After receiving some press a few years ago, the first phase
of the Saudi nuclear project is (as of April 2020) nearing completion and yet
many are expressing the warranted fear that the kingdom is going to pursue a
weapons programme. While they have signed on to the Non-Proliferation Treaty or
NPT, the treaty increasingly has no teeth. Undermined decades ago by Israel,
India, Pakistan, South Africa and in recent years by Libya, Iran and North
Korea, the international community's commitment to Non-Proliferation is
becoming a quaint but largely meaningless commitment.
I am of course speaking of the true international community,
not in keeping with the usage in Western media which is a usually an expression
of the Western nations and in the American context – of those nations which
have submitted to the leadership of Washington.
The increasingly belligerent Middle Eastern Cold War which
sets the Saudi allies against the Iranian bloc is fomenting this proliferation.
It is noteworthy that both Iran and North Korea began to actively pursue a
weapons programme in the aftermath of Bush's 2002 'Axis of Evil' speech in
which Baghdad, Tehran and Pyongyang were singled out and effectively marked for
regime change. Of course after Saddam Hussein fell from power in 2003, the
leaders of both Iran and North Korea got the message and started to pursue the
only deterrent available to them – nuclear weapons.
The United States is not opposed to Riyadh's nuclear project
and numerous American companies are involved in its development. The official
position would oppose the Saudi development of weapons (they may already
possess some via the Pentagon, Islamabad or even Tel Aviv), and yet the United
States has often facilitated or looked the other way while allies like Israel
and South Africa developed or acquired said weapons. Will that be the case with
Riyadh? It depends on who you talk to.
Thus far the Saudis have not agreed to IAEA inspections which
is usually a 'red flag' – and yet if the United States wanted to make an issue
out of it, it certainly could and Trump could put a lot of pressure on Riyadh,
but so far he hasn't. How are these events to be interpreted? Does Washington
not care? Is no one paying attention? Or is this being supported on a tacit
level? The official Establishment explanation will either focus on nebulous
talk of diplomatic arrangements or in some cases will argue the Trump State
Department is negligent. And yet, given that a lot of noise could be made by
the media – noise that would begin to force hands, one is left to ask the real
question – why is the media being more or less silent? Given all the attention
given to Iran, why is the Saudi programme and refusal of IAEA inspections
remaining essentially a non-issue?
There's more to the story:
This indicates that in fact Trump and more importantly the
people behind him or forces within the Establishment are steering this policy.
Is the CNBC coverage a case of anti-Trump coverage? Are there voices of
concern? Or is the fact that this story which should be highly significant is
in fact relegated almost to the 'back page' (as it were), an indication that
the big players within Washington support the policy? There have been
expressions of congressional concern as the Trump administration is clearly
doing this on the sly and yet given that they could be making a much bigger deal
about it – I'm left to believe that most in Congress, even among Trump's
enemies in fact support it. The same is true of the war in Yemen. A quick look
at the IP3 membership, the company formed to facilitate US nuclear technology
transfer to Saudi Arabia indicates the nature of the enterprise. It reeks of
Deep State Establishment, and what's even more interesting is that IP3 was
formed in June of 2016, during the sunset of the Obama Administration.
I believe the limited media coverage is a means of
Establishment restraint on the Trump administration, not genuine oppositional
journalism, not an attempt to seek a true expose' of the story. One could argue
the US congressional posture with regard to Mohammed bin Salman and the
Khashoggi affair also represents a tool of restraint, a threat, a warning to
the young ruler that the American-led Western Establishment can quickly turn
against him.
I'm reminded of my UPS story, when I briefly worked there in
the 1990's. I've talked about their write-up policy and how three incidents
meant you were terminated. Given that we handled thousands of boxes every day
it was almost impossible to think that you weren't going to miss one, send one
down the wrong line or load a wrong box onto a truck. Within a few weeks, I had
three write-ups. I thought I would be fired but I was sent back to work and
promoted. What was happening? I realised it was company insurance. They had the
goods on me so to speak, if they wanted to fire me they had their justification.
Clearly they didn't, but they were playing what might be called a prudent game.
Does the mainstream media work in the same way? I think it
does at times – the media in this case representing and working with
Establishment forces. The story is out there. Report it but don't make a big
deal about it. You can't ignore it because doing so actually calls attention to
your organisation and makes it look bad or corrupted. So report it, but file it
away. It's still there and if they want to rekindle the controversy at a later
date, they can. Rick Perry, a very unpopular Energy Secretary was involved and
you can be sure there's a growing dossier on current and former figures within
the Trump cabinet that can be pulled out if the time is right. Oh, and if need
be the Trump people have an out. They can pin the whole thing on someone like
Perry (someone unpopular) and walk away – hang him out to dry. It's one of the
oldest tricks in the book.
Everyone is posturing, preparing and holding back until the
right moment. Sometimes these stories die and nothing ever happens and only
later when an investigative journalist digs in do we find out the real
magnitude and spectrum of the events. Or in other cases the journalist digs
enough to tell a big story, earn some points, game same access but then because
said journalist helped cover up the sensitive issues and whitewash the
narrative – he or she is then awarded with more access and better
opportunities.
Finally with word that the UAE is developing a nuclear
programme, there is fear of regional arms race. Again, the US established a
technology transfer company under the Obama administration but thus far the
relations with the UAE are above board, transparent and limited to civilian
power generation. But the situation
continues to make people nervous as countries with reactors possess the means
and technology to begin pursuing a weapons programme, and given the volatility
of their neighbourhood they're all the more likely to do so. And as more
nations possess these weapons, it's all the more likely that someone will
eventually use them.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.