The Great Nuclear Deception Bashar al-Assad
 Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad

Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad

THIS past week, the world was consumed with talk of military intervention in Syria. The Americans have determined to go in and we witnessed, as we have come to expect, the Western media unquestioningly cheer-leading Obama’s war talk.It is amusing to observe how human beings are ready to rely on the flimsiest of arguments to justify whatever is convenient to their agenda.
In Zimbabwe we have seen this unfortunate human trait at play with the white British Ambassador, Mrs Deborah Bronnert, claiming she is sanctioning us because she loves the black Zimbabwean population and is trying to protect us from “the diabolical, farm-snatching ogre, Mugabe’’. It is all very amusing.

Let us quickly unpack the Syrian issue before moving on to the nuclear meat of this matter.
Syria is accused of using chemical weapons against its own people. The Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad, has called the accusation “an insult to logic.” He is quite right. Vladmir Putin dismissed the allegations as “absolute nonsense” and challenged the Americans to present their evidence to the Security Council.

It is important to note that such an attack would be supremely foolish, as it would directly benefit the rebels.
The Americans had already warned some time ago that the use of chemical weapons would be the “red line” which, if crossed, would force their intervention. The logical reader must ask why Assad, who has access to vast and varied munitions, would choose to make use of the very thing that could turn the tide of the war against him.

It makes no sense, failing at the elementary level of motive.
Assad controls the military and has at his disposal an assortment of conventional weapons that could have killed the same number of people without setting off a fierce international reaction.

It is also helpful to note that Assad was winning this war. The rebels were losing steam. So the question remains, why would Assad make unnecessary use of chemical weapons knowing full well it would provoke a reaction by Western powers?

It is now accepted knowledge that Al Qaeda is actively assisting the rebels. Given their callous disregard for human life as evidenced by the indiscriminate slaughter of 3 000 American civilians in the September 11 attacks, it is certainly not beyond them to slaughter 1 300 innocents in the hope of inciting an international coalition against Assad.

These are simple arguments that do not find expression in the supposedly “fair and balanced” white media. It is not because the whites do not have the capacity for logical reasoning.

It is simply the case that they do not want to tolerate a view that could undermine their propaganda. It is for this same reason that all the academic work (John Hanlon et al) that has been carried out on our Land Reform programme, which shows great successes, continues to be ignored by the West.

The village witch wails for the dead
Those who love language were in for a treat as the Americans upped their this-war-is-just rhetoric. An “international norm” had been violated, Obama dismayed.

A “decisive response” was necessary, the media chimed in. American “national security” was threatened, the lovely Fox News pundits purred.

One must not make much of this colourful talk, it is merely rhetoric meant to put the unread masses to sleep. America can feign outrage at the use of chemical weapons (whoever is responsible) but the fact of it is that it is the United States that is actually the worst violater in this regard.

Agent Orange — Vietnam
Let us begin with the Vietnam War. For ten solid years, the Americans used Agent Orange in their chemical warfare programme in Vietnam, Operation Ranch Hand.

Over 20 million gallons of defoliants and herbicides were sprayed over South Vietnam forests. The Red Cross estimates that up to a million people are either disabled or suffer health problems due to the effects of those sustained chemical attacks. Hundreds of thousands were killed at the time. The United States disputes those figures but has not put out their own numbers on how many people were killed by these chemical attacks.

It is therefore quite rich for Obama to wax poetic about “international norms” over the death of a relatively insignificant number of people when compared to his nation’s crimes in Vietnam.

Of course the West will urge us to forget these past transgressions and focus on present times. One wonders why they cannot take a dose of their own medicine and equally forget about Mugabe’s alleged sins or the Cuban missile crisis, which they continue to use to justify their cruel embargo on that country.

Depleted Uranium — Afghanistan
The United States continues to make use of depleted uranium in Afghanistan. This is not speculation but fact. Their A-10 Warthog, Apache helicopters and Bradley vehicles are the chief offenders. Researchers who collected urine samples from people in Afghanistan found that uranium isotopes were up to 2000 times higher than normal.

