Politics 14 - A 'Nightmare' Nuclear Deal

The recent nuclear framework agreement between powerful world leaders and Iran, regarding the lifting of sanctions, has the U.S. Senate stating that they will do everything that they can think of to change it, and Israel’s Netanyahu clearly displays his thoughts with the one-word, “nightmare”.

It seems that no one understands why Iran needs enrichment facilities when less expensive reactor fuel is available on the international market.  Therefore, it is said that there can be only one reason ... to produce enough enrichment for a bomb.

Therefore, it is really necessary to pause and study Iran’s history.

Chris Lawrence, a nuclear scientist at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation says, “This detached calculus is made possible only by a radical ahistoricism that seems to pervade nearly all discussion of the Iranian nuclear program.”

He continues, “Nuclear power reactors represent towering investments. Most are designed to last 40 years, and their lives are often extended to 50 or 60. Meanwhile, the price of fuel makes up less than 30 percent of their operating cost”.

Starting with the revolution in 1979, when construction on the Bushehr reactor had reached 80%, the German construction company was encouraged to back out, and U.S. pressure in the 80’s caused France, China, and Argentina to back out of being suppliers of nuclear fuel.

Therefore, this history shows that Iran cannot rely on the international availability of fuel, fifty years from now ... certainly not from Russia, and is a good reason to be self reliant. 

It should not be surprising, considering years of sanctions, that they continued with a secret procurement process, it being their only option.

“As fellow nonproliferation analyst Ivanka Barzashka and others have pointed out, the existence of the Fordow plant [Constructed beneath a mountain. Ed.] removes this option since it would be invulnerable to an airstrike. In fact, if Iran can simply continue enriching at Fordow, then destroying Natanz [Iran’s largest enrichment plant. Ed.] is even worse than pointless, since it would likely change Iran's calculus in favor of weaponization.” Lawrence continued.

It may seem strange that Iran would agree to reduce its’ enrichment process and, it is suspected, this will enable them to maintain their centrifuge capability, should there be a failure of future agreements and, thus, avoid shutting down their reactors as they did in the 80’s.

We must not be too pleased with ourselves that severe sanctions have caused this latest agreement, because as Lawrence also says, “Iran came to the table in 2003, before sanctions were escalated, with a better deal than we could possibly imagine today. We eloquently responded, "You're evil, go away." Since then, they have done the rational thing and become excellent enrichers of uranium so they will never again be without fuel for their reactors”.

I hope that a final agreement is reached in June, and that the U.S. Senate keeps its’ pointed nose out of harms way ... the less that I say about Netanyahu the better.

Politics 10 - Thin Edge of the Wedge

The U.K., the place of my birth but, now, a place that is almost unrecognizable in certain areas.  The County of Kent, where I grew up, known as The Garden of England, feels different, as if there is a pulsing undercurrent of unrest.  My loved Thomas Hardy County of Dorset, pictured on Christmas cards (Remember those?), breathes the fresh air with innocence of an uncertain future.  London, of course, has always been a multicultural city, since being established by the Romans, and where it was usually difficult to distinguish one culture from another but, now, there is an obvious ‘frontal attack’ by an increasingly dominant, and vociferous, Islamic community ... and the government appears to lack any authority for which to display the necessary control.

My Peaceful English Country House

Most English villages developed around small farming groups.  Produce marketing established the eventual village shop;  A religious need built a church;  eventually, a sense of community introduced the Public House (Pub).  Over the years, there were more shops, churches and, certainly, more pubs, as towns and cities were born (Please excuse the simplification).

Today, Christian churches are closing, and Islamic domes are constructed above their roofs.  Many shops are boarded up because of changing customer needs and, in their place, some are reopening with signs written solely in Islamic script (The Quebec language police would have a heyday with that).  The need for social community takes place in the mosque (although the ‘need’ for some Muslims is doubtful), and, thus, the once-popular pub has closed, and dereliction has taken over ... a probable breeding ground for extremists.

