Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> note on nuclear treaty
brian carroll on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 20:40:22 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> note on nuclear treaty

  [originally sent to the electronetwork-list, 2-6-06. post
relates to background for the 'war of terror' as seen as
the mid-east war as world-scale. thus the cartoon issue
(which, imo, should be considered in terms of racism...),
nuclearism, war of terror, surveillance, and other issues
can be placed in a single context. posts preceded these
with diagrams, which modeled this situation yet nettime
does not allow infographic attachment so they were not
sent, though they will be compiled when the larger essay
is finished: human techn=E9 and the cybernetic estate. bc]

  as evidenced over the weekend, the decision made
  to ratchet-up nuclear dysfunction into nuclear conflict
  is still just beginning to impact, and makes it impossible
  to try to reason another option during diplomatic fallout.
  it is incredible how these automated mechanisms could
  make things even worse, on ideological grounds, which
  is in the realm of nuclear - nuclear - conflict, while during
  a supposed endless 'war of terrorism', which this type of
  decision-making helps to support and make it inevitable.
  there was a very simple matter-of-fact about this situation
  i was going to write about, yet now cannot, as it is too hard
  to reason in such an environment. though i will mention it,
  in brief, without an essay, just because...

  it was that it is more than evident nuclear diplomacy now
  exists in a binary situation, as an Iranian representative
  had mentioned that it was either to 'resist' or 'surrender'.
  that is a binary decision. so too, Israel's now being either
  to 'attack' or 'surrender' could also be seen in such terms.
  which, to me, offers now good choices for anyone involved.
  as a way to get to engagement, to talks, to security pacts,
  a treaty, which would be necessary to establish a larger
  regional peace treaty (such as, first between .IL and .IR,
  on nuclear security and a showing of cards, transparency
  on all sides =3D> thus absolving the hypocrisy which is now
  distorting fair-judgement and good-will because of tricks
  and imbalances in existing (binary) frameworks). then, to
  get .SY and .IR and .LB and other primary opponents in
  ongoing hostile conflicts to build on this for a peace treaty
  for ending the mid-east conflict, with .UN resolution 242 as
  a solution for stopping all hostilities between countries now
  in (foreseeable) armed conflict, which would allow a way of
  creating a basis for a long-term truce, while also inverting
  the ideological polarization, and addressing the Palestinian
  relations with Israel, which could enable a non-hostile state
  to rise next to Israel with what appears to be an organization
  capable of building up a state, in the quick, with the support
  of funds. likewise, such efforts were going to be mentioned
  in relation to drawing-down .US troops in a general truce,
  in which .US troops and equipment may be useful so to
  jumpstart some of the engineering work or whatever may
  be helpful to stand between forces now in chaos, if it were
  to be towards stabilization of the middle-east, accepted by
  all sides, say under a .UN flag. in any case none of this is
  now possible to mention because of what are extremist-
  approaches, imo, to very fragile situations which then make
  it impossible to pursue such reasoning because 'sanity' is
  not a basis for decision-making, and calm, cool, collected
  thinking is replaced by the fervor of people who want war.
  it is not possible to 'write out of' such overwhelming idiocy,
  and the lack of judgement is epic -- this is nuclear strategy
  which is written on a cocktail napkin, and is true madness.

  it should now be very clear that there has to be some 'slack'
  involved in such a polarized situation, to make more options
  available (instead of taking them away, which is what has
  now happened-- IAEA inspectors, cameras, now enrichment
  begins, etc. all for an ideological necessity to pursue a course
  which has been a total failure, and which now results in even
  greater losses, because it is not based on .US interests, nor
  on protecting .US citizens, and instead is putting others views
  at the forefront of .US global strategy, narrowing it down to a
  very small consideration of the issues/impacts, and has put
  the nuclear scenario backwards from how it should be, and
  who should be calling the shots with regard to this conflict.

  * it would be to demand that .IL stay within the .UN Security
  Council, and under no circumstances be allowed to act out-
  side of sanctioned international law - for its own safety and
  for the wold's safety with regard to the seriousness of the use
  of nuclear weapons. Russia has made a similar point, explicit.

