One would definitely wonder the possibility of a nuclear free world going by the arsenal of nuclear weapons owned by some states. It is quite astonishing that while some countries use nuclear energy to generate electricity and for useful research purposes, others tend to use it for military purposes. It is disheartening that some countries like the U.S.A, Russia, China, France and Britain parade a large arsenal of the dangerous weapon and at the same time being at the fore of the battle against nuclear non-proliferation. None of these countries have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. For fear of the unknown some countries like Iran have started moving closer to the nuclear club in the name of civilian nuclear program. One wonders why they have refused to halt the enrichment of uranium thereby paving the way for IAEA inspectors to mount surveillance cameras within the nuclear plants in Iran so that they can freely carry on with their desire to generate electricity with the energy as they claim. But the way and manner they have gone on with their nuclear ambitions leaves much to be expected than desired. Iranian leaders have repeatedly referred to the Jewish State as fake and that it would wipe them from the map. Maybe that is why the west continues to hunt Iran and would not let her go nuclear which would be dangerous for the Jewish state considering the small population of Israel. But Iran is not the only one; What about Pakistan, India, Israel and recently North Korea who have threatened to turn the South into a burning flame. Isn’t it just for South Korea to have the said weapon into to defend their selves in the event of an attack from the North? I am not here to say who should have the weapon and who should not have the weapon; but we are moving towards a very dangerous and delicate situation where the weapon would likely spread around the world making the potential of a nuclear war eminent. Are there people that the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty was written for? Are there sacred cows who shouldn’t sign the treaty? Are there countries that are so careful with the weapon that they would not attack other countries with it? You and I know that the U.S was the first and only country to use the weapon against another state with considerable devastation for the Japanese people. Statistics has it that the U.S spends at least 1 Billion dollars to prevent a nuclear war but the same U.S spends at least 30 Billion dollars to prepare for nuclear war every year. Is it not time for the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty to be adopted by all? Can we have a nuclear free world? Let us not deceive ourselves at this juncture because the super powers see the weapon as a symbol of their strength and would do anything to keep their weapons. Is it realistic and reasonable for a few countries to terrorize others with the weapon? A nuclear free world must begin with the complete disarmament of all countries that possess the weapon irrespective of status. The double standards adopted in the implication of nuclear proliferation must come to an end. My kind opinion here is that if we must have a nuclear free would, no country should be seen to possess such weapon irrespective of how rational they claim to be.
It’s an election year in the United States and majority of Americans are looking forward to elect their leader. But at the moment two people are favored to fly the presidential flags for their various parties- Obama for the democrats and Romney for the Republicans. The major issues that would determine the victory of any candidate are the economy and job creation, rising U.S debt and how the united states intend to respond to the Iranian nuclear issue vis-à-vis Israel’s security. Other issues are the Asian pacific security, unfair trade practices by China and China’s rise, security on the Korean peninsula and global terrorism. Since President Obama took over the helm of affairs he has consistently worked to better the U.S economy and every month had witnessed the creation of thousands of jobs bringing the jobless rate to a little above 8% in January 2012. He has however not done enough to bring down the wavering U.S debt which stands at over 14 trillion dollars. Some school of thought have criticized Obama for attempting to raise the debt ceiling above what it is today to avoid the U.S defaulting on its debt. But the major problem of the Obama administration is that America during his regime has lost its AAA credit rating- a major economic indicator. However haven created the needed environment for the creation of more jobs for the unemployed Americans and haven helped the U.S recover to an extent from a blithering credit crunch, most Americas are of the opinion that Obama should do more and should have done more to better reshape the economy facing steep competition from China. On the Iranian nuclear issue, a number of sanctions have been imposed on the Islamic republic and recently an oil embargo was placed on the country to force it to stop uranium enrichment. But this sanctions however how tight and painful they have been is yet to dissuade the Iranians from the attempt to build a nuclear weapon. Today Israel is weary of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and may strike Iran in months and these are some of the problems the Obama administration has had to deal with. Obama has however made some very good moves towards the Asia pacific region by increasing U.S presence in the region to serve as a check on China. The devaluing of the Chinese currency in order to gain an unfair trade advantage over others is another issue which the Obama administration has not been able to properly tackle. On the Korean peninsula a new leadership has emerged and the denuclearization of the peninsula is not yet in sight as the Obama administration has not yet determined how to deal with the new regime. On global terrorism the Obama administration surprised the whole world when he announced the death of Osama bin laden the founder and erstwhile leader of the Al-Qaeda network on May 1st 2011. He has also been doing his best to combat the Taliban and other terrorist groups around the world. Although he has his critics, he definitely has his admirers and stands a better chance to win the presidency. Romney on the other hand is seen more as an aggressive reformer and has vowed to contain china. He is said to be tough on terror and may propose new legislation to end the U.S budget deficit. As a republican, Romney is poised to prove to majority of Americans that he does have the antidote for their economic crisis and would restore the United States to its standing in the world. Romney is seen as green when it comes to administration; at least he has not been President before. But Obama has the experience and majority of Americans believe that if given a second chance he would do better. But be that as it may the election has just begun and if nothing at the party level. As we watch the political situation unfold itself; who rules America come 2013? Would Obama or Romney rule America? Time would tell.