Researchers are finding that villagers are being afflicted by a number of bizarre diseases, which include skin lesions, sudden deaths, spontaneous abortions as well as deformities and multiple cancers. The use of depleted uranium is illegal under international law but this has not stopped the Americans from continuing to develop bunker-busting missiles from these materials.

White Phosphorus — Iraq
It gets worse. In the Battle of Falluja, during the Iraq War, the Americans made use of the devastating chemical weapon, White Phosphorus. They initially denied having used the weapon, claiming that they had simply fired it into the sky for illumination. Following investigations by journalists, the US military finally conceded that it had used these weapons.

Consider how these deadly weapons work. White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with oxygen. If it comes into contact with human flesh it will burn until deprived of oxygen. This means it can burn the victim right up to the bone. It’s a nasty weapon.
An American soldier admitted that civilians who breathed in air after these weapons were ignited often suffered blisters in their throat and lungs, as the white phosphorus particles chewed away, until they eventually suffocated. These weapons were deployed not by ruthless terrorists, but by the United States military.

Hezbollah and Iran
These incidents, in which Americans have made use of chemical weapons, make it clear that their “righteous” anger over the Syrian incident is synthetic, merely an act.

Their real interest is in weakening Hezbollah and Iran. Syria is a key ally of the two. If Syria falls into the hands of the rebels, Iran will be very much alone and Hezbollah’s capacity significantly diminished.

The Americans will jump up and down and froth at the mouth over Syria, arguing they are concerned about women and children but the fact of the matter is that they are simply looking for a pretext to assist the rebels to overthrow Assad. It is just that simple.

The great nuclear deception
I was struck by the readiness with which the Americans want to attack Syria. It quickly brought to mind Gaddafi and how he foolishly suspended his nuclear weapons programme. As soon as he gave up his nuclear weapons, the West wasted no time in attacking. He is dead. Libya is in chaos. The oil flows west. Others must learn lessons from his demise.

The Americans have stockpiles of nuclear weapons, as do the French and British. However, they tell the rest of the world that these are nasty weapons and nobody else must have them.

Their argument is that other nations are reckless and could possibly detonate a nuclear bomb. It’s a polite way of saying the rest of us are uncivilised and cannot be trusted with dangerous toys.

The suggestion here is that nuclear weapons pose no risk to the world when they are in the hands of the Americans.
The real reason the Americans want to ensure that nobody else gets their hands on nuclear weapons is because these weapons level the playing field. Even a small nation becomes untouchable once it acquires a nuclear weapon.

Consider North Korea, a bellicose state by any measure. A few years ago, North Korea blasted a South Korean ship out of the water and killed innocent people.

The West screamed and shouted, they threatened and complained but they did nothing. They could do nothing. Poor as North Korea is, that state is untouchable. They are untouchable because they have nuclear weapons.

When the Americans initially blasted the Japanese with nuclear weapons they quickly realised the mistake they had made. The action set off a nuclear arms race that threatened American global hegemony. Once a small state acquired a nuclear weapon, it immediately became untouchable. This is unacceptable to the Americans who wish to dominate the world.

The United States spends more on its military than the next 14 top spenders put together. This gives them a great advantage in conventional warfare where quantity and quality of weaponry translates to might. Consider the fact that the United States has a number of aircraft carriers and destroyers in close proximity to Syria.

Their financial advantage allows this. Syria, and other weaker nations, do not have a capacity for such extensive navies and are immediately placed at a disadvantage. If the Syrians equally had missile-equipped destroyers within range of American soil, I suspect that the Americans would not be agitating for war.

America works very hard to ensure that the rules are in its favour. While the non-proliferation treaty would seem to be for the benefit of global citizens, it really is not.

There is no evidence to suggest that trigger-happy rogue states would recklessly detonate the weapon.
Since the Americans blasted the Japanese with nuclear weapons, killing hundreds of thousands, no other nation has done the same.
Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea have nuclear weapons but have never used or threatened to use those weapons in their conflicts.
If North Korea, can exercise restraint, we should take that as evidence sufficient that nobody is going to use a nuclear weapon without good reason.

Let us close with the Syrian issue. I can assure the reader that if the Syrians had nuclear weapons there would be no talk of a military strike against that country.

Ndatenda, ndini muchembere wenyu Amai Jukwa.

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey