Latest news with #NPT
Irish Examiner
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
A rules-based order - but who makes the rules?
Earlier this month the Taoiseach Micheál Martin made a four-day trip to Japan to strengthen bi-lateral ties between the two countries. During a speech at the opening of the new Ireland House in Tokyo the Taoiseach said: 'The Ireland-Japan relationship is built on a solid foundation of shared and longstanding commitment to the rules-based international order. We share a vision for a future of peace and prosperity for all, built through international co-operation, democratic values and peaceful resolution of disputes.' He went on to note that 'these shared values were already evident in 1974, the year that Ireland established its first embassy here in Tokyo. In that year, Ireland's former minister for foreign affairs, Seán MacBride, and the former Prime Minister of Japan, Eisaku Satō, shared that year's Nobel Peace Prize for their work on disarmament.' To underline the importance of Ireland-Japan collaboration on disarmament the Taoiseach also visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park during his trip. There he met with hibakusha, survivors of the US's atomic bomb attacks. The Taoiseach spoke to journalists about the harrowing testimony he heard from Teruko Yakata, who was eight years old when the bomb was dropped on her hometown, and about the legacy of trauma still suffered by Yakata and other survivors. As he was leaving Hiroshima Mr Martin was asked if he believed the world was a more dangerous now than in 1945. 'I believe it is,' he answered, 'it is in a very dangerous place.' The Taoiseach was right to highlight Ireland's proud tradition of international leadership on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. This is a particularly important history to underline whilst visiting Japan, which remains the only country to have suffered attack with nuclear weapons. The United Nations' landmark Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), signed in 1968, had its origins in the 1950s when then Fianna Fáil foreign minister Frank Aiken introduced the first of what became known as the 'Irish Resolutions' which eventually led to the NPT. Aiken was the first to sign the NPT in 1968 in recognition of Ireland's crucial role in advancing the cause of disarmament. The Taoiseach Micheál Martin was right to highlight Ireland's proud tradition of international leadership on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. File photo: GIS Press Office Yet, at the very same time as the Taoiseach was in Japan promoting Ireland's commitment to international diplomacy and disarmament, he is leading a government that is trying to fundamentally re-orient Ireland's foreign policy away from disarmament and international peace building towards militarization and war-fighting alliances. In doing so Mr Martin and his government are betraying the foreign policy achievements of Aiken and his own party, Fianna Fáil, but more importantly they are betraying the will and trust of the Irish people who remain deeply attached to active neutrality. Opinion polls consistently show a large majority of the Irish public support maintaining neutrality. A poll conducted in January by Uplift found that 75% were in favour of maintaining neutrality. In April another poll, conducted by The Irish Times and Ipsos, found that 63% of people wanted to keep Ireland's neutrality as it is. The Government's revolution in foreign affairs In his speech to the Global Ireland Summit on May 6 this year the Taoiseach said that even in newly volatile geopolitical conditions 'Ireland will maintain its role as a strong advocate for the rules-based international order, with the UN at its centre.' Yet, his government is actively undermining the UN in its quest to remove the Triple Lock, legislation that requires a UN mandate for more than 12 members of the Irish Defence Forces to be deployed overseas. The government justify this change on the basis of false claims that Russia and China enjoy a veto over Irish peace-keeping missions in the UN Security Council. It is not only the UN Security Council that can authorize peace-keeping missions. File picture: REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton This is not true because it is not only the UN Security Council that can authorize peace-keeping missions. The UN General Assembly also has the power to do so. Further, this is a hypothetical. China alone has exercised such a veto, and then only once regarding the extension of an existing UN peace-keeping mission. That was in 1999, before the Triple Lock existed. Why is the government making these false claims? Removing the need for a UN mandate on deploying Irish Defence Forces personnel overseas would allow this government - and any future Irish government - to commit Irish troops to EU and NATO military operations. Remarkably the government insist that removing the Triple Lock will not impact Ireland's neutrality, but participating in western military alliances would clearly mark the end of neutrality. Participating in EU and NATO military operations overseas without UN backing is certainly not compatible with what the Irish public understand neutrality to mean. Further, states around the world, including those that the government claim are already hostile, will understand that Ireland is no longer to be regarded as a neutral state. This will only serve to increase the security risks Ireland faces, not defend against them. Whilst the government continue to pay lip service to neutrality it is clear they aim to abandon it in order to explicitly 'take sides' with the US, EU, and NATO in international conflicts, even when this is manifestly against the wishes of the Irish people. Ireland is in effect undergoing a quiet revolution in foreign affairs imposed from above, even as the government lacks a mandate to fundamentally reorient the state's place in the world. All those interested in Ireland's future security and in world peace, should be extremely concerned by the government's backdoor erosion of neutrality. 