Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) - Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association

Germany’s dangerous nuclear flirtation

Wolfgang Ischinger — Fri, 10 Aug 2018 08:12:26 +0000

BERLIN ― As in a game of chess, there are geopolitical moves through which a country can ― unwittingly ― checkmate itself. Opening a debate on German nuclear weapons would be such a move.

Yet this is exactly what some Germans have recently proposed. Supporters of a nuclear-armed Germany contend that NATO’s nuclear umbrella has lost all credibility because of statements made by U.S. President Donald Trump.

There are at least three good reasons why considering a nuclear option would be foolhardy for Germany. For starters, Germany has repeatedly renounced it, first in 1969 by signing (and later ratifying) the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and then in 1990 by signing the so-called Two Plus Four Treaty, which paved the way for German reunification.

Casting doubt on these commitments would severely damage Germany’s reputation and reliability worldwide. Germany would call into question the credibility of NATO’s nuclear deterrence, and thus the alliance itself, along with the entire nuclear non-proliferation regime.

It is worth noting that since its creation in 1949, NATO has been one of the world’s most successful instruments of proliferation prevention. Not a single NATO member state ― apart from the United States, the United Kingdom, and France ― has found it necessary to acquire nuclear weapons of its own.

If Germany were now to break out of its non-nuclear power status, what would keep Turkey or Poland, for instance, from following suit? Germany as a gravedigger of the international non-proliferation regime ― who could want that?

Second, a German nuclear bomb would damage the strategic environment in Europe ― to Germany’s disadvantage. Russia would interpret German steps toward a nuclear arsenal as a direct threat to its own national security and would likely adopt military countermeasures.

That, in turn, would make it even harder to pursue the vision of a pan-European order of peace and security, a core foreign-policy goal of all German governments since that of Konrad Adenauer.

Moreover, a German nuclear ambition might jeopardize the delicate balance of power in Europe including between Germany and France, for example ― with incalculable consequences for the long-term cohesion of the European Union.

Finally, it is not hard to predict that the pursuit of nuclear weapons would draw significant public opposition, especially given that such a move would be a complete about-face for German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government, which, just a few years ago, moved to phase out nuclear energy altogether.

It is difficult to imagine a greater fiasco for German foreign and security policy than proposing a nuclear strategy and then failing to obtain parliamentary approval.

There are smarter long-term ways to bolster Europe’s nuclear defense than introducing a German bomb. For example, France might be willing to consider playing an extended nuclear-deterrence role, along with the roles of the U.S. and the United Kingdom within NATO.

While this would require a fundamental reorientation and Europeanization of France’s nuclear strategy, Germany and other European partners could offer financial contributions to such an initiative, in the context of a future European defense union with a nuclear component. But these are, at best, long-term options.

In short, no matter what Trump says, Germany will remain dependent on the U.S. nuclear umbrella for the foreseeable future.

The best way to maintain NATO’s credibility and be taken seriously by the U.S. is to work seriously toward the alliance’s 2-percent-of-GDP target for defense spending and to invest more heavily in conventional military capabilities, not to satisfy U.S. demands, but to protect our own security and defense interests.

But this is not simply about spending more; it is about spending more intelligently, particularly by pooling and sharing capabilities, and by systematic joint procurement with France and other European partners, including through the recently established EU Defense Fund.

None of this will work if Germany will not start defining military strategy, security and defense as top political priorities. Only then will the Bundestag be able to give the Bundeswehr ― often referred to as a “parliamentary army” ― what it needs to do its job. The alternative ― considering the development of nuclear weapons ― would be a game-losing move.

Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador to the United States, is chairman of the Munich Security Conference and professor for Security Policy and Diplomatic Practice at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin.

