Madame Jessica is talkin' again
Recently, Jessica Mathews, president of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), wrote an editorial for NY Times. Here's my comments to her....
Ms. Mathews, you tell us "A nuclear Iran is dangerous enough, but...." And then you roll out the sad spectacle of the entire Middle East (if not the world) going nuclear. But you don't tell us why you believe that is so?
Given your propensity to listen to Hume's chiming clock and then tell us why things are so, it would be nice if someone at CEIP would tell us why this so. Perhaps, the causal link is one those esoteric, self-evident truths only revealed to like-minded NGO's during afternoon tea at Turtle Bay?
Not long ago, CEIP was crowing on the editorial pages of The Washington Post about how "diplomacy just made the world safer." I'm sure you fondly recall Cirincione's silly commentary. Unaided by Navius' birds, or any pecking hens, I knew he was hip-deep in bilgewater, for his belief defied common sense, which Kant correctly said is our best sense.
The oddest thing about CEIP is their inability to master the obvious.
No where in your commentary do you even closely approach the most fundamental flaw in your reasoning: the economic interests of the Security Council P-5 are not the same. In point of fact, you state something that is untrue when you assert, "the United States needs to make clear that the Security Council can resort to other steps...." Simply stated, Ms. Mathews: that's BS! Perhaps, I slept through the UN meeting when China relinquished its veto power, but the SC cannot do anything without China's agreement.
Beyond dispute, the economic interests of the SC P-5 are sharply divided and nationalistic in nature. We saw that in Balkans, with Russia; we saw that in Iraq, with France and Russia trading blood for oil; we see that in Dafur, with France, again trading blood for oil; and we hear it now regarding Iran, with Russia and China. Plato said "all wars are about economics."
The second fundamental flaw in your reasoning: you steadfastly believe others value things as you do. For two years, CEIP and others have been pushing the GRAND BARGAIN scheme, the "Buy 'em off" strategy. You value money, so you believe others value it equally so. The EU-3 thought that would work with Iran, and CEIP thought that would work. It didn't work with North Korea, and it's not working with Iran. Perhaps, the Iranians don't see LIFE as you do? Has that possibility, and all its ramifications, crossed your mind?
You tell us we need "clear-minded diplomacy," yet CEIP sat there in Kosovo saying the same thing years ago, to what end, Jessica? Are the problems there now, even after a war unsanctioned by the United Nations, carried out by the unilateralism of the Clinton administration's belief that America is "the indispensable nation," vastly different when CEIP was crying out for more "clear-minded diplomacy"? Do we not hear that Platonic Guardianship refrain ("indispensable nation") in your commentary? Clearly, you are drinking from the same poisoned cup as Secretary Albright.
While CEIP talks, Iran's centrifuges are spinning. While CEIP talks, Iran is uncrating some brand, spanking new missiles they just bought from North Korea, who bought them from Russia. While CEIP talks, Iran's president is telling Der Spiegel that Israel needs to go back to Europe, and the Holocaust is speculative history.
For a talker, it seems very odd for you to assert "it is wrong to claim" the NPT "gives [Iran] the 'right' to enrich uranium." Why assert it, Jessica? Quote us Chapter and Verse where it says they're WRONG in believing they have that right? Clearly, Iran has abundant natural uranium deposits, just like oil and natural gas, so why do the Iranians not have the right to process uranium, just as they process crude oil?
Ms. Mathews, this commentary is the product of a shallow and lazy mind. (Mathews is an accomplished scientist with impressive credentials, but there must have been a lab accident, for the poor gal's brains are fried!)
Ms. Mathews, you tell us "A nuclear Iran is dangerous enough, but...." And then you roll out the sad spectacle of the entire Middle East (if not the world) going nuclear. But you don't tell us why you believe that is so?
Given your propensity to listen to Hume's chiming clock and then tell us why things are so, it would be nice if someone at CEIP would tell us why this so. Perhaps, the causal link is one those esoteric, self-evident truths only revealed to like-minded NGO's during afternoon tea at Turtle Bay?
Not long ago, CEIP was crowing on the editorial pages of The Washington Post about how "diplomacy just made the world safer." I'm sure you fondly recall Cirincione's silly commentary. Unaided by Navius' birds, or any pecking hens, I knew he was hip-deep in bilgewater, for his belief defied common sense, which Kant correctly said is our best sense.
The oddest thing about CEIP is their inability to master the obvious.
No where in your commentary do you even closely approach the most fundamental flaw in your reasoning: the economic interests of the Security Council P-5 are not the same. In point of fact, you state something that is untrue when you assert, "the United States needs to make clear that the Security Council can resort to other steps...." Simply stated, Ms. Mathews: that's BS! Perhaps, I slept through the UN meeting when China relinquished its veto power, but the SC cannot do anything without China's agreement.
Beyond dispute, the economic interests of the SC P-5 are sharply divided and nationalistic in nature. We saw that in Balkans, with Russia; we saw that in Iraq, with France and Russia trading blood for oil; we see that in Dafur, with France, again trading blood for oil; and we hear it now regarding Iran, with Russia and China. Plato said "all wars are about economics."
The second fundamental flaw in your reasoning: you steadfastly believe others value things as you do. For two years, CEIP and others have been pushing the GRAND BARGAIN scheme, the "Buy 'em off" strategy. You value money, so you believe others value it equally so. The EU-3 thought that would work with Iran, and CEIP thought that would work. It didn't work with North Korea, and it's not working with Iran. Perhaps, the Iranians don't see LIFE as you do? Has that possibility, and all its ramifications, crossed your mind?
You tell us we need "clear-minded diplomacy," yet CEIP sat there in Kosovo saying the same thing years ago, to what end, Jessica? Are the problems there now, even after a war unsanctioned by the United Nations, carried out by the unilateralism of the Clinton administration's belief that America is "the indispensable nation," vastly different when CEIP was crying out for more "clear-minded diplomacy"? Do we not hear that Platonic Guardianship refrain ("indispensable nation") in your commentary? Clearly, you are drinking from the same poisoned cup as Secretary Albright.
While CEIP talks, Iran's centrifuges are spinning. While CEIP talks, Iran is uncrating some brand, spanking new missiles they just bought from North Korea, who bought them from Russia. While CEIP talks, Iran's president is telling Der Spiegel that Israel needs to go back to Europe, and the Holocaust is speculative history.
For a talker, it seems very odd for you to assert "it is wrong to claim" the NPT "gives [Iran] the 'right' to enrich uranium." Why assert it, Jessica? Quote us Chapter and Verse where it says they're WRONG in believing they have that right? Clearly, Iran has abundant natural uranium deposits, just like oil and natural gas, so why do the Iranians not have the right to process uranium, just as they process crude oil?
Ms. Mathews, this commentary is the product of a shallow and lazy mind. (Mathews is an accomplished scientist with impressive credentials, but there must have been a lab accident, for the poor gal's brains are fried!)
posted by Tony Harrison at 8:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home