Brazil follows Iran’s nuclear path, but without the fuss

[Judi Lynn]

Brazil follows Iran’s nuclear path, but without the fuss

Associated Press
Posted online: Saturday, April 22, 2006 at 0000 hrs

RESENDE, April 21
As Iran faces international pressure over its nuclear programme, Brazil is quietly preparing to open its own uranium-enrichment centre, capable of producing exactly the same fuel.

Brazil, like Iran, has signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Brazil’s constitution bans the military use of nuclear energy.

Also like Iran, Brazil has cloaked key aspects of its nuclear technology in secrecy while insisting the programme is for peaceful purposes, claims nuclear weapons experts have debunked.

While Brazil is more cooperative than Iran on international inspections, some worry its new enrichment capability, which will create more fuel than is needed for its two nuclear plants, suggests that South America’s biggest nation may be rethinking its commitment to nonproliferation.

The US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack dismissed any parallel between Brazil’s nuclear programme and Iran’s. “My understanding is they have a peaceful nuclear programme,” he said.
(snip/...)

http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFriendly/2890.html



Sean McCormack

[Syrinx]

1. shhh!

Don't give them any ideas.

[fujiyama]

2. Is Brazil

ruled by a religious fanatic calling for neighboring countries to be wiped off the map?

[Toucano]

3. Is that part of the non-proliferation treaty?

Are countries with leaders you approve of exempt for the non-proliferation part of the non-proliferation treaty?

[ClintonTyree]

4. The American double standard at work....

again. "The Decider" decides who can do what, when and where in this world. He listens to the voices.......they tell him what to do. :eyes:

[fujiyama]

5. Did I say that?

I'd say it's pretty clear though why Iran with nuclear capability concerns more people than Brazil.

[Toucano]

7. Yes it is clear. "More people" don't understand the point of the treaty.

The point of non-proliferation is that regardless of who's in charge today, someone else may be in charge tomorrow. Regardless of who's in charge, accidents can happen. Regardless of who's in charge, the world is safer if there are FEWER nuclear weapons.

This two-faced approach to world issues is the principle reason so many people hate the United States.

Everytime Ahmadinejad speaks his "lunatic rantings", oil prices go up. Who do you suppose that benefits?

[fujiyama]

9. I agree the world would be safer

if there were fewer nuclear weapons (unfortunately I haven't seen the "Big five" do much in the way of reducing their stockpiles - in fact the US may increase its number).

What I'm saying is that the greater concern placed over Iran's possible nuclear weapons program is understandable (relative to Brazil). I don't think the concern has been handled particularly well, and I don't view Iran as the "number one threat" (the Pakistani nuclear program is much more dangerous IMO - after all they have proliferated nukes). I certainly don't believe that threatening them (as in the way Bush has done) is more likely to turn them away from nuclear weapons. I also can't blame them for wanting nukes, being that Israel and other neighboring nations has them as well.

But as far as I know Brazil is also not a state sponsor of terror. It's relatively stable and democratic (albeit flawed). It's the same reason why if Japan were to declare itself a nuclear power, western nations wouldn't be too concerned (China would be however).

Double standards are an unfortunate way of life though and it's not just the US practicing it in this case. If other nations are increasingly concerned over Brazil's program, then a resolution should be sent forth in the IAEA and it should be voted on whether or not it should be sent to the security council after that. Perhaps, Brazil's neighbors will bring this up for a vote regarding the merits of whether or not it should be referred to the SC.

[stillcool]

13. a little perspective...

If you flip over the rock of American foreign
policy of the past century, this is what crawls out ...
invasions ... bombings ... overthrowing governments ... suppressing movements for social change ... assassinating political leaders ... perverting elections ... manipulating labor unions ... manufacturing "news" ... death squads ... torture ... biological warfare ...
depleted uranium ... drug trafficking ... mercenaries ...
It's not a pretty picture.
It is enough to give imperialism a bad name.

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/parenti.htm

February 14, 2002: US Military Bases Line Afghan Pipeline Route
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=pipelinePolitics
The Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv notes: “If one looks at the map of the big American bases created , one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.” Ma’ariv also states, “Osama bin Laden did not comprehend that his actions serve American interests... If I were a believer in conspiracy theory, I would think that bin Laden is an American agent. Not being one I can only wonder at the coincidence.”

Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.
Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.
This is not very subtle foreign policy. Certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed.
And that's the way the empire grows -- a base in every region, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Sixty years after World War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; fifty-two years after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.

http://www.killinghope.org/

A Timeline of CIA Atrocities
By Steve Kangas
The following timeline describes just a few of the hundreds of atrocities and crimes committed by the CIA. (1)
CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.
This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special school, the notorious "School of the Americas." (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the "School of the Dictators" and "School of the Assassins." Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use of interrogation, torture and murder.
The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. (2) Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an "American Holocaust."

http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/L-overclass.html

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt="Image hosting by Photobucket"></a>

[oblivious]

14. Bookmarked that. Thanks.

[Judi Lynn]

17. Exceptional statement, maps, links.

From the Steve Kangas link, (the author whom, after committing himself to important investigative journalism appeared to commit suicide) A Timeline of CIA Atrocities, a very worthwhile point was made which should be much better known than it is currently:

MOCKINGBIRD was extraordinarily successful. In no time, the agency had recruited at least 25 media organizations to disseminate CIA propaganda. At least 400 journalists would eventually join the CIA payroll, according to the CIA’s testimony before a stunned Church Committee in 1975. (The committee felt the true number was considerably higher.) The names of those recruited reads like a Who's Who of journalism:

• Philip and Katharine Graham (Publishers, Washington Post)
  
• William Paley (President, CBS)
  
• Henry Luce (Publisher, Time and Life magazine)
  
• Arthur Hays Sulzberger (Publisher, N.Y. Times)
  
• Jerry O'Leary (Washington Star)
  
• Hal Hendrix (Pulitzer Prize winner, Miami News)
  
• Barry Bingham Sr., (Louisville Courier-Journal)
  
• James Copley (Copley News Services)
  
• Joseph Harrison (Editor, Christian Science Monitor)
  
• C.D. Jackson (Fortune)
  
• Walter Pincus (Reporter, Washington Post)
  
• ABC
  
• NBC
  
• Associated Press
  
• United Press International
  
• Reuters
  
• Hearst Newspapers
  
• Scripps-Howard
  
• Newsweek magazine
  
• Mutual Broadcasting System
  
• Miami Herald
  
• Old Saturday Evening Post
  
• New York Herald-Tribune
  

Perhaps no newspaper is more important to the CIA than the Washington Post, one of the nation’s most right-wing dailies. Its location in the nation’s capitol enables the paper to maintain valuable personal contacts with leading intelligence, political and business figures. Unlike other newspapers, the Post operates its own bureaus around the world, rather than relying on AP wire services. Owner Philip Graham was a military intelligence officer in World War II, and later became close friends with CIA figures like Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Desmond FitzGerald and Richard Helms. He inherited the Post by marrying Katherine Graham, whose father owned it.

After Philip’s suicide in 1963, Katharine Graham took over the Post. Seduced by her husband’s world of government and espionage, she expanded her newspaper’s relationship with the CIA. In a 1988 speech before CIA officials at Langley, Virginia, she stated:

We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things that the general public does not need to know and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.

This quote has since become a classic among CIA critics for its belittlement of democracy and its admission that there is a political agenda behind the Post’s headlines.
(snip)

Thank you for taking the time to post this information.

[Jack_DeLeon]

8. Exactly....

I doubt the rest of South America is particularily concerned that Brazil is going declare Jihad on them.

[BR_Parkway]

10. Did you ever wonder if his acting like a really crazy religious fanatic

has saved his nation from what Iraq just went through?

It seems that Saddam's attempts to comply were completely ignored/rejected - Shrub was going to have his war. And, in spite of their "claims" that Saddam had WMD - somehow kept telling the American public that it would be a cakewalk.

The Iranians seem to understand that they are next on the list - what better way to buy themselves some time than to act like they are crazy, just itching to blow something up with a nuke. Like oil fields that are crucial to our economy.

That same fear sure has done Kim Jong II wonders in being able to bargain a little position into one of more attentive plays between China, US and Russia.

[cliss]

11. Iran.....

the ONLY country in the Middle East that stands against the U.S. All the others are U.S. puppets or colonies like Iraq.

Iran used to be a Puppet state. We had the Shah of Iran. Then in the 1970's, they had a revolution and threw him out. We lost our colony.

It was a tremendous loss. We have never been able to reconcile us to that fact.

The Iranians haven't forgotten, either.

[classysassy]

12. Face in a mirror

could it be that Brazil is so American like,with supression of their blacks and Indians,there is the rich elite that rules,ghettos with the poor encamped,so American.

[Kellanved]

6. The Brazilian nuclear program has been around since the 60s

And it's not showing any signs of going anywhere fast.

The real problem is that there is no such thing as a "peaceful" nuclear program. In the best case, such programs and the equipment needed are dual-use.

[Miss Chybil]

15. Is there oil in Brazil?

Just curious.

[HuffleClaw]

16. of COURSE its 'peaceful' !

well, until the moment bush decides brazil has something his neocon buddies want.