The US government says it now believes that Iran stopped its quest for an atomic bomb in 2003, I guess it took a while for the Bush administration to find out. After the news this morning that Chavez lost its referendum we can all feel a bit better. Almost good enough to counteract the sad news that Putin won the election to become father of the nation (I guess it´s ok to be authoritarian if you are a “father”). What Iran, Venezuela and Russia have in common is that they are all energy exporters. Energy exporting countries tend to fall in the hands of dictatorial fatherly figures who are frequently tinkering with the constitution because in those countries whoever controls the energy exports controls the money flow into the whole nation. Having oil is in the end a curse, an addiction. Citizens of energy exporters tend to become pretty incompetent at doing anything else because few activities compete with pumping energy and getting rich.
But the news of Iran being now certified as a non atomic bomb producer is in itself disconcerting. Is it true or is it simply that the US government has decided to certify some countries that do not have atomic bombs as Iraq dangerous and those who do like North Korea and Pakistan as harmless? Iran is a country whose leaders hate us but their people love our modernity. Instead Pakistan is a country whose leaders like us and whose people hate us and they do have atomic weapons (a Pew Institute poll said that if Osama Bin Laden ran for elections majority Pakistanis vote for him). In any case it is a sad world in which what matters is not what a country does but what the US government believes it does. Most of the US people and the vast majority of the citizens around the world can´t wait for Bush to go and for some clarity to return to world affairs.
Follow Martin Varsavsky on Twitter: twitter.com/martinvars
Related Posts
No Comments
polac on December 4, 2007 ·
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
must be seen.
My two cents on December 4, 2007 ·
Francisco,
Here are my two cents that most people probably don’t want to hear:
If countries should have nukes because it makes the world safer through deterrance (in other words, U.S. Cold War policy) and thus Iran should have nukes, then how much money should Spain, France, Germany, and Israel spend to create their own nuclear defense systems to protect themselves against Iran (and further your deterrance theory)? Who do you think is most at a threat of Iranian nukes, my friend? the US? Europe? Israel? The answer in the descending order. Right now, it’s the US’s nuke who are protecting Europe.
Second, yeah, Bush is a total dumb ass. And the US foreign policy sucks! What’s new and revolutionary about saying that? But the real question is, why were Iraquis and Iranians killing each other? Is that 100% the fault of the US? Even if the US was stupid to invade Iraq, why are Iraquis killing each other? Why are Shiites and Sunnis killing each other? Why are Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq killing civilians? The US cannot be 100% to blame. Because if you are saying that it is the US’s fault, then your being incredibly ethnocentric by denying the Middle Eastern people their free will to act violently against each other.
Gubatron on December 7, 2007 ·
“Citizens of energy exporters tend to become pretty incompetent at doing anything else because few activities compete with pumping energy and getting rich”
Ouch, let’s hope this won’t include those of us who left the country to do more-entreprenurial things.
Un Venezolano
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Francisco on December 4, 2007 ·
Robert Aumann (Economics Nobel Prize for improving the basic Game Theory) says “nuclear bombs can be a good means for achieving peace due to its deterrant power”. Why then Iran should not have its own nuclear program for peace?
Why do we think the USA, who has used twice nukes, and who has provoked a lot of troubles in the Midle East (beginnig by the Iran-Irak war, which cost millions of deaths), has the right of having nukes, whereas Iran does not have that right?
An interesting question, isn’t it?
I think Etnocentrism is not a good beginning for solving World’s problems.
My 2 “say-what-nobody-wants-to-hear” cents…
Cheers
Francisco