The conditions that would ultimately permit the United States and others to give up their nuclear weapons without risking greater international instability and insecurity are very demanding. Here’s a paragraph from the Obama administration’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review: We shouldn’t expect our leaders, Republican or Democrat, to agree with that assessment of course. Any serious project to rid the world of the particular threat of nuclear weapons has to come to terms with the more general threat of the empire. political/economic/military empire remains in place, shaky at the moment, but still the single greatest threat to justice and peace on the planet. Barack Obama is the smiling smart-guy face of the U.S. Bush was the smirking frat-boy face of the U.S. military power, of which the nuclear arsenal is one component. The political empire of the contemporary United States serves the corporate empires that dominate not only the domestic but the global economy, and it all depends on U.S. Different groupings of hawks might be associated with different groupings of vultures, giving the appearance of serious political conflict within the elite, but what they have in common is much more important than their differences. Even though in the post-World War II era the hawks have sometimes differed on strategy and tactics, they have defended the same economic system: a predatory corporate capitalism.
The next step is asking whose interests are advanced by the hawks. But we should remember that a hawk is a hawk.
After eight years of reckless reactionary psychotics, it’s easy to be lulled into a false sense of security by reasonable moderate cynics. The former group is psychotic, while the latter is merely cynical.
#THE SEEKER THE WHO NO NUKES FREE#
A serious commitment to a future free of nuclear weapons demands critique of moderate wing, the Obamas and Bidens and Clintons - call them the reasonable hawks. power structure, the Bushes and Cheneys and Rumsfelds - call them the reckless hawks. That means working toward a world free of nuclear weapons demands we not only critique the reactionary wing of the U.S. If we are serious about the abolition of nuclear weapons, we have to place the abolition of the U.S. The parties have agreed the case should be remitted to the Federal Court.A version of this essay was delivered to the “Think outside the Bomb” event in Austin, TX, on June 14, 2010. Justice Keane also noted the issues raised in the case were not to do with the Immigration Act but rather were questions about duty of care. He ordered no steps be taken to bring about the termination or remove the woman from Papua New Guinea to anywhere but Australia. Justice Patrick Keane said given the urgency and gravity of the situation for the woman and the fact there appeared to be an arguable case, he would the grant the injunction.
That gave rise to questions about whether the woman was in custody and whether she was owed a duty of care by Australian authorities, which was part of the wider case. The court was assured there was no immediate issue about the woman undergoing any procedures in Papua New Guinea.Ĭommonwealth representatives also told the court the woman was not in detention in Nauru but was a refugee on a temporary settlement visa. The court heard arrangements had been made to ensure all appointments for the woman had been suspended for the time being. Lawyers for the Commonwealth told the court they opposed the relief, saying it was unnecessary and inappropriate. "Not only is her health at risk but she runs a serious risk of committing a criminal offence," he said. Her barrister, Ron Merkel, said the actions gave rise to several concerns including questions about the legality of an abortion in Papua New Guinea. Lawyers for the woman said she had asked for a termination in Australia.īut the court heard that late yesterday, without any notice, she was flown to Papua New Guinea for the procedure. The High Court has granted an urgent injunction preventing an abortion being carried out on an asylum seeker from Nauru.
0 kommentar(er)