'Rules-based international order' vs The UN Despite the Taoiseach's insistence that Ireland remains committed to a 'rules-based international order, with the UN at its centre,' his government is actively trying to depart from a world in which the UN is the body tasked with defining, governing, and sometimes policing the 'rules-based international order'. In attempting to remove the requirement for a UN mandate to deploy Irish troops overseas, Mr Martin and his government have been arguing that the UN is not the international guarantor of international order but rather an obstacle to it, on the basis that Russia and China might hypothetically veto peacekeeping missions. Likewise, the government are arguing that the role of these states within the UN Security Council is an obstacle to the exercise of Irish sovereignty. This might make sense if Irish sovereignty were defined by the capacity to join EU and NATO military operations overseas without a UN mandate. This might make sense if the rules of the 'rules-based international order' are set not by the UN but by the US, EU, and their allies. However, it is incompatible with a commitment to a 'rules-based international order' governed by the UN. It is interesting to note that western governments, including our own, are increasingly using the terminology of 'rules-based international order' rather than reference the UN or 'international law'. Whilst a majority of the public no doubt understands the 'rules-based international order' to refer to the UN and the existing institutions of international law the sudden popularity of this term amongst western states indicates that it may mean something quite different. It seems clear from the Irish government's maneuverings around the Triple Lock that the 'rules-based international order' they have in mind is at very least not principally defined by the UN. This is extremely concerning given that we can see the type of 'rules' western states adopt beyond the frame of the UN. The active material and diplomatic support given to Israel's genocide in Gaza by the US, the UK, and the EU (notably Germany) indicates that the 'rules-based international order' these states have in mind has no regard for international law whatsoever, at least not when it applies to them or their allies. It is right and reasonable then that the public ask who defines the 'rules' of the ''rules-based international order' and whose interests these 'rules' might serve. America first 'America should write the rules. America should call the shots. Other countries should play by the rules that America and our partners set, and not the other way around.' It may surprise some that these are not the words of President Trump but of former President Barack Obama, writing in the Washington Post in 2016. Obama was writing about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement designed to constrain China's increasing influence over Pacific trade, but regardless of the context, the quote is indicative of a fundamental set of assumptions about the role of the US in the world - assumptions common to US liberals and conservatives alike, Democrats as well as Republicans, and shared by most European states, certainly those that are also members of NATO. The Taoiseach and his government like to argue that the Russian invasion of Ukraine marked the beginning of a new world and that Ireland's foreign policy must adapt to meet the changing times. According to the government this means abandoning neutrality (in everything but name) and massive increases in military spending to prepare Ireland for future conflict with Russia, or even China. Former US President Barak Obama wrote in the Washington Post in 2016: 'America should write the rules. America should call the shots'. File photo: Chris Jackson/PA The EU White Paper on European Defence published in March makes the direction of EU foreign policy travel and expectations of military spending for member states very clear. Yet this breakneck European militarization is not only a reaction to Russia's invasion of Ukraine but responds to a longer term strategic shift of US resources and attention away from European security towards Chinese containment. This move was first announced in 2009 with Obama's 'Pivot to Asia' but was pursued more aggressively since under both Trump and Biden administrations. Hence, it is crucial that we understand European militarization not simply as a collective response to Russian aggression in Ukraine, but a development dictated by the shifting geostrategic priorities of the US. I am hardly alone in wondering if Obama's upcoming visit to Dublin in September is partly timed to smooth public concerns about militarization ahead of a Dáil vote on the Triple Lock, by presenting an image of US leadership more acceptable to the Irish public than the current occupant of the White House. Government fog It is reasonable that there be a frank and honest discussion of the changes the government are trying to implement to Ireland's foreign policy, that the real drivers and consequences of these transformations are acknowledged, and that the policy changes proposed are open to serious democratic scrutiny and challenge. Currently, this is not the case. The nature and stakes of the changes the government are trying to implement are shrouded in a technocratic fog and most media coverage platforms anti-neutrality partisans, advocates of militarization, and arms lobbyists as the relevant 'experts'. Government parties protest that they are being honest with the public, but in reality they are trying to ensure their plans are subject to as little democratic oversight as possible. The government know that a great majority of Irish people do not support the changes they are attempting to ram through and that insulating them from transparency is the best path to success. The government's gamble is that if the public don't know about - or understand – that removing the Triple Lock means the end of Ireland's neutrality then they won't mount any meaningful opposition. By the time Irish troops are being sent to take part in multiple EU 'Battlegroups' overseas and the public spending needed to address pressing crises in housing, health, care, and climate is being used to buy fighter jets it