The perversity of power in non-western countries

How to rescue Muslims from the clutches of tyrants?

On July 16, 1945, the first atomic bomb was detonated in New Mexico. 75 years later, only eight countries have nuclear weapons, at least according to the official statements. Diplomats will find this a great success of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The latter is naive assumption: the manufacture of nuclear weapons is so immensely complicated and expensive that only a few countries were able to make these weapons. This may change because industrialization is also progressing in developing countries and the technology has become a form of open source software that is accessible to everyone and with which experiments can be simulated. After North Korea, Pakistan and Iran in the short term, more countries will follow. Israel is not included in this list because this country should have nuclear weapons, otherwise Israel  would long been wiped off the map. In the aforementioned countries the population is extremely poor, while Israel is a thriving and prosperous democracy that passes only in self-defense to military action.

The manufacture of nuclear weapons is a slow and expensive process that requires a large industrial complex. The necessary equipment must be available as well as the expertise. Therefore, detection by other countries of manufacture is quite easy. The Non-Proliferation Treaty has worked thanks to hard-to-bridge manufacturing challenges. This treaty will become more difficult to maintain as the material for nuclear fusion  and new technology  would be easily available, but nevertheless thousands of centrifuges, several reactors and dozens of particle accelerators are still needed. Again, these are devices that are extremely complicated. The danger lies in manufacturing that is permitted for scientific research or for medical isotopes. This facilitates the transfer of technology to the making of nuclear weapons. The same applies to nuclear reactors used for energy generation, which can be used to produce plutonium.

I am not concerned here with the technical details. The fact is that countries such as North Korea, Pakistan and perhaps Iran have nuclear weapons. Other countries can certainly follow. According to Khaled Talaat, a nuclear science researcher at the University of New Mexico, in the 21st century we must simultaneously use political and technological means to prevent further proliferation of nuclear weapons. There are many countries that are able to make those weapons and still adhere to international agreements. Talaat: " Limiting the proliferation starts with an effective policy, conflict resolution and security guarantees so demand decreases toward nuclear weapons " .

This brings me to the heart of my story. There are countries, or rather: there are politicians who, out of lust for power, prefer to maintain hotbeds of conflict and who do not care about international agreements. These politicians want to maintain their power by keeping the people poor and inciting hatred towards perceived enemies. This applies especially and almost exclusively to countries in the Middle East. Hamas does not want peace and prosperity in the Gaza Strip at all. Hezbollah does not want that  Lebanon becomes again the Middle East Pearl, as in the 60's when the Christians were not fled en masse and the other Christians were reduced to a minority thanks to the massive arrival of Muslims from Jordan. Iran wants no peace in Syria or Iraq. If those in power would bring peace in these countries, they should havc closed peace with Israel; the whole Middle East would then become prosperous thanks to het power and the technology of Israel. Unfortunately there will be never peace in the Middle East because in the Quran it is said that the Jews should be slain. This command is an excuse to keep the masses in a cycle of hatred. This is the worst abuse of religion. If Allah allows people to be killed for their beliefs, it goes against the most sacred moral principle. Then rather the merciful God of the Christians and the Jews.

What is stated in the Quran is a decisive argument to forbid Islamic countries to have nuclear weapons. Islam is a triumphalist religion bent on world domination. The West must absolutely make a strong stand here, otherwise the misery will be incalculable. Membership of Israel at the NATO would be a strong signal. It is irresponsible for our government leaders to allow Islamic countries to have nuclear weapons. Suppose a European city is destroyed with an atomic bomb and several cities will suffer the same fate unless we submit en masse to Islam. That's the mullahs' wet dream. This scenario is not as unlikely as it seems because the European armies don’t amount to much.