No, this is not Dhaka, Bangladesh, but London, U.K., 2013

A good friend of mine who made a more extensive tour of the U.K. recently, wrote to say that he was forced to double-check his air tickets because he felt sure that he had landed in Pakistan by mistake.  He wasn’t exaggerating. 

One is bound to ask, why do Muslims emigrate to a country that sells world-famous pork sausages, tasteful ale, and listens to glorious choirs singing in cathedrals every Sunday.?  If I had wished to become an Australian, I would have gone to Australia, but I admired the Canadian way of life and came to Canada.  Is this new wave of immigration the result of Muslims wishing to become British because they admire the British way of life?  It seems such an alarmingly sad question when they carry banners saying, “Kill the Queen” and “Sharia law for everyone”.

I think this to be a very important question for a country like Canada which believes, wrongly, in a policy of multiculturalism.  In 2012, 257,515 immigrants and 23,056 refugees came to Canada, and the Minister for Immigration states that these numbers are planned to continue in the future.  It may be too late for the U.K. (and France), but it could be a warning for us. 

The U.K. and Canada (and other similar countries) occasionally make changes to their respective list of “safe” countries, (Countries from which refugees are no longer accepted).  It occurs to me that refugees from these countries who have enjoyed the safety, and benefits from our welfare systems, could be deported back ... certainly, if they have not proven to be productive members of our society (I have written elsewhere about the huge number of criminal immigrants in our over-crowded goals).

I see it as the thin edge of the wedge, that requires a sensible strengthening of immigration and deportation laws.

As a Postscript, my attention is focussed on our indigenous communities.  They are Canadians too, yet we segregate them to wilderness reserves.  I am tempted to suggest that we set up reserves for refugees too, after all, Australia does it.  Remember, qualified immigrants come here after a long intensive scrutiny to integrate and become tax-paying, employed Canadians, whilst refugees come to simply escape politically and culturally unsafe countries.  I imagine that when the word travels globally that refugees in Canada no longer live in highly subsidized, high-rise apartments, etc. (usually, better than low-income Canadians) there would be an remarkable reduction in refugee numbers ... simply because some of them are not refugees, but ‘queue-jumpers’.

Now, we shall discover if controversy creates discussion, anonymously or otherwise.   

Your comment is welcome by clicking below

Politics 4 - A Palestinian State

I do not think that there is one subject to be discussed that avoids politics.  Even religion cannot be discussed without involving politics.  One of my posts discussed tipping in restaurants in which I avoided the possibility of a government ban on the subject.  Could we discuss organic foods without the Ministry of Food applying some regulations?  Could I spank my child’s bottom without the police knocking on my door?  Could I walk my dog in the park without a regulatory-designed leash ... well, probably, that will be next.

Could a tiger nurse orphaned piglets?  Could a polar bear play harmlessly with tethered husky dogs?  Could a lion hug and lick a woman who had cared for it earlier?  I am sure that some of you have seen these videos, but I digress ... could humans live together in peace?

Time and time again the U.N. has asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and, constantly, they refuse.  Iran has signed, has permitted inspections, yet we demand that only Iran provide discrete details, because Israel says that it “knows” that Iran poses a nuclear threat.  Israel bombed a nuclear power station in Iraq where, later, international experts could find no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the ruins.  Later, the U.N. released the Goldstone Report, a scathing report which accused Israel of 37 specific war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza earlier this year. Israel has denounced the report as "Anti-Semitic (even though Judge Goldstone is himself Jewish).  Declassified documents from the former South African regime prove not only that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, but has tried to sell them to other countries!

Finally, let us diligently read UN General Assembly Resolution 3376 (one of many) that states:  "Reiterates all relevant United Nations resolutions which emphasize that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible under the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law and that Israel must withdraw unconditionally from all the occupied Palestinian and other Arab territories, including Jerusalem"

Now, today, a slight, usually quiet man, President Mahmoud Abbas, stood in front of the U.N. General Assembly to cheers and almost tumultuous applause, to say that he believed that it was time for Palestinian statehood ... and I am one person who believes that this day has been a long time coming.

I wonder if you agree with me?