  * the .US/.EU and .RU and .CN should step in and step up in
  talks about resolving the issues in a treaty framework, where
  .IR and .IL are not left to decide how to resolve this situation
  themselves, when it impacts everyone, and is now limited to
  military solutions, it would seem, given ideological rhetoric.

  this is to say that instead of .IR and .IL threatening eachother
  with destruction, or the .US on behalf of .IL, that at the world-
  scale, any such actions would also involve global powers such
  as .RU and .CN which may not accept nuclear confrontation,
  in a passive way, which makes the MADness all that more real.

  it is irresponsible to encourage actions outside the .UN and any
  such declarations should be extinguished immediately to stop
  fanning the flames of ideological hysteria and extreme hatred.

  * given that this nuclear crisis may be happening in the .UN
  context, and facilitated by its bureaucratic imbalance- bias-
  in allowing Israel's nuclear programs to exist outside the NPT,
  it should be seen that this is causing the current situation of
  nuclear cat and mouse and is how the circuitry is balanced, by
  the hypocrisy of words and doublespeak being equally met by
  that of another point of view, used to its own advantages, too.
  the imbalance in nuclear diplomacy is only that it is now being
  balanced by the nuclear hypocrisy of a broken treaty structure,
  and to hold only one side accountable is tantamount to racism,
  when taking in a nuclear context of a global 'war of terrorism'.
  why are some people less equal, why are some people not to
  be allowed to fight on their own side of war that is now raging?
  it is beyond belief, how absurd this situation is, that there is a
  total lack of reason by which to 'negotiate' -- freely and fairly.
  it is constrained by the limits of ideology - and thus, ideas that
  could make headway are stopped by ideologues who allow only
  certain choices/options, and thus make 'progress' impossible.

  for this reason, since the hypocrisy is largely and totally on the
  .UN/.EU/.US side of the coin, there is only one way of gaining
  some slack, by adding some 'realism' into the equation, which
  would be to ask (with a wink) that Israel declare all of its nuclear
  programs as a step towards a nuclear transparency agreement,
  a security pact between .IR and .IL (and surrounding states) for
  the total accounting of all nuclear military research and planning
  programs, by which to declare them and outlaw them from use
  in armed conflict in the mid-east, in an agreement backed by
  global powers (.EU/.US maintaining its existing relations, and
  .CN/.RU ensuring the agreement on behalf of .IR, that nuclear
  weapons have been accounted for). with such an agreement,
  it would be possible that a second step would be for a path to
  nuclear disarmament, of fielded programs, in line with a larger
  mid-east peace treaty whereby the .US/.EU nuclear security
  umbrella would protect its relationships with .IL, yet without
  the pressure and nightmare of a mid-east nuclear arms race.

  to do this, that is, having Israel and Iran backchannel such a
  a shadow security arrangement, whose goal would be to then
  build this into the first step of a global nuclear peace treaty, (a
  new NPT, with now non-NPT and other countries, to include
  missile-defense, space-nukes, fuel banks, secure infrastructures)
  and likewise, also for a mid-east peace treaty, building on the
  inverting of the current crisis between .IL and .IR, to enlarge it
  within a next treaty, which would include .SY and .LB, to stop
  all hostilities in the mid-east and acknowledge the existence
  of Israel as a state, the trade off being land of the .UN's 242
  resolution of 1967 borders, in return for security and a state.
  this would, in turn, change the dynamic of the rebuilding in
  .IQ, the situation for .US troops, and the regional role of the
  .UN potentially. it would also pacify hostilities between the
  new Palestinian government, and Hamas relations with .IL,
  which, if taken outside of the context of violence, appears
  to have everything necessary to build a state, on the quick,
  and a lot of resources, including .US assistance, would be
  possible, both in the region and through investment in the
  building up of infrastructure through co-development of the
  region, if such developments were to be mutually-beneficial.

  people willing to assist in efforts to establish the foundation
  for such progress would be hard-pressed to find any way to
  do so in the current climes, as ideological extremism makes
  such 'reasoning' seem to be 'myopic', versus that of instant
  nuclear conflict which opens up endless nuclear war. insane.

