Genocidal Cynicism

| by Fidel Castro Ruz,

( December 08, Havana, Sri Lanka Guardian) NO sane person, especially anyone who has had access to the basic knowledge acquired in elementary schools, would agree that our species, particularly children, adolescents or young adults, should be deprived today, tomorrow and for ever of the right to live. Throughout all of their hazardous history, human beings, as persons endowed with intelligence, have never experienced anything similar to this.

What I really think is that no country in the world should possess nuclear weapons, and that this energy should be placed at the service of the human species. Without that spirit of cooperation, humanity is inexorably advancing toward its own destruction.

I feel bound to convey to those who take the trouble to read these reflections, the belief that all of us, without exception, have the obligation to create an awareness of the risks which humanity is inexorably running, and which are leading to definitive and total disaster as a consequence of the irresponsible decisions of politicians in whose hands chance, rather than talent or merit, has placed the destiny of humanity.

Whether or not the citizens of their country are the bearers of religious or skeptical beliefs in relation to the issue, no human beings in their right mind would agree that their children or closest family members should perish in an abrupt form or as victims of atrocious and torturous suffering.

In the wake of the repugnant crimes which the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is committing with growing frequency under the aegis of the United States and the richest European countries, world attention focused on the G-20 meeting, at which the profound economic crisis currently affecting all nations had to be analyzed. International opinion, and particularly that of Europe, was awaiting a response to the profound economic crisis which, with its profound social and even climatic implications, is threatening all the inhabitants of the planet. That meeting was to decide whether the euro could be maintained as the common currency of the largest part of Europe, and even whether certain countries could remain within the community.

There was no answer or solution whatsoever to the most serious problems of the world economy, despite the efforts of China, Russia, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and others in the emerging economy, desirous of cooperating with the rest of the world in the search for solutions to the grave economic problems affecting it.

The unprecedented event is that, barely had NATO announced as concluded the operation in Libya – after the air attack which wounded the constitutional head of that country, destroyed the vehicle transporting him and left him at the mercy of the mercenaries of imperialism, who killed him and exhibited him as a war trophy, thus offending Muslim customs and traditions – than the IAEA, a United Nations body, an institution which should be at the service of world peace, launched its political and paid for sectarian report, which is placing the world on the brink of a war, with the deployment of nuclear weapons, which the yankee empire, in alliance with Britain and Israel, is meticulously preparing against Iran.

After the "Veni, vidi, vici" of the famous Roman emperor more than 2,000 years ago, translated into "I came, I saw and he died," transmitted to public opinion via an important television network as soon as the death of Gaddafi was known, words are surplus to describe the politics of the United States.

What is important now is the need to create among the peoples a clear awareness of the abyss towards which humanity is being led. On two occasions our Revolution experienced dramatic risks: in October of 1962, the most critical of all, in which humanity was on the brink of a nuclear holocaust; and in mid-1987, when our forces were confronting racist South African troops equipped with nuclear weapons which Israel had helped to create.

The Shah of Iran also collaborated alongside Israel with the racist and fascist South African regime.

What is the UN? An organization promoted by the United States before the end of World War II. That nation, whose territory was at a considerable distance from the scenes of war, had enormously enriched itself; it accumulated 80% of the world’s gold and under the leadership of Roosevelt, a sincere anti-fascist, promoted the development of the nuclear weapon which Truman, his successor, an oligarch and mediocre president, did not hesitate to use against the defenseless cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

The monopoly of world gold in the power of the United States and Roosevelt’s prestige gave him the Bretton Woods agreement, assigning him the role of issuing the dollar as the sole currency, which was used for years in world trade, with no limiting factor other than its backing in metallic gold.

At the end of World War II, the United States was also the only country to possess nuclear weapons, a privilege which he lost no time in conveying to his allies and members of the Security Council: Great Britain and France, the two most important colonial powers in that period.