will be too late. Such a scenario is not a conspiracy but a plan, and it lies just on the other side of a successful vote on removing the Triple Lock. The coalition have promised a vote when the Dáil returns from summer recess. Merrion Square Just opposite the Dáil in Merrion Square Park stand two memorials marking the horrors of war. Facing government buildings is the National Memorial to members of the Defence Forces who died in the Service of the State, a pyramid-shaped structure by the sculptor Brian King, unveiled in 2008 by then President Mary McAleese. Close by a small plaque marks the spot where a cherry tree was planted in 1980 by the Irish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament 'in memory of A-bomb victims'. Just metres away from each other, these memorials offer a stark reminder of the distance the Irish government has already gone in weakening the foreign policy positions that have been Ireland's strength on the world stage. The principled stand Ireland has taken against militarization, imperialism, and great power conflict have ensured this country enjoys a positive international reputation and outsize diplomatic influence, particularly in the Global South. The Irish public are rightly proud of and deeply attached to this legacy. Pursuing a foreign policy based on international diplomacy, the peaceful resolution of conflict, and independence from military alliances has not always been an easy path and it has often displeased friendly states on whom Ireland is economically dependent. Then-Taoiseach, Brian Cowen and Then-President, Mary McAleese at the ceremony in 2008 at Merrion Square to mark the Dedication of the National Memorial to Members of the Defence Forces who have died in the service of the State. File photo: Sasko Lazarov/Photocall Ireland However, it has not only been the right thing to do - upholding the state's values, as expressed in the Constitution - but it has also served the country's interests well. A lack of enemies has been, and remains, Ireland's best defence. The Irish public remember the lessons of our own history, and the terrible costs of war, even as the government seem determined to forget them. Opinion polls show that a very large majority of the Irish public are deeply attached to a vision of Ireland that is opposed to imperialism and war. However, active neutrality is not simply a popular policy position but something that people strongly identify with, that touches on the core of what they understand 'Irishness' to be. The government's attempts to remove the Triple Lock threatens to undermine this crucial connection between people and State. Betraying the public on this issue risks sowing alienation, suspicion, and resentment - sentiments already providing fertile soil for the growth of anti-democratic and far right forces across the country. The government is right that the world is changing. It is up to all of those invested in democracy, peace, and international co-operation – best expressed in the existing institutions of the UN – to ensure they make the right response. Read More Government proposal on triple Lock gives an Irish solution to an Irish problem
Gulf Insider
2 days ago
- Politics
- Gulf Insider
Trump Threatens To Destroy Iran Nuclear Asset
President Trump has doubled (or tripled) down on his insistence that Iran's nuclear capabilities were completely obliterated by last month's US bomber raid on three key Iranian nuclear facilities. He wrote Saturday on Truth Social, 'All three nuclear facilities in Iran are completely ruined and/or destroyed. It would take years to restore them to operational status, and if Iran wanted to do so, it would be much more advantageous for them to start everything from scratch in three different locations before these facilities are destroyed — if they decide to do so.' His words were issued the same day that official spokesman of the Iranian Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Ebrahim Rezaei, threatened to withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and begin enriching uranium beyond the 60% level, in the event that Washington sanctions continue to ramp up anti-Tehran sanctions. 'In light of recent developments, we will take an appropriate decision. Government has to enforce parliament bills but such a proposal is just being prepared and we will coordinate in the later stages with parliament,' he first announced last month. Trump's weekend statement appeared to primarily be responding to a new US intelligence assessment revealed in media reports Thursday which said that Iran's nuclear enrichment site in Fordow was mostly destroyed during the June 21 strikes. It indicated that the two other crucial sites, Natanz and Isfahan, were not badly damaged. The White House and Department of Defense (DoD) have still rallied around the president's position, and have tended to downplay the assessment as but one, partial and unvetted point of view from an intelligence source. 'The credibility of the Fake News Media is similar to that of the current state of the Iranian nuclear facilities: destroyed, in the dirt, and will take years to recover,' the DoD's chief spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement. 'President Trump was clear and the American people understand: Iran's nuclear facilities in Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz were completely and totally obliterated.' Following the 12-day Israel-Iran war, if Tehran was not previously pursuing nuclear weapons, there are likely very much thinking about it now. Top European powers plan new Iran nuclear talks as threat of sanctions looms➡️ — FRANCE 24 (@FRANCE24) July 20, 2025 What the war may have done is to actually speed up Iran's nuclear ambitions, also as the Iranians realize it's impossible to negotiate with the West, given that 'good faith' talks with the US were underway at the very moment Israel launched a surprise attack. Also read: Pepsi Exec Floats Switch To Sugar After Trump Coca-Cola Announcement
India.com
3 days ago
- Politics
- India.com
Is Pakistan's friend Turkey also capable of making nuclear bomb? The answer will surprise you
