USA and the Atomic Hypocrisy

USA and the Atomic Hypocrisy

No country has worked harder than the USA to destroy the value of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The spread of nuclear weapons proceeds at an alarming pace with the help of, or at least the implicit acceptance of, the United States government. Meanwhile, instead of dealing with its own infractions, the United States is busy pecking away at Iran (a member state of the NPT). Instead of pressuring countries that are in already in violation of the NPT, the USA is using the broken treaty to impose crippling economic sanctions, sew international discord, and amass its armies in the Mid-East. With the alarming build-up of troops, aircraft, ships and carriers in the Straight of Hormuz, peace has never been so fragile. The war drums continue to sound in the “Land of the Free,” where the thought of uranium being enriched in Iran has given rise to the implicit threat of nuclear war.

Nuclear weapons can be found in 14 countries around the world. Iran is not one of them. In fact, Iran’s desire to conduct peaceful nuclear activity is well within its rights as defined in article 4 of the NPT. So if the NPT only allows for 5 nuclear-weapons-countries, then which countries are actually breaking the rules of the game?

Non-NPT nuclear powers:

India, Pakistan and North Korea all possess nuclear weapons outside of the NPT. You would expect that the USA, willing to wage war on Iran for merely enriching uranium, would be enraged by these three countries. If other countries were to show blatant disregard for the NPT, surely they would be in hot water… Right? Actually, the American attitude toward India and Pakistan has been very accepting. North Korea has faced severe criticism of its nuclear program, but this acts only to illustrate the double standard that exists in American foreign policy: “if you have an economy worth trading with, or enough oil under your soil, you can break all the laws you want.” In the case of India, the USA is clearly flouting international law for its own gain. It not only tolerates India’s nuclear weaponry, but even has a nuclear cooperation agreement whereby American nuclear technology and expertise is exported to India. To say that American foreign policy in this area is inconsistent would be an understatement: the USA is not only corrupt in its efforts to police the globe, but it has also undermined its own crusade against nuclear proliferation in countries like Iran.

Undeclared nuclear powers:

With an estimated nuclear stockpile of up to 400 nuclear weapons and an illegitimate nuclear research center in the Negev desert, Israel is the sole nuclear power in the region. It stubbornly refuses to admit it has a clandestine nuclear weapons program, and has snubbed the NPT, so a neutral observer would assume that the USA would be threatening war with Israel. This is, after all, the rhetoric being offered to Iran. But despite Israel’s “undeclared [wink wink nudge nudge]” nuclear arsenal, the USA remains the devoted guardian of Israel, supporting and effectively propping up this nuclear regime financially, politically, and even militarily. It is obvious to any observer, then, that the USA doesn’t give a shit about the spread of nuclear weapons, as long as they are pointed at the “right” people.

Nuclear Weapons Sharing:

The United States, in violation of the NPT, has handed out nuclear weapons to NATO allies including Belgium, Turkey, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. The USA has claimed that, because its weapons remain under the control of the United States, the arrangement does not violate the NPT. However, Article 1 clearly states that each party should not “transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly.” Since the transfer of weapons and the control of weapons are two separate issues, it does not matter that the USA officially controls the trigger. The United States has blatantly violated the NPT by transferring nuclear weapons to five previously non-nuclear states. Furthermore, the countries that have received these nuclear weapons are in violation of NPT Article 2 for accepting the transfer of nuclear weapons. This whole mess has set a terrifying precedent for the future of nuclear non-proliferation. Would the American attitude be the same if, for example, Russia or China “shared” nuclear weapons with Venezuela or even Cuba? Obviously the goal of the USA is not to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in existence or even to reduce the number of countries that have them. It is about expanding American nuclear capabilities: the lip service being paid to disarmament is nothing more than a political game.

So with the USA and its allies flagrantly disobeying the most important nuclear treaty, one must wonder, “Why is the USA so concerned about uranium enrichment in Iran?” The answer, of course, is that the NPT is being hijacked by the USA and used as a source of cheap political leverage in international disputes. This is not just something that applies to the atomic question, either. American inconsistencies regarding human rights violations are another example of how the USA and its allies seem to be exempt from international obligations. Iran has been the subject of criticism for its nuclear research, but certainly the USA has been the real criminal on the international stage. The USA should not be silent about one rogue state while condemning another, so American pressure should be applied to Israel with at least the same severity as it is applied to Iran. American nuclear technology should not be shared with countries that disregard the NPT, and American nuclear weapons should not be transferred to other countries. If its mindless rhetoric on nuclear non-proliferation had any shred of sincerity, the USA would start following the rules of the game.

Mike Eisler

Toronto City Council and the War on Freedom

Toronto City Council and the War on Freedom.
Mike Eisler


City Council is misusing their power by taking away the rights and freedoms of the very citizens who elected them. This is evident in two recent decisions reached by the city’s councillors; namely, the ban on plastic bags and the condemnation of the term “Israeli apartheid.” By banning local merchants from providing plastic bags, the council has stepped on the freedoms of consumers and businesses by banning a product without proper justification. By using city funding as leverage to suppress a local group opposed to Israeli apartheid, they are setting a dangerous precedent for future decision-making.


In a democratic Canada, restrictions should only be placed on products that demonstrably and severely harm the public. When the risk to the public is minimal, it has become customary to use methods other than banning, such as providing economic disincentives for said products. High taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and gasoline are examples of this. Just as banning the use of gasoline would be absurd, so is the banning of plastic bags.