Source: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/opinion/2018/08/197_253646.html

[Disclaimer]

The post Germany’s dangerous nuclear flirtation first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Should Germany get THE BOMB? The debate threatening to go nuclear in Merkel’s Germany

Joe Gamp — Sat, 04 Aug 2018 03:38:18 +0000

GERMANY is debating whether it is time to become a nuclear nation. Donald Trump’s increasingly belligerent threats to withdraw NATO security is forcing Germans to think the unthinkable – unthinkable at least since the deadly V1 and V2 rockets of Werner Von Braun.

Political scientist Christian Hacke, who is a key figure in German foreign policy, said Germany can “only rely on itself” as relations within the European union and the wider world intensify.

Germany is an economic superpower with the means to create nuclear deterrent of its own but under international law, framed in the wake of World War II, was prevented from doing so.

During the Cold War, Protocol III of the Treaty of Brussels forbade the country from possessing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

In an essay published yesterday, Mr Hacke said that Germany needs nuclear weapons to meet the challenges of the current international climate.

He wrote: “National defence on the basis of a nuclear deterrent must be given priority in light of new transatlantic uncertainties and potential confrontations.”

The new debate in the country comes in light of Donald Trump’s attack on the EU and his subsequent trade tariffs.

It also follows fresh threats from North Korea and the ensuing dialogue between Pyongyang and Washington.

Speaking to POLITICO, Mr Hacke believes Mr Trump’s approach to German foreign policy – including his slating of NATO – has prompted the need for nuclear armament.

Mr Hacke said: “Since the American nuclear guarantee has become doubtful and presumably no European deterrent variable seems feasible, the conclusion follows that in extreme cases, Germany can only rely on itself.

“Germany can no longer rely 100 percent on the fact that an allied nuclear power would intervene atomically for its security in an emergency.

“With that, the gaze is turned to the white elephant in the room, about which nobody wants to speak in Germany.

“How do we think about a potential nuclear power Germany?”

Meanwhile lrike Franke, analyst for European Council on Foreign Relations, said it was “crucial’ for Germany to have the debate.

Germany is considering Nuclear weapons as foreign tensions grow – but do Germans want it? (Image: GETTY)

He said: “It’s crucial for Germany and Europe that we have a strategic debate.

“What Germany is slowly realizing is that the general structure of the European security system is not prepared for the future.”

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear weapons (NPT) is an international treaty which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States make up the five nations under the NPT agreement.

Other nuclear armed countries outside the treaty include India, North Korea and Pakistan.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/998919/germany-nuclear-weapons-armament-international-climate-intensifies-US-trade-tarrifs

[Disclaimer]

The post Should Germany get THE BOMB? The debate threatening to go nuclear in Merkel’s Germany first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

US No Longer Has Resources to Start Full-Scale War Against Iran – Professor (Opinion)

Sputnik — Sun, 29 Apr 2018 22:51:27 +0000

Possible Missile Strikes on Syrian Army Arms Depots Results in Fires – Source

The world awaits President Trump’s May 12 decision on whether or not to extend the Iran nuclear deal. Speaking to Radio Sputnik, Hamed Mousavi, a professor of political science at the University of Tehran, outlined what he believes are Washington’s true motives in its attempt to pressure Iran into making new concessions.

Sputnik: Professor Mousavi, do you think Donald Trump’s criticism of the nuclear agreement has to do with the deal itself and its terms, or is there something bigger going on?

Hamed Mousavi: Actually, most of the elite in the United States, including people in the intelligence community, and even recently a person like Mike Pompeo who is the head of the CIA and is now is being considered for secretary of state, have acknowledged that the nuclear deal is in fact in the interest of the United States.

‘Not a Question of Arguments’: Merkel, Macron Can’t Get Trump to Save Iran Deal

Nevertheless, I think what the Trump administration is trying to do is to get concessions in areas where previous administrations have failed. One of those main issues is the balance of power in the Middle East. In Iraq and in Syria, events have not turned out the way the United States and its allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia have wanted. As a result, they are essentially using the nuclear deal to pressure Iran to give concessions in other areas in other areas such as, for example, in Syria.

Sputnik: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has threatened Washington with severe consequences if Donald Trump scraps the accord. How do you think Tehran would respond?

