US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said in a statement released Friday, November 23, 2012, that the US "regrets to announce that the conference [The 2012 Nuclear Security Summit] cannot be convened because of present conditions in the Middle East and the fact that states in the region have not reached agreement on acceptable conditions for a conference." The statement continued "The United States will continue to work seriously with our partners to create conditions for a meaningful conference. We are particularly grateful for the tireless efforts of Ambassador Jaakko Laajava, the appointed facilitator, supported by the United States, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation and the UN Secretary General, to lay the groundwork for a successful conference against the backdrop of turmoil and dramatic political change taking place in the Middle East and Iran’s continuing defiance of its international nonproliferation obligations." In other words, Washington canceled the conference for fear that it would focus on Israel's rather than on Iran's nuclear program.
Barack Netanyahu - Benjamin Obama
Golgotha's Nuclear Blast
What Went Wrong?
2010 was a key year in the history of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The New START treaty between the USA and the Russian Federation was signed on April 8, in Prague. Then, Iran hosted its own conference, the International Conference on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, on April 17–18. In the following month, the 2010 Review Conference for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (also referred to as the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit) was held at United Nations headquarters in New York. It was the largest gathering of heads of state called by a United States president since the 1945 United Nations Conference on International Organization. Don’t bother to check the list; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn’t there despite Israel being a close ally of the USA. Netanyahu zigzagged; he had announced that he would be the first Israeli leader to attend the Nuclear Security Summit, however, days before it, he withdrew from it claiming that Egypt and Turkey intended to raise the issue of Israel’s atomic arsenal at the meeting.
On the first week of April 2012, Jaakko Laajava, Finland’s Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs informally visited Jerusalem to discuss Israel’s participation in the upcoming Nonproliferation Treaty Conference, to be held this December in Helsinki. He met with an Israeli team headed by Foreign Ministry Deputy Director General Jeremy Issacharoff, and that included representatives from Israel’s National Security Council and the Atomic Energy Commission. In January, Laajava met with Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, and dealt with the same issue. The impending conference was likely to pursue the unfinished business of its 2010 predecessor; namely attempts by Arab states and Iran to restrain Israel’s aggressive nuclear capability. Israel is attempting to cancel the conference, or at least to postpone it as long as possible. Until now, the USA was mumbling nonsensical pleasantries towards all. In the current international situation, the USA is not capable anymore of imposing a schedule. Most people understand that the only active nuclear threat in the Middle East is posed
by Israel, especially since it acquired its nuclear armed submarines from Germany. Israel is still repeating its mantra, claiming that it would not sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons until a comprehensive Arab-Israel peace deal is in place. Together with Pakistan, India and North Korea, Israel is a nuclear country which is not a signatory to this treaty.
Castle Bravo Nuclear Blast | American thermonuclear hydrogen bomb, detonated on March 1, 1954 at Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands
Vetoing the American Veto
In its recent announcement, the USA imposed its veto on a diplomatic process because it didn't fit its goals. American leaders like to boast of their country's democracy. Yet, they seem to believe that this is restricted to domestic issues. The USA is the most violent country on earth, having conducted over 500 wars and military operations in its short existence. Whenever something goes against American tastes, that country recurs to violence. A good example was provided in 2003. The United Nations Security Council is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, international sanctions, and the authorization of military action. Yet, the American attack on Iraq was never allowed by the UNSC; its Resolution 1441 did not allow such an invasion. The situation at the Council is complex. There are 15 members of the Security Council, five veto-wielding permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) and ten elected non-permanent members with two-year terms. Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, Security Council decisions require affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote, or veto, by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes. Abstention is not regarded as a veto. The United States have used the veto over eighty times, more than any other country except for the now non-existent Soviet Union. Since the 1970’s, the US has become the most frequent user of the veto, mainly against resolutions criticizing Israel, and this is the crux of the matter.
The United Nations is not a democratic body. Not even close to that. There are five countries which create an unbalanced reality in which certain societies – or their leaders to be more exact – have the power to enforce their capricious will on the rest of the world, without the latter having any capability to appeal. In the case of the US, we are talking about less than 5% of the world’s population. This minority is constantly enforcing its awkward views on the rest of humanity. Can the US justify this on its “Democratic Values?” Is the American society ready to accept the full implications of its endorsing what the UN defined as a terror-inflicting entity? Would the American society accept the same verdict once it is directed to it? Will we hear at least once an honest statement from that entity, or will we continue to hear mumbling justifications of unjustifiable double morality standards? One cannot change the rules of an agreed game once one begins losing. That means rejection of the Rule of Law, and the return of humanity to savagery.