Like many other Canadians, Torontonians are required to bag their garbage in plastic bags. So not only will they be REQUIRED to buy millions of plastic bags from the store, but they will be FINED if they carry them home in a single plastic bag… The freedom of businesses to provide families with products that will help them is essential to the proper functioning of our economy. That is why city council’s lack of foresight is so astonishing. It hurts the rights of consumers and businesses without addressing the environmental issues that the councillors claim to care about. The hypocrisy of the move is easy to see for anyone who is in touch with real families. A plastic bag, after it is used the first time, can be reused a few times before it is used for household garbage. If city council is worried about people NOT reusing their bags, then why not add an extra tax or surcharge to plastic bags instead of banning them? Torontonians use 800 million plastic bags each year, so a tax of just 1 cent per bag could raise 8 million dollars to be used for environmental projects. Or it could be used to cover all the grants to Toronto’s major arts organizations (including Pride Toronto), with a couple million left over for the council to squander on enforcement for silly bans and bylaws.


Counter-productive laws aren’t the trick City Council has for limiting the freedoms of its citizens. It also uses its financial clout to suppress free thought. In 2011 City Council tried to withhold funding to the Pride Parade in one of the most disgusting attacks on free speech to date. Their target, “Queers Against Israeli Apartheid,” had little choice but to give in to the pressure from the Council.


The funding appears safe this year, but the council is condemning the use of the words “Israeli apartheid” and warning Pride that next year’s funding is at stake if QuAIA marches in the parade. By restricting freedom of speech through financial pressure, City Council is overstepping their boundaries. If funding is to be provided to parades of this sort at all, then it should surely be provided without political conditions attached. The freedom to voice our opposition to the unjust is an important part of the Canadian identity and instead of less dialogue, City Council should be encouraging more.


The actions of Toronto City Council show that they do not care about freedom. They care nothing for practicality or for the proper functioning of families, small businesses, or the economy in general. Instead, they have made it clear that they all are about image. Rather than non-intrusive green incentives that move the economy in a green direction, the City Council has chosen the most blunt of weapons: the ban. This demonstrates their desire to be SEEN as cleaning up the city, rather than to actually do it. With regards to their stance on Israeli apartheid, they are trying to stifle debate on an issue by condemning the mention of the issue itself. City Council has no business forcing its political views on the public and should not be using public finances as a weapon in its war on the freedom of speech.

Why Israel Should Rethink its Nuclear Policy

Why Israel Should Rethink its Nuclear Policy


Israel’s policy of nuclear ambiguity is hurting the country’s credibility with regards to foreign nuclear activity. I cringe every time I have to endure the words “It is often believed,” in the same sentence as, “Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons.” Instead of clarifying whether or not it possesses nuclear weapons, Israel has adopted a policy of simply refusing to comment on the issue. By not admitting that they possess these weapons of mass destruction, Israel has been able to escape the international obligations normally required of nuclear powers. Pro-Israeli lobbyists in the U.S.A. would have you believe that Iran is the real threat to peace and stability in the Mid-East, but is this really the case? How can Israel pretend to hold other nations to a standard to which it cannot hold itself? I am referring, of course, to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT. Israel is one of four countries (the others being North Korea, Pakistan, and India) that refuses to sign the NPT. Meanwhile, it is trying to use the NPT, and Iran’s perceived lack of compliance therewith, to lend legitimacy to Israel’s threat of war.


For the sake of peace, Israel should abandon its nuclear weapons stockpile. Aside from peace itself, the benefits to Israel would be twofold: reduced odds of a nuclear arms race in the Mid-East, and a much more respectable image for Israel on the international stage. By eliminating its nuclear arsenal, Israel’s prestige would be greatly enhanced: instead of being viewed as a hypocrite, Israel could finally be taken seriously when it talks about nuclear weapons in other countries. The most obvious case in point would be Iran; Israel has demanded that Iran stop uranium enrichment because it could lead to nuclear weapons someday. Meanwhile, with a hypothetical range of over 10 000 km, Israel’s Jericho missiles could easily deliver a mushroom cloud to my home in Japan. If Israel did not possess such far-reaching nuclear capabilities, their demands would seem more like a reasonable hope for peace, and less like hypocritical drum-beating.


A common argument against giving up the bomb, of course, is that it dissuades neighbours from attacking Israel. However, as history has shown us, nothing could be further from the truth. It is at least conceivable that, on the contrary, the perceived threat of a nuclear-armed Israel has contributed to the resentment and aggressive actions of its neighbours. Furthermore, with the United States as an ally, Israel has no real need to possess nuclear weapons. As Hillary Clinton famously mentioned in 2008, the U.S.A. could extend its nuclear umbrella to cover Israel and other allies in the Mid-East. This idea could easily be coordinated with the dismantling of Israeli nuclear weapons without any substantial change to the regional balance of power. Israel could create an atmosphere of peace by becoming a nuclear-free state under the protection of a nuclear-armed U.S.A., much like the arrangements of other peaceful states such as Canada or Japan.


Granted, by giving up its own nuclear arsenal, Israel would effectively be giving up the military option of a nuclear first-strike. However, Israel would still retain the option of a first-strike using non-nuclear warheads, so it’s ability to launch a pre-emptive attack would remain essentially unchanged. Whether Israel calls its missiles “defensive” or “offensive,” after all, is of no consequence to those at whom it is aimed. The only difference would be that the citizens of neighbouring countries would feel less threatened by the Jewish state. This is an olive branch that must be extended if Israel wishes to avoid being seen as the aggressor in a potential war with Iran or any other neighbour. Abandoning nuclear weapons would also give Israel some much-needed credibility and enhance its image in countries where issues such as “apartheid” and “illegal occupation” have negatively impacted its relationship with the public. The impact on regional stability would be enormous and in terms of peace in the Mid-East, such a move has the potential to be the greatest achievement in the past half-century.


Mike Eisler