaigns such
that 'having a plan' for Iraq is a key presidential election issue:
and with the developments with Israel and Iran, now, it seems
all the more relevant, some 'plan'. what is interesting to note is
how there is a lack of non-confrontational, nuclear diplomatic
efforts as part of this (present) planning, as everytime the Neo-
conservatives are involved, threats of the use of force are used
to strong-arm situations that now have been repeatedly shown
to be without substance. (this is not to equate it with actual .US
options, in the policy realm, though how 'plans' are limited by
current ways of doing things are, in a sense, predestined to a
certain type of predictable result. see: Iraq, prewar, postwar.)
while the GOP (Republicans) had an election convention, the
castigation of the .UN by the existing president and even his
own father, a .UN ambassador, CIA chief, VP, and president,
is astounding that this same demagoguery of the .UN by the
GOP (a foreign-policy nightmare of grandest proportions) is
to be addressed in the name of 'peace' and related to issues
of Iran's nuclear developments. So, if anything it is a little, if
not immensely ironic to then have the .US position to 'lead'
the .UN in peace as somewhat spaghetti tongued in nature.
though, whatever political party actually gave leadership to
nuclear issues within a .UN context, would have options it
would seem are now lost in neoconservative strangleholds
on changing approaches to what are now several crises--
if Kerry or Bush were elected, it would be possible to join
with the .UN community as a partner in both a regionally-
based nuclear peace treaty, between Iran and Israel, and
to help in stabilizing the situation in Iraq as part of the plan
with other regional governments, though also at the same
time a larger nuclear peace could also be established in
that other security council members (.CN, .RU, .EU, and
others) could help collaboratively forge a treaty for world
nuclear issues, including weapons, plants, disposal, and
issues related to accidents, reporting of materials, etc. to
establish a 'show your cards' leveling of the nuclear field,
in the name of peace, security, and peaceful development
that may be a way to manage the now hidden industries,
so that disasters and other tragedies (if environmental, if
health, if warfare) can be limited and what is necessary,
kept in a world of checks and balances, and what is not
worth the risk, brought into control by shared interests (as
with nuclear waste and dirty bombs or contamination). the
idea below is an actual idea for a 'plan' which, for lack of
any information indicating such thinking exists currently
in a formal (open) proposal, may be a win-win approach,
given that peace, stabilization, and changes are options
that, if neocon policies are now stopped, make it possible
to transform events. the price would be transparency, and
international binding agreements of peace and security.
it would be possible such a 'nuclear peace' (which was a
pre-text for invading Iraq, out of nuclear fears) could also
impact the situation there, and there may not be another
choice if peace is truly wanted, which to date the .US in
its neocon manifestation has worked to dismantle as a
policy option. it is hoped the .US will consider a plan in
which Iraq's policy is seen in relation to Iran and Israel
and the nuclear developments startlingly escalating. a
new perspective on events, post-neocon policy and of
VP Cheney's nuclear energy and war strategy forays
would need to be replaced by ones in which the .US is
a partner with other nations in such changes, not to be
the only voice but to shape a general vision of what is
possible in a new context in which the choices lead to
nuclear war or nuclear peace, by each decision made.
brian


* it is wondered if a workable middle-east peace plan must include
the nuclear dimension to succeed in stabilizing the situation, to
address the many vantages involved. as the flash-point not only is
in Palestine, and in Iraq, now Iran is the center of attention and
it is because of nuclear concerns (also the pre-text for the war in
Iraq). the entire area is a nuclear zone in one sense or another,
from Israel to the US and other country's forces, and others in the
region. what is wondered is if there is a way to deal with the chaos
of oppositional forces now about to re-engage in patterned behaviors
(stand-off of some duration) without most likely re-solving the key
situation of instability, nuclear weapons, nuclear power, terrorist
forces who may use such a device outside state-control, the stakes
are hard to imagine, as are solutions by bureaucratic mechanisms in
which peace, not war, is progressed, and not a continuing breakdown.
the idea dawned that of nuclear issues, there is an actual lopsided
approach (bias) that could, if recognized, level the field and also
make possible other options: if there was a treaty drawn up by the
.UN with signatory states, in which both Iran and Israel disclosed
all programs, including any and all weapons programs, in the name
and for the aim of peace and stability-- a bedrock step which also
addresses the need to passify the nuclear escalations, at a cost of
special treatment of one (favored) nuclear power over another. it
may be a good national and international security strategy for all
involved, as if the cards are on the table, all would know where
they stand, no surprises, and also with a regional peace treaty,
the abuse of nuclear power and weapons could be brought under a
regulatory control mechanism, both local and international, and
not allow the continuing distortion of the nuclear threat being
asymmetrical in the middle-east when an 'unrecognized' nuclear
state needs to address its situation accurately to the world so
to also keep secure and stable in the event of any 'surprises',
so that treaties can hold nuclear powers together, not in a MAD
situation where existing bad decisions include nuclear bombings.
Such a treaty could offer a larger structure for nuclear states
to relate even if not diplomatically eye-to-eye, at least it is
a possibility of peaceful resolution and building new relations,
which could help improve the situation in Iraq by not adding to
existing problems, and could lead to cooperation in helping the
region to a new stability, including in Palestine by way of the
shrared identities and struggles tied into the nuclear situation
and how it is divided along demographic, and ideological lines.
If the .US cannot propose this, possibly the .UN could broker a
new nuclear peace treaty, for sake of Israel, Palestine, Iraq,
Iran, the US, EU, and others (which could include Pakistan and
India, and others who could spread nuclear peace regionally.)
It would help in 'trigger-happy' situations, or loss-of-control
of stable governments, to bring into some relation the nuclear
arsenals and even power plants, and their waste, as any of the
waste sites is potentially that of a dirty bomb, which could be
of domestic or  international concern, that is, how such data is
shared so to improve security, waste storage, and stabilization.)
A middle-east nuclear peace treaty makes a lot of sense, given
the situation, given the options, and serious need for changes.
How security could not improve, how peace could not be fostered,
that is of another endgame of win-lose, within biased ideologies.
What is nuclear 'power' if the nuclear 'truth' is not in balance?
It could be, as a worst case, renegade, a threat both external,
internal... a regional nuclear peace treaty could transform both.

  brian thomas carroll: architecture, education, electromagnetism
  http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=13102
  http://www.electronetwork.org/bc/

  the electromagnetic internetwork-list
  electromagnetism / infrastructure / civilization
  http://archives.openflows.org/electronetwork-l/
  un/subscribe: http://www.electronetwork.org/list/