sensational development on the international scene recently was the announcement by Iran that it had successfully carried out test firing of the world’s largest torpedo. It is said this torpedo could destroy any warship. The announcement ended speculation about Iran’s nuclear capability. Western powers are naturally concerned about this development, and they were reported to be considering retaliatory actions such as air strikes and commando raids.

IRAN’S NUCLEAR AGENDA

It is estimated that the new torpedo will be used to counter Western military action by crippling the world’s oil supply. This torpedo, it is estimated by military experts, would have a disastrous effect on oil tankers and warships, thereby compromising the world’s oil supply and generally causing global economic hardship.

The device is said to give Iran a unique position in underwater technology, in that no sea-going vessel could escape it, once fired. Iran was identified as one of two countries which could exert this kind of threat. The unique character of this missile is its speed, which is around 100 metres per second. Its lethal feature is a very powerful warhead that enables it to attack groups of warships and submarines.

This disclosure ends speculation in the international community as regards Iran’s nuclear capability. Iran has now virtually admitted that it has a relatively advanced nuclear programme. At the same time, it denies any military action and states that its nuclear programme revolves around generating energy. One can imagine the consternation that has been caused in the Western world by the disclosure of Iran’s nuclear capability. Western powers, which have been anxiously watching this situation unfold for some time, will now have to decide on what action they should take.

It is clear that Iran’s disclosure has created no small international crisis, by dint of which Western powers will feel obliged to take combative action. It would seem, therefore, that the prospects for peace in the Middle East are greatly affected, with the likelihood of imminent violent confrontation between the Western powers and Iran. In fact, the disclosure of its nuclear arsenal is a sign Iran is prepared to defy and combat Western powers – and this in itself is a serious threat to peace in the Middle East. The emerging nuclear power has openly stated that Iran will unleash unprecedented terror if it is attacked.

IRAQ GRAPPLES WITH POLITICAL RIVALRY

In the meantime, a crisis is brewing within Iraq with the move to force Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari to step down. A grand coalition of parties have teemed up with the Kurds and the Sunnis in their demand for the premier to step down. The opposition to Jaafari is based on doubts of his ability to unite Iraqis and his competence as a leader. The opposition has been thus expressed by a leader of an independent group: “I call on Jaafari to take a courageous step and set a fine example by stepping down.”

In the context of this political rivalry within Iraq, the future of the country’s stability is at stake.

NEPAL’S MONARCHY UNDER THREAT

Nepal continues to face a threat to its future from the combined opposition of seven political parties which are supported by Maoists. The Nepalese government passed an anti-terror law which allows it to imprison those who combine forces with Maoist insurgents. A special ordinance was recently passed to this effect, which defines accomplices as those who remain in contact with Maoists and render assistance to them. This amendment led to the postponement of a general strike which had been called by seven political parties and the Maoists.

The king imposed a state of emergency under which large sections of the people were affected. Recently, thousands of Nepalese took to the streets to celebrate the king’s restoration of parliament, ending a series of anti-monarchy pro­tests. And on 27 April, the rebels declared a three-month truce – raising hopes of an end to the conflict.

THAILAND’S SHOCK ELECTION RESULT

A state of political uncertainty prevails in Thailand following the results of the recent election which bitterly divided the nation. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra proposed the creation of an independent commission to find a way out of the dilemma and offered to step down, which he did eventually. All in all, it seems that a state of political uncertainty prevails in the country in which the future of the government is at stake. Several political parties opposed the prime minister and demanded that he should step down and enable the country to conduct a fresh election.

BIRTH OF ANOTHER UN ORGAN

The formation of a UN organisation on human rights is in the offing, following the decision of 17 nations to create a new UN Human Rights Council. The UN General Assembly voted on 15 March for a new human-rights body which will replace the previous UN Human Rights Commission. The latter has been discredited by the records of some of its members such as Zambia, Sudan, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, which have poor human-rights records. The US government did not vote in favour – and opinion polls in the US are showing that the provisions were inadequate. However, the US’s allies are in favour of the move.

The council has 47 seats, which include 13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, six for Eastern Europe, and the remainder for Latin America and the Caribbean. The apparent enthusiasm for the new human-rights council augurs favourably for its future, despite limitations.

ISRAEL ACKNOWLEDGES SHARON’S STATE OF HEALTH

Ariel Sharon’s reign as premier of Israel was formally ended by his cabinet colleagues who were compelled to acknowledge that he was no longer fit to hold office. Sharon’s controversial, yet extraordinary, career of almost 50 years thus ended, not long after he abandoned the nation’s governing Likud Party to form a new political group that was to redraw Israel’s borders and possibly make peace with its arch enemy, Palestine.

Sharon sanctioned the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the ill-fated Gaza Strip in September last year and then asked angry settlers to leave their adopted homes, thus ending a four-decade occupation of the territory.

LIBERIANS DIVIDED ON TAYLOR’S FATE

Efforts proceed to prosecute former Liberian president Charles Taylor, in Sierra Leone, although he pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. Taylor refused to recognise the jurisdiction of court and condemned it as an effort to divide Liberia and Sierra Leone. The hearing was adjourned, as opinion was divided between those who welcomed him as an effective leader and others who welcomed his trial as a means of bringing him to justice.