U.S. Double Standard Showing in Nuclear Non-Proliferation Maneuvers

By Ian Williams

The old phrase about the pot calling the kettle black is particularly relevant to the stories floated by the Israeli government about Iran's alleged nuclear effort. Faced with an explicit demand by Egypt and other Arab governments that Israel had to sign any extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if they were going to, sources in Israel, faithfully echoed in the U.S., began to talk of the Iranian nuclear threat.

It went even further than nuclear matters when Gad Yaacobi, the Israeli ambassador to the U.N., charged Iran with complicity in the suicide bombing at the bus station in Nordiya. That the charge was motivated as much by diplomatic expediency as by forensic experience is indicated by his staunch refusal to accuse Syria of involvement, even when invited to do so by journalists familiar with yesteryear's bogeyman.

In fact, while Iran unsurprisingly has few friends on the world stage, Israel's unacknowledged nuclear weapons are proving a major obstacle to U.S. efforts to obtain an extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is reaching the end of its 25-year life span.

For many non-nuclear countries it is bad enough that Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States have not disarmed as envisaged in the original treaty, but U.S. connivance with and silence over the Israeli bomb is proving too much even for close friends of the U.S. like Egypt, let alone Iran. So the meeting in New York of the preparatory committee on the treaty was tied up in traditional wrangling.

That a double standard was in operation was made plain at a U.N. press conference given by U.S. Ambassador Thomas Graham, who, when asked what pressure Washington was putting on Israel on this matter, implied, firstly, that no pressure was being applied whatsoever, and, secondly, that this was somehow a bilateral matter between Egypt and Israel. Without addressing the question of Israel's reputed 200 nuclear weapons, he introduced a whole new category of Orwellian thoughtcrime into international relations by accusing Iran of having decided to go for a nuclear option.

That may, just possibly, be true, although if based on intelligence reports from the same people who predicted a long and happy reign for the shah, one could legitimately doubt it. In the meantime, as the ambassador admitted, Iran had signed the treaty, gets a clean bill of health from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and can't strike a nuclear spark for another seven years.

So, frightening as the prospect of an Ayatollah bomb is, the reality of a bomb in the hands of the people who mercilessly bombed and shelled virtually defenseless West Beirut for weeks during the summer of 1982 is not exactly reassuring, even if the State Department chooses to ignore it.

It is always worth remembering—period.

In contrast, Ambassador Graham suggested that the U.S. was gently squeezing India and Pakistan to come to some agreement on the non-proliferation treaty, which allows the five nuclear powers as of 1967 to retain their weaponry but prohibits all subsequent states. Since Israel had exploded no devices by that year, the only way for it to accede to the treaty would be by following the example of South Africa, her suspected partner in nuclear developments, and renouncing her nuclear arsenal. A government that will not relinquish Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip for fear of a few crazed Zionist fundamentalists is unlikely to do so without pressure—and clearly none of that is going to come from Washington.

Déjà Vu in the Balkans

Pressure is also missing in the Balkans, where there is an uncanny sense of déjà vu, 1948 all over again. With strong U.S. support, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution "calling for" all governments to cut off relations with the genocidal crew in Pale, the headquarters of the so-called Bosnian Serb Republic. Following President Jimmy Carter's astonishingly pro-Serb intervention in the region, the U.S. sent envoys—to Pale. The official excuse was that the resolution had only called for a cutoff in such contacts, and didn't actually foreclose the possibility.

That tolerant attitude is not, of course, the one taken by Britain and France to Senator Bob Dole's bill to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia later this year. It is always worth remembering that the embargo was introduced at the behest of the former Serb-controlled Yugoslav government which just happened to control all of the country's weaponry, and before the U.N. admitted the republics which broke away.

In fact, it is always worth remembering—period. Too many commentators have perfect memories of ancient pseudo-history and hatreds, and develop chronic amnesia about more recent events. Let us recapitulate again. The United Nations recognized and admitted the sovereign states of Bosnia and Croatia. Therefore, under the charter the U.N. guaranteed collective action to protect them. Faced with appeals for border monitors from Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic, the U.N. ignored them. Confronted with a massive intervention from Serbia, accompanied by mass rape, genocide and shelling of cities, the U.N. reluctantly agreed to monitor these atrocities and to try to feed the shelling victims.

The great powers then forced the beleaguered Bosnian government to accept partition, leaving the minority Serbian population, allegedly represented by a group of un-elected goons nominated from Belgrade, with half the country. The bait was "strong action" against the Serbs if they refused to accept. They refused nevertheless, but no strong action followed, except further assaults by the Serbs, which the U.N. refused to allow NATO aircraft to counter.

In the meantime, an International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague is dangling a few small fish, while the war criminal whose Machiavellian tactics started it all, Slobodan Milosevic in Belgrade, is now greeted as a peacemaker and has had some sanctions lifted to reward him. It is not an auspicious way to celebrate the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, but Palestinians will doubtless be familiar with the process.

While the U.S. requested the dropping of the outdated General Assembly resolutions on the Middle East on matters like Jerusalem and settlements, since they were to be dealt with in "final status" negotiations, it is clear the Bill Clinton administration's solicitude for the status quo does not go so far as to suggest that Israel stop building settlements there. The U.N. and the U.S. both have been entirely silent about the building activity that is going on at a rate that, according to the London Financial Times, is now three times that of the previous pre-peace agreement Likud government.

The U.N. is based upon the sovereign equality of nations. But to return to the prescience of George Orwell, some are more equal than others. In the short run, it helps to have an ally like the Clinton administration that cannot say no. In the long run, however, you have to live with the consequences of your deeds. If you want peace, you can't prepare for war quite so openly.

Ian Williams, a British free-lance writer based at the U.N., is president of the United Nations Correspondents' Association.