Before President Obama persuaded the UN Security Council to adopt his Resolution 1887, which prominently notes that “enjoyment of the benefits of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons by a State Party can be assured only by its compliance with the obligations thereunder,” someone should have reminded him of an old American proverb that says “Give a man enough rope and he’ll hang himself.”
Indeed, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin is alleged to have said something to that effect about those whom modern-day Russians apparently recognize to be the ghost-writers of the draft UNSCR 1887 – the proponents and enablers of the American Hegemony.
You see, Bonkers Bolton’s successors and acolytes in the Obama-Biden administration had attempted to get Iran singled out by name as an example of a State not in compliance with its NPT “obligations” – and hence, ineligible to enjoy the benefits of the peaceful use of atomic energy guaranteed them by the NPT – but the Russians and Chinese objected.
Why did they object?
Because as they – and the vast majority of the heads of state of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Arab League and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization – know, it is the United States which for decades has been in outrageous non-compliance with itsNPT obligations.
In particular, Iran’s principal NPT obligation is to not “manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons,” and to conclude a Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), covering certain NPT-proscribed “nuclear materials” in Iran and all activities involving their chemical or physical transformation, “with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons.”
As a result of exhaustive on-the-ground inspections and on-site monitoring of Iranian Safeguarded activities, IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei continues to “verify” the non-diversion of all Iranian NPT-proscribed materials.
Furthermore, ElBaradei has – pursuant to requests made of him in several of the UN Security Council Resolutions cited in UNSCR 1887 – also conducted exhaustive inspections of Iran’s import records, going back several decades, as well as inspections of certain military and commercial sites, alleged to have been somehow connected to an attempt by Iran to “manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.” As of this writing, ElBaradei has been unable to find any evidence of any such attempt.
In other words, according to USCR 1887, Iran continues to be assured of receiving all benefits available without discrimination to NPT-signatories in good standing.
On the other hand, the principal obligation undertaken by the United States under the NPT is to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.”
Furthermore, the U.S. has undertaken to “cooperate” with “other States” in contributing to the “further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapons States Party to the Treaty,” such as Iran, for example, and “without discrimination.”
Clinton-Gore and Bush-Cheney – aided and abetted by The Best Congress Money Can Buy – have done nothing but “discriminate” against Iran in blatant violation of the NPT, the IAEA Statute and the UN Charter, itself.
Initially claiming that Iran had a secret nuclear weapons program, undetected by the IAEA, they have in recent years simply claimed that Iran’s IAEA-Safeguarded program, in and of itself, constitutes “a threat to the peace of the region” and must be suspended, indefinitely. Or else.
Now, surely Obama is not as dumb as Dubya. Surely he realizes what we have been doing to Iran for the past twenty years because it insists on exercising its inalienable rights under the NPT and the IAEA Statute and the UN Charter is not only illegal but immoral.
According to a Newsweek “Web Exclusive” report last week, “U.S. intelligence agencies” have just informed “the White House” that the status of the Iranian alleged program to develop a nuclear bomb has not changed since their formal National Intelligence Estimate of 2007. That NIE stated – with “high confidence” – that Iran “halted,” in the fall of 2003, whatever program it was alleged to have had, and stated – with “moderate confidence” – that Iran had made no attempt to resurrect it.
Yet, Obama attempted to get the UN Security Council to essentially reprise all the past injustices committed by the Council against Iran at the instigation of Bonkers Bolton.
But, it should be noted, there are a number of new “calls” and “affirmations” in UNSCR 1887 regarding nuclear weapons that are not going to make certain other states, such as India and Israel, very happy.
In particular, UNSCR 1887 “welcomes and supports” steps taken to conclude “nuclear-weapons-free zone” treaties and “calls” upon all states to accede to the NPT “as non-nuclear-weapons States.”
So, contrary to what you’ve been told, the real story was not at the Security Council, but at the UN General Assembly, where Iranian and Libyan et al heads of state were reiterating certain findings and recommendations made this past July by the Presidents and Heads of State of Members of the Non-Aligned Movement, about necessary changes that need to be made, immediately, in the way the Security Council is organized and “does business.” In particular;
“The Heads of State and Government reiterated the role of the General Assembly in the maintenance of international peace and security and expressed grave concern at instances wherein the Security Council fails to address cases involving genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or ceasefire between parties, in fulfilment of its primary responsibility in this regard;
“The Heads of State and Government emphasized that in such instances where the Security Council has not fulfilled its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly should take appropriate measures in accordance with the Charter to address the issue.”
“In recent years, the Security Council has been too quick to threaten or authorise enforcement action in some cases while being silent and inactive in others. Furthermore, the Council has been increasingly resorting to Chapter VII of the Charter as an umbrella for addressing issues that do not necessarily pose an immediate threat to international peace and security. A careful review of these trends indicates that the Council could have opted for alternative provisions to respond more appropriately to particular cases.
“Instead of excessive and quick use of Chapter VII, efforts should be made to fully utilize the provisions of Chapters VI and VIII for the pacific settlement of disputes. Chapter VII should be invoked, as intended, as a measure of last resort. Unfortunately, provisions of Articles 41 and 42 in some cases have been too quickly resorted to while the other options had not been fully exhausted;
“The Security Council-imposed sanctions remain an issue of serious concern to Non-Aligned Countries. In accordance with the UN Charter, sanctions should be considered to be imposed only after all means of peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the Charter have been exhausted and a thorough consideration undertaken of the short-term and long-term effects of such sanctions.
“Sanctions are a blunt instrument, the use of which raises fundamental ethical questions of whether sufferings inflicted on vulnerable groups in the target country are legitimate means of exerting pressure. The objectives of sanctions are not to punish or otherwise exact retribution on the populace. In this regard, the objectives of sanctions regimes should be clearly defined, and that its imposition should be for a specified timeframe and be based on tenable legal grounds, and that it should be lifted as soon as the objectives are achieved. The conditions demanded of the State or party on which sanctions are imposed should be clearly defined and subject to periodic review.
“Sanctions should be imposed only when there exists a threat to international peace and security or an act of aggression, in accordance with the Charter, and that it is not applicable “preventively” in instances of mere violation of international law, norms or standards.”
So, perhaps the reason Russia and China allowed a resolution that mostly recalls and affirms past Security Council actions (and inactions) to pass, is to emphasize to the UN General Assembly in session the need to make, immediately, drastic changes in the way the Security Council is organized and “does business.”
Have the proponents and enablers of the American Hegemony finally been given enough rope?