  it is time for the .US, the .UN and the world to ask .Il to do a
  favor towards efforts for de-escalating the current nuclear
  crisis, so to work towards a draw-- which is based on nuclear
  security and transparency (not allowing the bomb, or bombing)
  and to ratchet-down the war-talk to let calmer heads prevail--
  or at least give them the opportunity to seek better options--
  and then it might be seen how such a 'strategy' is actually a
  better option for .IL and the region, as it will not keep it locked
  into the ideological context-- yet since everything _is biased,
  it is necessary to admit this so as to move beyond it, esp. in
  regard to the seriousness of nuclear conflict, and the crimes
  against humanity that would be committed in such a context,
  should international laws and world organizations be ignored
  for a smaller (and likely distorted) view of what is going on in
  the region, which is based on fuzziness, not exacting clarity,
  no matter what the black-and-white ideologues truly believe.

  thus, it is nuclear diplomacy based on a shared humanity in
  which no one should be threatening anyone with nuclear-
  weapons, including .IL, which is only fair, at the world-scale,
  and not of rabid nation-states, unhinged, and irresponsible.
  and dangerous in having nuclear weapons and behaving in
  a way that is detrimental to the whole world. that bodes ill for
  everyone: nuclear mistakes are as bad as nuclear intentions.
  this is to say, morally, ethically, that a balanced view of events
  and a due-process of reasoning should always be the context
  of nuclear actions, as it is too serious to lose-ones-head, as
  the consequences are undeniably catastrophic, at world-scale.
  thus, the .UN is indispensable in such a regard, if it were to
  be deferred to - in new treaty structures, nuclear, mid-east
  peace, and development- by which to take the circuitry as it
  now exists, short-circuiting, and redesign the circuitry in the
  region, and between the world and its organization, so that
  the biases and balancing of the old dynamic is not able to
  stop a new equilibrium in the world and regional circuit that
  is based on peaceful connections which are in a realm not
  of binary win-lose, and instead of paradoxical middle realm
  of grey-areas, and by moving back one step in the binary--

  	by working toward a shared transparency arrangement
	of all nuclear weapons and other military programs, be-
  	tween .IL and .IR

  -- it would be to move two steps forward into a new realm of
  relations, between conflicts of those fighting .IL occupation of
  the Palestinian territories, in that it would be the basis for the
  necessary pacification for a new state to rise, and for Hamas
  to declare an end to hostilities, as .IL would do likewise, in a
  peace treaty, based upon this nuclear security arrangement
  as a foundation which would be expanded with .SY, others.

  but without calm heads it is impossible. and for as much as
  the world has given to help .IL re-establish itself, it is time for
  .IL to make this effort for the world, for de-escalation of this
  nuclear conflict, and to move towards a shadow meeting of
  UN, .CN, .RU, .EU, .US, .IR, .IL, to hammer out this nuclear
  security agreement, making a foundation for larger mid-east
  peace, and the long-term truce. by which such an effort may
  take 1-2 years, during which time a temporarily cessation of
  conflicts would be necessitated, which would also aid in the
  withdrawal of .US troops from .IQ, and then further a 5 year
  plan for going from this nuclear treaty, to the .UN 242 treaty
  by which to establish a Palestinian state, based on nuclear
  framework expanded to the entire mid-east, including the
  need to support Iraq in its stabilization by all in the region,
  by which time a 10 year plan would be made possible for
  regional development, and getting very large infrastructural
  upgrades and projects started in multi-state areas, such as
  high-speed rail for visiting Mecca, and all the trade and the
  commerce and cross-pollination which could occur with a
  travel/trade route like that, in terms of cultural development
  and an Islamic renaissance based upon the arts, etc. yet
  such actions cannot happen in a war zone, i.e. to build...
  and thus it makes necessary a 'safe zone' in which to be
  able to pursue gradients/middle-options/shared-outcomes
  that ideological extremism cannot allow, by its very nature.

  so too, while it is true that there are many interests which
  would not want this to happen, in the existing context, in
  the next context of peace based on infrastructural order,
  it is these same firms which could use some of the best
  engineering talent in the world to work on better solutions
  to infrastructure, energy, and other cybernetic functioning
  of machines of state, instead of designing more weaponry
  of death, how about better rail travel, more efficient energy
  devices, etc. and to put trillions of world-capital into such
  efforts, and start moving that around the mid-east and the
  global structures, instead of the death machine that now
  exists. it is a choice. yet when a defense secretary is in
  essence and in fact a secretary of permanent war, that
  option is made impossible. because 'defense' is also of
  an environmental and social and economic dimension,
  and like in the ancient architect Vitruvius, such skills of
  defense are also important in the realm of architecture,
  that such skills can also be applied in a realm of building...