Hamed Mousavi: I don’t think they have made a final decision in Iran regarding how to respond if Trump decides to leave the nuclear deal on May 12. I think there are three possible scenarios of Iran’s reaction. The first is that Iran continues the deal with the Europeans, Russia and China without the United States. The second scenario is Iran leaving the nuclear deal.

The third scenario, which has actually become a bit more popular among some segments of Iranian society, is to leave the NPT [Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons] altogether. Because people are very upset, even right now, even without the United States leaving the nuclear deal. In the past two years, Iran has really not benefited from the economic advantages it was supposed to receive under the deal. This has largely been because of the Trump administration’s constant threatening to unravel it. The result of those threats, even without the United States leaving the deal, has been that a lot of businessmen in Europe and other countries are very concerned regarding investing in Iran. The result of that has in turn been that Iran has not received the economic benefits it was hoping to receive.

President Hassan Rouhani listens to explanations on new nuclear achievements at a ceremony to mark “National Nuclear Day,” in Tehran, Iran, Monday, April 9, 2018

Sputnik: Professor Mousavi, other signatories of the agreement have been calling on Mr. Trump to preserve the deal. Moreover, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said that Tehran has complied with the agreement. So why do you think Mr. Trump so vehemently opposes the deal?

Hamed Mousavi: You know, under the JCPOA, the only party authorized to assess Iranian compliance with the deal is the IAEA. The IAEA in the past two years has issued nine reports, all of them confirming the full compliance of Iran with its obligations under the nuclear deal. So there is no question over there whatsoever.

Sanctions Against Tehran Won’t Work – Iranian Military Chief of Staff

However, I think with the Trump administration there are two important aspects of why he doesn’t like the deal. The first one is that it was signed by the previous administration, the Obama administration, and Trump essentially wants to undo anything that Obama has done. This will be good for him politically in domestic US politics; his supporters would like this kind of policy.

The second one, as we have pointed out earlier, is the issue of trying to get more concessions from Iran on other issues such as Iran’s regional policies as well as its missile program.

All the while, you have to understand that in the Middle East, the only nuclear power is Israel, which actually has over 200 nuclear weapons. So on the one hand, Israel is getting a free pass, allowing it to develop even nuclear weapons; it’s not even a member of the NPT. On the other, the Trump administration is asking Iran to give up even its conventional defense missiles. So you can imagine why this is basically a non-starter for Iran. I don’t think Iran will accept these new demands by the US administration.

In this picture released by the Iranian state-run IRIB News Agency on Monday, June 19, 2017, a missile is fired from city of Kermanshah in western Iran targeting the Islamic State group in Syria

Sputnik: How would other signatories of the nuclear agreement react if Donald Trump decides to terminate the deal?

Hamed Mousavi: This will all depend on how he terminates it, because the United States has two sorts of sanctions on Iran. There are the primary sanctions, which punish US companies doing business with Iran. They also have secondary sanctions. These are sanctions that punish any country that does business with Iran; so even if it’s a European or Russian or Chinese company, they will get punished by the US administration.

If Donald Trump decides to leave the nuclear deal on May 12, there is the possibility of a so-called soft exit, in which he exempts certain countries from those sanctions. So he can come out for example and say that ‘we will exempt Germany and France from the secondary sanctions’. What that will do is basically allow these European companies to do business with Iran.

If however he doesn’t exempt these countries, it will be very difficult for them to continue with the deal, even if they want to. Even though they might denounce the Trump administration for leaving the deal, essentially the deal will die. Because it’s not possible for Iran to continue the deal with Europe and with Russia and China, when the United States is saying that they will punish and sanction any company that does business with Iran.

