Member Profile

Total number of comments: 5 (since 2013-11-28 16:44:12)

Diane Mason

Showing comments 5 - 1

  • Top Ten Differences Between Rick Santorum and JFK
  • Good Nuclear Iran, Bad Nuclear Iran
    • But wait, there's more, as Billy Mays would have said.

      After more than twenty years of cooperation in the nuclear field between the Republic of South Africa (RSA) and the major Western powers, the fact that the apartheid regime could become the first African country to have a nuclear weapon should not be a surprise. For Zdenek Cervenka and Barbara Rogers, authors of the most comprehensive study on the history of South Africa's nuclear program, the role of the Western powers in this process - which threatens the entire African continent - is undeniable. Indeed, they argue that "the United States, Israel, West Germany, France and Britain have all helped South Africa by providing various equipment, fissile material, cutting edge technology and financial support that enabled it to build an atomic bomb."...

      Since 1970, we have seen the formation of a Paris-Tehran-Pretoria-Tel Aviv axis in the nuclear field. In this four-way relationship, France and Israel provide the technology, Iran the oil, and the Republic of South Africa the uranium. The Shah might even have been tempted to help fund an expensive uranium enrichment plant on South African territory, in exchange for which his nuclear plants would receive uranium oxide (and later, enriched uranium) without having to submit to the international safeguards currently in force. Similarly, in Israel's case, its need for uranium complements South Africa's need for nuclear technology. The U.S. magazine Newsweek reported last year that U.S. intelligence services suspected that the bomb that South Africans were about to explode might have been of Israeli manufacture...

      -- Comment l’Afrique du Sud a pu mettre au point « sa » bombe nucléaire (How South Africa was able to develop "its" nuclear bomb; paras 2 & 10, translation mine). Howard Schissel, Le Monde diplomatique, Sept 1978.

  • Answer to Glenn Greenwald
    • I don't think that attacking unfriendly tyrants (Libya) for using tanks to suppress dissent while turning a blind eye to friendly tyrants who use tanks to suppress dissent (Saudis in Bahrain) sends any message to Mid East tyrants except that so long as they're deferential to the US we don't care about all that democracy blather.

  • Sunni-Shiite Tension Boils in Iraq, Gulf over Bahrain
    • Ian, the Saudis do not help Palestine because the Saudis are an autocracy heavily dependent on U.S. goodwill.

      The Arab autocracies pay lip service to the Palestinian cause, because it is an issue that resonates with their own populations. None of them will go beyond lip service however, as their primary concern is not fulfilling the wishes of their own populations, but retaining the U.S. support that keeps them in power.

      It does not matter whether the autocracy in question is pro-Fatah (like Egypt) or pro-Hamas (like Qatar). They will never get beyond mouthing slogans in support of Palestine because to actually take independent action would make them potential targets for regime change. Arab autocrats love talking about Palestine, but they love staying in power more.

  • Today in Apartheid
    • Venezuela isn't likely to join the wave of countries that are in the process of extending diplomatic recognition to Palestine, seeing as it already does.

Showing comments 5 - 1

Shares 0