Truman did not say a word about the atomic bomb to the USSR before using it. China, then governed buy the nationalist, oligarchical and pro-yankee Chiang Kai-shek, could not be excluded from that Security Council.

The USSR, hard hit by war, destruction and the loss of more than 20 million of its sons in the wake of the Nazi invasion, dedicated huge economic, scientific and human resources to bring its nuclear capacity up to par with the United States. Four years later, in 1949, it tested its first nuclear weapon; the hydrogen bomb in 1953; and, in 1955, its first megaton bomb. France acquired its first nuclear weapon in 1960.

Only three countries possessed nuclear weapons in 1957, when the UN, under yankee aegis, created the International Atomic Energy Agency. Can anyone imagine that this U.S. instrument did anything to warn the world of the terrible risks to which human society would be exposed when Israel, an unconditional ally of the United States and NATO, located right at the heart of the most important oil and gas reserves in the world, constituted itself as a dangerous and aggressive nuclear power?

Its forces, in cooperation with British and French troops, attacked Port Said when Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, property of France, which obliged the Soviet Prime Minister to convey an ultimatum demanding an end to that aggression, which the European allies of the United States had no alternative other than to obey.

TO give some idea of the potential of the USSR in its efforts to maintain parity with the United States in this sphere, suffice it to note that when its disintegration came about in 1991, there were 81 nuclear warheads in Byelorussia, 1,400 in Kazakhstan, and approximately 5,000 in Ukraine, which were passed on to the Russian Federation, the only state capable of sustaining their immense cost in order to maintain its independence.

By virtue of the START and SORT treaties related to the reduction of offensive weapons between the two major nuclear powers, the number of those warheads was reduced to several thousand.

In 2010 a new treaty of this type was signed between the two powers.

Since then the greatest efforts have been dedicated to improving the direction, reach, precision of nuclear missiles and their deception of the enemy defense. Vast sums are invested in the military sphere.

Very few people in the world, except for a handful of thinkers and scientists, have realized and are warning that the explosion of 100 strategic nuclear weapons would be enough to end human existence on the planet. The vast majority would have an end as inexorable as it would be horrific, as a consequence of the nuclear winter which would be generated.

The number of countries which possess nuclear weapons at this moment has risen to eight. Five of them are members of the Security Council: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China. India and Pakistan acquired the nature of countries possessing nuclear weapons in 1974 and 1998, respectively. The seven countries mentioned acknowledge that nature.

On the other hand, Israel has never acknowledged its nature as a nuclear country. Nevertheless, it is calculated that it possesses 200 to 500 weapons of this type, without that being acknowledged at a time when the world is concerned about the extremely grave problems that would be provoked by the outbreak of a war in the region where a large part of the energy which moves the planet’s industry and agriculture is produced.

It is thanks to the possession of weapons of mass destruction that Israel has been able to fulfill its role as the instrument of imperialism and colonialism in that region of the Middle East.

It is not about the legitimate right of the Israeli people to live and work in peace and freedom; it is precisely about the right of the other peoples in the region to freedom and peace.

While Israel was rapidly creating a nuclear arsenal, it attacked and destroyed, in 1981, the Iraqi nuclear reactor in Osirak. It did exactly the same to the Syrian reactor in Dayr az-Zawr in 2007, an action of which world opinion was strangely not informed. The United Nations and the IAEA were fully aware of what had occurred. Such actions had the support of the United States and the Atlantic Alliance.

There is nothing at all strange about Israel’s highest authorities now announcing their intention to do the same to Iran. This country, immensely rich in oil and gas, had been the victim of the conspiracies of Britain and the United States, whose oil companies were plundering its resources. Its armed forces were equipped with the most modern armaments from the United States’ military industry.

Shah Reza Pahlevi also aspired to acquiring nuclear weapons. Nobody attacked his research centers. The Israeli war was against the Muslim Arabs. It was not against those of Iran, because they had become a NATO bulwark pointing at the heart of the USSR.