For the second time in less than a year, two members of the UN Security Council –China and Russia vetoed a draft resolution intended to end the crisis in Syria. The Arab League weary of the continuing crisis in Syria had put forth a draft resolution supported by the western world demanding Syrian President, Al-Assad steps down and hand over power to his deputy in order to end several months of protest against the regime. The Arab world is not known for too much of liberalism but since the crisis in Libya erupted, the League has consistently showed a lot of resilience in solving the problems of the perpetual doggedness of most Arab leaders who would prefer to die in power. One would definitely wonder the rationale behind the China-Russia veto. Is it because they are unaware of the massive violence the Assad regime has brought upon his people? Or is it because they do not know the number of persons who have significantly lost their lives as a result of their genuine aspiration to decide their destiny and choose their leaders? Is it because of their human right record? Or is it because they too cannot claim to be clean on human right? Is it because they want to further their selfish political and economic interest? Or are they just sincere and wanted the best for Syria by voting according to their conscience? Whatever be their reason, your guess is as good as mine. Away from the blame game; what is the implication for this veto? Today, the violence in Syria has escalated with government troops consistently bombing and shelling civilian areas in the name of fighting terrorism. But are these civilians truly terrorist as the Syrian regime claims? I do not want to judge anyone nor simply accept the regime’s media garbage. The truth is that more and more people die every day in what is viewed as a preventable crisis if only the Syrian President, Al-Assad accepted the popular demand of majority of Syrians who are weary and completely dissatisfied with his leadership style. The Chinese government says they have a policy on non interference in other countries affairs and that logically explains their reason for their veto. But it is also very clear that the same Chinese regime have openly supported so many repressive regimes around the world just to further their business interest. They would not support the Iraq war for reasons of morality but they have come back to Iraq to pursue oil deals. They would not support the no fly zone over Libya but they are slowly moving to negotiate for oil and other business deals in Libya. They would never give their blood or support for any genuine cause and if the Syrian people succeed in their bid to drive Assad from power the Chinese would craft fully switch sides. It is no more news that they have turned a blind eye on the genuine aspirations of the citizens of some countries who are disenchanted with their leaders. Believe me if they criticize or be seen to be on the side of the people they would not be able to export their goods in large numbers to these countries and hence mortgage their chances of becoming the next world power. Will they ever be the next world power? Will the world be a better place with China at the helm? Believe me despotic and tyrannical leaders would benefit the more. Do the Chinese possess the moral standing to lead the world? I am not here to judge anyone but they are still very far from ruling this world because they lack the compassion to lead. Let’s leave the debate for another day. What about the Russians? Everyone knows they do not possess the necessary economic clout like the Chinese but they definitely want to maintain their own influence and hence they would not let go of their allies no matter how bad they are. Irrespective of how you look at this crisis, the Syrian people would continue to be killed by the Assad machinery of power and their voices would continue to be crushed. There is no end in sight for this violence and more and more people would be killed. Assad is ready to slaughter every Syrian man, woman or child in order to remain in power while the Chinese and the Russians would stand aside and clap for their hero Assad. At least the numbers of persons killed has not exceeded that massacred at Tiananmen Square and when it probably exceeds that number, the Chinese would speak up. For the Russians when the number of dead in Syria exceeds that killed by their leader Joseph Stalin during his reign, they would also speak up. But for now the fate of the Syrian people is in their hands and they must either chose to fight in order to survive or go back to the dark days of Assad tyranny.