What could a strong fist mean against this immense danger? It is not about the Palestinians, the Lebanese and the Iranians. The vast majority of peoples in the Middle East prefer to live in peace, well-being and prosperity. Most work hard to support their families, they wish to contribute to a fair policy and want to be good neighbors with other countries, so also with Israel (where the Palestinians can go for excellent medical care). The problem lies in the corrupt rulers who spend a huge part of the national income on armaments, while the population is starving. We cannot compare these rulers with what is the case in civilized countries. These rulers send soldiers in ambulances to the battlefield and terrorists to the place where a suicide attack is to be carried out. These rulers place missile installations next to schools and hospitals. These rulers have taken embassy staff hostage in Iran, which is against any standard of decency and they are proud of it. These rulers murder any Muslim politician who chooses a moderate policy, a history that is constantly repeating itself in Lebanon. These rulers oppose repatriation  of criminal compatriots.

Should we do business with these uncivilized villains? How can we rescue the benevolent Muslims from the clutches of their tyrants? Can those villains delegate their representatives to international organizations? In the 21st century we are confronted with huge challenges (pandemics, climate change, not to pay off state debts, … ); therefore it is irresponsible to give the thugs a free hand. Many tensions are already becoming visible and can escalate. Even in western countries is it increasingly difficult to contain masses of rebellious citizens

In the farthest corners of the world, immoral politicians must be pilloried. They should be denied entry to civilized countries. They can not use financial services. It must be ensured that they are fully isolated and through social media their misdeeds are continually made public. The argument that we must continue to talk to them in order to exert any influence does not hold. This is about life and death and about liberating peoples who have to live in terrible conditions under tyranny. Conversations with these people push the solution further and further away. The United Nations does not promote peace in the world at all, because the tyrants get too important a voice there. Western politicians who give these rulers a platform as if they should be taken seriously are complicit in the grossest violation of human rights. It is better not to do business with the devil.

The Dirty Hands of the Diplomatic Corps

When new elections were called, then Congolese President Mobutu Seko Seko invited an opponent living in exile abroad to come back so he could participate in the election campaign. The president would guarantee his safety. The opposition leader accepted this proposal. As soon as he landed on the territory, he was arrested by the police. He died after days of torture. This kind of barbarism is rife in African and Arab countries. The murder of Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate is a recent example of how satanic things can get among diplomats. Have the Arab diplomats who allowed this to happen in their consulate not been kicked in the butt so that they were banned forever from civilized countries?

The question is whether this scum, because of diplomatic reasons, must be received by the queen. Should trade relations outweigh the most basic moral principles? Is it perhaps hoped that by staying in conversation we can exert some good influence? As if psychopaths care about well-intentioned sermons.

These villains have their country represented by their henchmen and relatives. The poorer and more corrupt the country, the more expensive the diplomats' villas in the capitals. Their luxurious life is paid for with money stolen from their very poor population. Should we sit together with these people in international organizations such as the United Nations or UNESCO? They even form the majority there so that a more responsible and morally acceptable international policy can be opposed by them.

We pretend that 19th century diplomacy is still tenable today. Back then, diplomats were civilized white gentlemen who behaved discreetly and strictly adhered to local laws. The representatives of rogue states or shithole countries shamelessly use diplomatic immunity to smuggle stolen money through the locks and drugs. They also often ignore the traffic rules. Gross violations of the law go unpunished. Years ago, a Libyan diplomat shot and killed a British policewoman in London. He was able to leave the country unhindered.

We can compare this decline of the diplomatic corps with the world of football. In the 19th century, this was a game between civilized gentlemen who valued fair play. Now the football world is an ethically dirty mess full of greed and corruption. The football players' exorbitant salaries are a blow to the honest, hard-working citizen. The hooligans best symbolize this sickening situation. We can see them as the diplomatic corps of the modern football world.

There is only one means to curb all that squalor among government leaders and diplomats : an iron fist. They only understand the language of power. For the sake of morality, the system of diplomatic immunity must be abandoned. This shouldn't be a problem at all, surely we can expect diplomats to lead by example? Furthermore, Western countries should withdraw immediately from international organizations and stop subsidizing a bottomless pit. The released financial resources may be better spent by sovereign western countries on mutually supportive cooperation with the people of Third World countries.

other texts:

   © Juliaan Van Acker 2024