Under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini, the masses of that nation, profoundly religious and defying the power of those weapons, removed the Shah from the throne and disarmed one of the best equipped armies in the world without firing a shot.

Given its fighting capacity, number of inhabitants and the country’s extension, an aggression against Iran would bear no resemblance to Israel’s military adventures in Iraq and Syria. A bloody war would invariably be unleashed. There should be absolutely no doubt about that.

Israel has a large number of nuclear weapons with the capacity to reach any point in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania. I ask myself: Does the IAEA have the moral right to sanction and asphyxiate a country if it attempts to do in its own defense what Israel did in the heart of the Middle East?

What I really think is that no country in the world should possess nuclear weapons, and that this energy should be placed at the service of the human species. Without that spirit of cooperation, humanity is inexorably advancing toward its own destruction. Among Israeli citizens themselves, doubtless a hardworking and intelligent people, many will not be in agreement with this crazy and absurd politics which is also taking them to total disaster.

What is being said today in the world about the economic situation?

The international news agencies report that U.S. President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, presented divergent commercial agendas [...] highlighting the growing tensions between the two largest economies in the world.

"Obama used an address – Reuters affirms – to threaten punitive economic steps against China unless it started ‘playing by the rules…’"

These rules are evidently the interests of the United States.

"Obama faces a tough 2012 re-election battle, in which Republican opponents accuse him of not being tough enough on China," the agency states.

News published on Thursday and Friday reflected the realities which we are experiencing much better.

AP, the best informed U.S. news agency communicated, "Iran’s supreme leader warned Israel and the U.S. that Tehran’s response will be tough should its arch-enemies choose a military strike against Iran…"

The German news agency reported that China had stated that, as always, it believed that dialogue and cooperation were the only form of active rapprochement to solve the problem.

Russia was equally opposed to the punitive measures against Iran.

Germany rejected the military option but was in favor of strong sanctions against Iran.

The United Kingdom and France advocated strong and energetic sanctions.

The Russian Federation assured that it would do everything possible to avert a military operation against Iran and criticized the IAEA report.

"’A military operation against Iran could lead to very grave consequences and Russia will have to invest all its efforts in appeasing spirits,’" stated Konstantin Kosachov, head of the Duma’s Foreign Committee," and, according to EFE, "He criticized ‘affirmations by the United States, France and Israel as to the possible use of force and the fact that the launch of a military operation against Iran is constantly closer.’"

Edward Spannaus, editor of the U.S. EIR magazine, stated that an attack on Iran would end in World War III.

After traveling to Israel a few days ago, the United States Defense Secretary himself acknowledged that he could not obtain a commitment from the Israeli government to consult with the United States prior to an attack on Iran. Things have reached this extreme.

The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs crudely revealed the empire’s dark intentions:

"Israel and the U.S. will embark on ‘the largest and most significant joint exercise in the allies’ history,’ said Andrew Shapiro, U.S. assistant secretary for political-military affairs, on Saturday."

"…in the [...] Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Shapiro spoke about the 5,000 US and Israeli forces who will participate in the exercise to simulate Israel's ballistic missile defense system."

"’Israeli technology is proving critical to improving our Homeland Security and protecting our troops,’ he added…"

"Shapiro emphasized the Obama administration’s support for Israel, despite comments by a senior U.S. official on Friday, who expressed concern that Israel would not warn the U.S. before taking military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities."

"‘Our security relationship with Israel is broader, deeper and more intense than ever before.’"

"‘We support Israel because it is in our national interests to do so [...] It is the very strength of Israel’s military which deters potential aggressors and helps foster peace and stability.’"

Today, November 13, Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the UN, told the BBC network that the possibility of a military intervention in Iran was not only not off the table, but is a real option which is growing on account of Iran’s behavior.

She insisted that the U.S. administration is reaching the conclusion that it will become necessary to end the current Iranian regime in order to avoid it creating a nuclear arsenal. "I am convinced that regime change is going to be our only option here," Rice acknowledged.

Not one more word is necessary.