Is Pakistan's friend Turkey also capable of making nuclear bomb? The answer will surprise you Ankara: The world has seen the friendship between Pakistan and Turkey, and how the Middle East was helping Islamabad with weaponry during Operation Sindoor. Military and economic relations between both countries are very strong. The recent conflict between Iran, Israel, and the United States has made headlines all over. Both Israel and the US destroyed Iran's nuclear bases, not letting it develop a nuclear bomb. Now, people are asking the question: does Turkey have the capability to make a nuclear bomb? Notably, Pakistan has been a nuclear power since 1998. What Is The Current Situation Of Turkey? Currently, the Middle Eastern country doesn't possess any nuclear bombs. It is also a NATO member, and the United States keeps its nuclear weapons (B-61 bombs) there at the Incirlik Air Base. Ankara cannot use these nukes without the permission of America, which it will never get. It is noteworthy that Ankara has signed an agreement called Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in the year 1968. Under NPT, the country cannot develop nuclear weapons. But if it does so, international sanctions will be imposed on it. Doest Turkey Have Nuclear Technology And Infrastructure? Because of the NPT, the Middle Eastern country doesn't have uranium mining, nuclear enrichment facilities, or nuclear fuel reprocessing units. These facilities are necessary to make nuclear bombs. However, the country is building the Akkuyu nuclear power plant, which will start operating this year. The power plant is being built with the help of Russia. The nuclear plant is being built to generate electricity. However, some fear it could lead to misuse of nuclear technology. Turkish scientists may have the knowledge to make a bomb, but they lack the infrastructure and raw materials to do so. Turkey-Pakistan Friendship Both the country maintain a strong military and strategic alliance. While Pakistan has nuclear technology, developed in part through the work of AQ Khan, whose network supplied nuclear materials to Turkey in the 2000s. In bilateral relations between the countries, speculation has been fueled that Pak might share nuclear technology with Ankara. However, there is no concrete evidence to prove this theory. What Did President Erdogan Say? In 2019, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated that it is wrong that some countries possess nuclear weapons but Turkey doesn't. He has expressed a desire for nuclear weapons, especially when the nuclear activities of neighbouring countries like Iran are increasing. A section of people believe that Erdogan's goal is to make Turkey a neo-Ottoman power, which also includes a nuclear power.
Middle East Eye
5 days ago
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Most Turkish people say Turkey should obtain nuclear weapons in new poll
A recent survey in Turkey reveals a significant shift in public opinion over nuclear weapons, with a majority of respondents now supporting their development in response to heightened regional tensions, particularly following Israeli strikes on Iran last month. The poll, conducted by Research Istanbul between 1-5 July, surveyed 2,000 people nationwide. Its findings highlight growing insecurity among Turkish citizens regarding national defence and Turkey's ability to withstand potential threats. Despite Turkey being a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) since 1979, which legally prohibits Ankara from developing, acquiring or testing nuclear weapons, 71 percent of respondents believe Turkey should start developing such arms, with only 18 percent opposed. While the Turkish government has made heavy investments in the defence industry in recent years, public confidence regarding air defence systems remains low. Nearly half of those surveyed doubt the effectiveness of Turkey's air defence systems in the event of an attack. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters The recent success of Iranian ballistic missiles in penetrating Israel's advanced air defences and causing considerable damage has further fuelled debate within Turkey over the nation's own defensive capabilities. Scepticism also extends to Turkey's alliances. According to the poll, 72 percent of respondents do not believe Nato would effectively defend Turkey if it were attacked. 'Pervasive sense of external threat' 'These findings reflect growing public anxiety amid escalating regional conflicts in the Middle East, the Balkans and the Caucasus,' said Erdi Ozturk, a professor at London Metropolitan University. 'The pervasive sense of external threat is driving Turkish society to consider security measures that were previously taboo, including the pursuit of nuclear deterrence.' Ozturk added that, despite longstanding political divisions, security concerns are increasingly uniting Turkish society around a common mindset. To address immediate concerns over its ageing air fleet, Ankara has recently negotiated deals to purchase F-16 and Eurofighter jets as a stopgap measure until its own fifth-generation aircraft, the Kaan, is delivered - expected as early as 2028. 'Many citizens believe Turkey must rely more heavily on its own military capabilities' - Erdi Ozturk, London Metropolitan University 'Many citizens believe Turkey must rely more heavily on its own military capabilities,' Ozturk explained, 'especially as ongoing negotiations over fighter jets like the F-16 and F-35 fuel public scepticism about the reliability of foreign partners.' Ankara has not yet made any statements or taken any steps indicating research into nuclear weapons. Turkey is currently building its first nuclear power plant, Akkuyu, in partnership with Russia's Rosatom. Estimated at costing $20bn, it will consist of four reactors with a combined capacity of 4,800 megawatts (MW), expected to provide around 10 percent of Turkey's electricity needs when it goes into operation next year. Ozturk further noted that widespread scepticism regarding Nato's willingness or ability to defend Turkey is closely linked to deep-seated anti-American sentiment, which continues to be a significant factor shaping public attitudes toward security and defence policy.