U.S. President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron attend an arrival ceremony at the White House in Washington, U.S., April 24, 2018

Sputnik: In his speech to US Congress, the French president said that while the agreement with Iran may not address all concerns, it should not be abandoned without having something more substantial in its place. But he added that Iran should never possess nuclear weapons because that would put the international community at risk. The question is, why is the international community so opposed to Iran having a nuclear program? The United States alone has over 6,800 warheads, and plans to increase its nuclear capabilities. Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons, and are not signatories to the NPT. Professor Mousavi, does a hypothetical Iranian nuclear program really pose a danger to the international community?

Hamed Mousavi: Here is the problem: under the present nuclear deal, Iran is obliged to never, ever develop nuclear weapons. That is part of the text. And even according to the US administration, they don’t really believe that the US is going after the bomb.

From Money Loss to New Conflicts: What May Happen if Trump Rips Iran Deal Up

I’ll give you an example. A few weeks ago, Mike Pompeo, in the Senate confirmation process before the Foreign Relations Committee, was asked about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. He said that Iran has actually never been after a nuclear weapon, either before the JCPOA or after. This is coming from Mike Pompeo, who is a hawk. So even he is admitting that it’s not a weapons program, but a civilian program aimed at energy production.Nevertheless, I think [the US is] using these excuses, essentially to pressure Iran and to shift the balance of power in the Middle East.

We have to understand that in the Middle East, the United States in the past ten years has been on the retreat. The Iraq War has been disastrous for them; they had to withdraw most of their forces. The War in Afghanistan is not going well for them after 17 years. The balance of power in Syria has completely changed, and one or two airstrikes is not going to change that. So essentially they are using other excuses to change the balance the power in the Middle East. I don’t think it has anything to do with Iran developing nuclear weapons…

CIA Director Mike Pompeo leaves his seat for a break after testifying before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing on Pompeo’s nomination to be secretary of state on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S.

Sputnik: What’s the endgame? Is it Syria?

Hamed Mousavi: I think the end goal is to shift the balance of power in the Middle East so it becomes similar to how it was in the 1990s. After the fall of the USSR, the United States was essentially the sole and undisputed superpower in the Middle East. However, in the 2000s, beginning with the wars that they started themselves, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, the situation in the Middle East has become very tense, and at the same time the Americans have suffered, both financially and in terms of lives; they’ve lost a lot of soldiers here.

The end result of that has been that not only has the balance of power come out of their favor, but they have actually lost a lot of their power. [This has led to] the rise of regional powers such as Iran, and the rise of powers outside the region such as Russia. The Americans don’t like that at all. Essentially they want to be the sole power in the Middle East and to call the shots.

Syrian government supporters wave Syrian, Iranian and Russian flags as they chant slogans against U.S. President Trump during demonstrations following a wave of U.S., British and French military strikes to punish President Bashar Assad for suspected chemical attack against civilians, in Damascus, Syria, Saturday, April 14, 2018

Sputnik: Reports say that Iran may resume its nuclear program if Donald Trump abrogates the nuclear deal. Earlier the US leader threatened Iran with ‘big problems’ if Tehran decides to do that. What are we talking about here? Is there a risk of military confrontation between Tehran and Washington?

Hamed Mousavi: A few months ago, the debt of the US for the first time in its history passed over $20 trillion. So the US government is not doing well financially. Last year, it had a budget deficit of $666 billion. That is expected to rise to $1 trillion per year by 2020. So essentially, the United States, from a financial perspective, does not have the resources to start a full-scale war.

Also, public opinion in the United States is against any kind of invasion, such as the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Because of that, the Trump administration, regardless of its very aggressive rhetoric, is not really in a position to launch full-scale wars anymore. This is why, in Syria for example, we saw missile strikes, but nothing in the sense that they could change the military balance in Syria. I think that applies to Iran as well. They can apply sanctions, they can apply diplomatic pressure, but from a military perspective, I don’t see that they can attack Iran anytime soon.

The views and opinions expressed by Hamed Mousavi are those of the expert and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

Source: https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201804291064014847-iran-deal-interview-hassan-mousavi/

[Disclaimer]

The post US No Longer Has Resources to Start Full-Scale War Against Iran – Professor (Opinion) first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.