  yet the ideology stands in the way. black and white thinking
  which is at the scale of nation-states and not world-scale,
  in which we are all humans, yelling at eachother, threatening
  now with nuclear and other annihilation, and this makes it
  impossible to pursue the cause of peace, by which to build,
  if everyone has lost their head and has nuclear weapons.
  who benefits, as human beings- if this gets out of control?
  is it already spiralling out of control? it seems very close,
  so much so that it is very difficult to write these thoughts,
  as it is not based on belief or even hope that anything can
  happen, and it is being forced to be shared even though it
  is unlikely anyone is listening anymore to voices of reason,
  and that is a dangerous situation, if decision-making in the
  realm of nuclear-weapons is on ideological autopilot. feel
  any safer yet? this is proof that nuclear MADness is just that.

  the insanity must give way to a reasoned, reasonable strategy
  by which to proceed to goals, by way of steps which all can
  work towards, mutually beneficial, yet it requires giving up
  something, to get something greater through its combination.
  that is, the .US has given everything to a certain ideology, yet
  this seems to be too much and is stopping other options from
  progressing. so it should give less to the Neoconservatives in
  that theirs is not a strategy, it is an ideology, and is incapable
  of working outside of its own limitations and set of beliefs by
  which to act, and judge such actions- instead, the .US should
  ask more of .IL to do its part to lessening tensions by way of
  the built-in biases that prevent nuclear peace from developing
  by way of transparency and treaties-- which are, obviously,
  not making .IL more secure by their ideological exploitation--
  not declaring weapons is making .IL less safe because it is
  now providing a loophole for other states to allow this same
  ambiguity to exist as a threat, to balance out .IL same threat
  of nuclear force. thus, to remedy this, it would be to let go of
  the insistence on this (failed) strategic doctrine as it cannot
  work in a paradoxical environment-- and blocks progress--
  by opening it up, given some slack in a security agreement,
  by which to enable nuclear transparency and hopefully the
  eventual disarmament of nuclear programs (if only for the
  economic insanity of nuclear weapons, versus, say, social
  programs) it would have long-lasting effects which benefit
  policies should the same nuclear security exist in another
  way (via proxy world powers, which may be all that is ever
  needed, and hopefully unneeded, as times goes on by)...

  this would give the Iranian's another option that is not to
  resist or to surrender. it would be - to deal, and to finish
  the conflict by way of a new nuclear resolution. and so too
  with Israel, it would be to get the nuclear security needed,
  to have total military transparency with Iran, at the cost not
  of bombing another country (which would not work anyway)
  nor through the broken NPT treaty and the diplomatic circus,
  and instead it would be to make a best option by which to
  proceed, the cost of which is the old views, and national-
  scale of consideration versus a new context at world-scale,
  which would strengthen the international security structures
  if it were to be the basis for global nuclear security issues.
  it would be an act of good-will, for humanity, and is an option
  that only Israel can choose to do, and the failure to do so is
  the reason that the hypocrisy is growing into nuclear chaos,
  based on biased ideologies in a survival of the fittest nuclear
  competition of nation-realities, which is now absolute insanity.

  it is to stop the damage of ideologies and start to control an-
  other possible outcome by making it possible to shape such
  an agreement out of the existing, escalating nuclear anarchy.
  it is to admit unfairness, and through its resolution to seek an
  end to the conflict, by way of new arrangements which would
  actively engage and address ongoing and legitimate issues--
  in a way that something tangible can be done about them to
  ensure all sides are working on the same side of the nuclear
  coin, and that this becomes a basis for a new mid-east peace.

  it is thus in the .US', .EU's and .IL's best interests to open up
  the possibility for such a pursuit, and those willing to work in
  such a framework could do so, in such a way that it would be
  to build up new relationships based on inverting this crisis into
  an opportunity by which to seek the changes everyone dreams
  of, yet always seem beyond the possible-- unless people decide
  that now is the time to start making better decisions, and to take
  the necessary efforts to do the impossible, so to see change in
  this lifetime, and not be the reason that change is impossible.

  there are people dedicated to offering their assistance, and
  yet 'reason' cannot happen in a realm of insanity, just as the
  ideas of building cannot happen in atmospheres only of war.
  so it is a choice. and it is a question. war, or mid-east peace?

  brian thomas carroll: research-design-development
  architecture, education, electromagnetism

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net