Kuwait Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Kuwait Times
Israel war sabotaged diplomacy, but the US can revive it
Israel war sabotaged diplomacy, but the US can revive it By Abbas Araghchi Foreign Minister of Iran In only five meetings over nine weeks, US special envoy Steve Witkoff and I achieved more than I did in four years of nuclear negotiations with the failed Biden administration. We were on the cusp of a historic breakthrough. To address US concerns that Iran may one day divert its peaceful nuclear program, we held detailed, frank discussions — including on the future of Iranian uranium enrichment. There were several ideas for a win-win solution, put forward by both sides, and by Oman. Equally important, we also focused on the termination of sanctions and US involvement in wider economic co-operation that constituted a trillion-dollar opportunity. Iran was open to mutually beneficial collaboration that would electrify the Iranian economy and address US President Donald Trump's priority to revive dying American industries, such as the nuclear energy sector. Things were looking up, with a flurry of messages exchanged. But only 48 hours before a pivotal sixth meeting, Israel launched an unprovoked assault on my country. In addition to safeguarded nuclear facilities, homes, hospitals, our essential energy infrastructure and even prisons were bombed. Cowardly killings of academics and their families were also carried out. This was a profound betrayal of diplomacy. As Iran-US dialogue was finally gaining momentum, the reckless bombardment sent an unambiguous message: Israel prefers conflict over resolution. Israel falsely claimed its air strikes were aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. In reality, as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, Iran has always been committed to a peaceful nuclear program under UN monitoring. As any dignified nation under attack would, Iran fiercely resisted the aggression until Israel had to rely on President Trump to end the war it had initiated. Having been wronged once, Iran is now doubly cautious. Our commitment to acting responsibly to avoid a full-scale regional war should not be misinterpreted as weakness. We will defeat any future attack on our people. And should the day ever come, we will reveal our real capabilities, to dispel any illusions about Iran's power. Needless to say, the progress made in talks between Iran and the US has been sabotaged; not by Iran, but by an ostensible ally of America. This is not to mention the fateful decision by the US to allow itself to be cajoled into undermining international law and the NPT with its own strikes. Although Iran has in recent days received messages indicating that the US may be ready to return to negotiations, how can we trust further engagement? Iran signed a comprehensive nuclear deal with six countries in 2015, including the US, which Washington unilaterally abrogated three years later. And after agreeing to new negotiations in good faith, we have seen our good will reciprocated with an attack by two nuclear-armed militaries. Iran remains interested in diplomacy but we have good reason to have doubts about further dialogue. If there is a desire to resolve this amicably, the US should show genuine readiness for an equitable accord. Washington should also know that its actions in recent weeks have changed the situation. Iranians will never agree to surrender. Iran is a millennia-old civilization that has overcome countless invasions, emerging stronger each time. We have always preferred peace, yet we have always been the ones to decide when, and how, aggression against our people ends. As the Israeli regime's miscalculations have proved, Iranians invariably rally in unison against aggressors. Negotiations held under the shadow of war are inherently unstable, and dialogue pursued amid threats is never genuine. For diplomacy to succeed, it must be built on mutual respect. Nor can it survive perpetual sabotage by third parties who fear a resolution. The American people deserve to know that their country is being pushed towards a wholly avoidable and unwarranted war by a foreign regime that does not share their interests. As for Washington, it should know that the aggression has made our scientists and their achievements more dear to us than ever. Trump's promise of 'America First' is, in practice, being twisted into 'Israel First'. Having witnessed the sacrifice of thousands of American lives and the waste of trillions of their taxpayer dollars in our region, Americans appear to have had enough. The path towards peace requires a recognition in the US that respectful dialogue, and not reckless coercion, is the only sustainable way forward. The choice is America's. Will the US finally choose diplomacy? Or will it remain ensnared in someone else's war?
