|
The new sanctions on Iran:
Superpower domination of the UN Security
Council heralds a sad day for the world
Farhang Jahanpour, TFF Associate*
June 11, 2010
After many months of US and Israeli pressure, on 9th June 2010 the UN Security Council finally issued its Resolution 1929 imposing a fourth round of sanctions on Iran, despite the agreement that Brazil and Turkey had concluded for swapping more than half of Iran's enriched uranium in return for fuel rods. The resolution passed with 12 votes in favour, while Brazil and Turkey voted against it and Lebanon abstained.
In her statement to the UN Security Council meeting the Brazilian envoy said:
"As Brazil repeatedly stated, the Tehran Declaration adopted 17 May is a unique opportunity that should not be missed. It was approved by the highest levels of the Iranian leadership and endorsed by its Parliament.
The Tehran Declaration promoted a solution that would ensure the full exercise of Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, while providing full verifiable assurances that Iran’s nuclear program has exclusively peaceful purposes.
We are firmly convinced that the only possible way to achieve this collective goal is to secure Iran’s cooperation through effective and action-oriented dialogue and negotiations. The Tehran Declaration showed that dialogue and persuasion can do more than punitive actions…
Mr. President,
Brazil and Turkey requested a meeting of the Council open to all members of the United Nations because we firmly believe that the relevance of the issue at hand requires that those on behalf of whom the Council acts have the chance to fully understand the positions and perspectives of each one of us." (1)
In his last act as Director-General of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei tried to bring about an agreement between Iran and the West, which "could open the way for a complete normalisation of relations between Iran and the international community." According to an agreement reached between Iran and the big powers on 19 October 2009 initiated by Mr ElBaradei, Iran agreed to send two-thirds of her uranium already enriched to about 3.5% U-235 to Russia, where it would be further enriched to about 20% U-235, and further processed into fuel rods by France for refuelling a U.S.-built medical-isotope producing reactor in Tehran. At first, Iranian officials welcomed the deal, but later on they said that the exchange should take place on Iranian soil, or in stages to make sure that Iran would receive the fuel rods. The fear was that once Iran had shipped out the bigger part of her enriched uranium, Russia and France would use UN resolutions against Iran as an excuse and refuse to send fuel rods for use at the reactor.
On 17th May 2010, the leaders of Iran, Turkey and Brazil in ceremonies held in Tehran announced a major breakthrough in Iran's nuclear dispute with the West, which was a carbon copy of the agreement that the West had initially welcomed. The only difference was that Iran's fuel would be sent to Turkey for safe keeping until the swap could take place. In a joint declaration, they reported that Iran had agreed to send 1240 kg of her low-enriched uranium to Turkey under IAEA supervision as part of a swap for nuclear fuel for a research reactor in Tehran. The United States immediately rejected the agreement, saying that she would press for fresh sanctions on Iran, without providing any reasons for her hasty rejection.
In an interview to the Brazilian press, Dr. ElBaradei supported the Tehran Declaration and said that the deal "should be perceived as a first good confidence measure, a first effort by Iran to stretch its hand and say [they] are ready to negotiate". He also argued that "if you remove around half of the material that Iran has to Turkey, that is clearly a confidence-building measure regarding concerns about Iran’s future intentions. The material that will remain in Iran is under IAEA safeguards and seals. There is absolutely no imminent threat that Iran is going to develop the bomb tomorrow with the material that they have in Iran" (2).
The rejection of the deal means that the West has rejected Iran's extended hand and instead is turning to further confrontation and further conflict. If these sanctions, like the previous ones, fail to persuade Iran to surrender to Western demands, the Obama Administration will be left with no other options except formal adoption of regime change as the explicit goal of its Iran policy.
The passing of yet another resolution could also give the United States and Israel another excuse to say that they have no other option but to carry out military strikes against the Islamic Republic.
It is a sad day, not only for Iran, but also for the Middle East, for the United States, for the UN and for the cause of international law and order as a whole.
It is sad for Iran because its hard-pressed people, most of whom are against their current regime, are going to be further impoverished as the result of these unjust and punitive sanctions. Their industries, their trade, their shipping and their banks are going to be put under greater pressure in order to bring the country to its knees and make sure that Israel will not have a rival in the Middle East. Israel and her friends in the West intend to do the same to Iran as they did to Iraq. Unfortunately, these unjust measures will further strengthen the regime and will weaken the cause of democracy and human rights, as they did in Iraq.
It is a sad day for the Middle East because after years of conflict there seems to be no end to the hypocrisy and double standards applied to that region. At a time of instability and diminishing resources world-wide, wars and conflicts, mainly in that part of the world, are bringing misery to the lives of millions and fast destroying the resources that all of us need for our future.
It seems that until the last drop of oil is extracted from the Middle East, its hapless people are to endure wars, occupation, pain and suffering. Despite the demand of many regional countries and the resolution of the recent NPT conference to establish a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, the West has shown that it is not really interested in non-proliferation but is only interested in using Iran's nuclear programme as an excuse for regime change. This will send a very negative message to all other countries in the Middle East who are looking for some sign of fairness in the way that the West deals with them. It will also further push the people towards extremism and radicalism and greater distrust of the West.
It is a sad day for the United States because most Americans who elected President Obama expected more of him and thought that he represented real change. His record so far, both domestically and internationally, has been most disappointing. He has continued President Bush's policies with a softer rhetoric, and he is beginning to alienate many Americans who expected real change and many people in the world who were beginning once again to look up to America. He has surrounded himself with some of the most extreme pro-Israeli activists and neocons who seem to be following the same agenda as they did under the former administration. Sadly, President Obama has shown that no US Administration can act independently so long as they have not been able to free themselves from the deadly yoke of the Jewish Lobby.
It is a sad day for humanity because they have seen that the United Nations and the Security Council that are supposed to protect the weak against the mighty, continue to be used by a few greedy powers in order to perpetuate their hegemony over most of the world. The emergence of regional states such as Turkey and Brazil could have provided some hope for a change in the present system of domination by the so-called "Great Powers", which is a remnant of the 19th century. However, through the summary dismissal of the major breakthrough achieved by those countries and once again using the Security Council as a rubber stamp for their aggressive policies the imperial powers have shown that they are not going to adhere to the rule of international law.
This will weaken public trust in the UN and will push many nations to believe that there is one rule for the strong and another for the weak. The failure and collapse of the United Nations will have the same tragic consequences for humanity that the collapse of the League of Nations brought about. Had the UN been interested in justice and fairness, in preventing the scourge of war and resolving conflicts through peaceful means, it would not have allowed itself to be cowed by the big powers. Its members should have embraced the remarkable agreement that was reached between Brazil, Turkey and Iran and could have used it as a basis for a comprehensive resolution of all the outstanding disputes with Iran.
It is a sad day for the cause international law and order because people see that one country in the Middle East can have a nuclear arsenal, can invade countries at will and commit war crimes, can attack an aid flotilla in international waters and literally get away with murder and be shielded by the United States, while other countries in the region are subjected to repeated UN sanctions for much milder offences. The weakening of the international system and the break down of law and order will ultimately harm the developed countries more than the majority of third world countries that do not have so much to lose.
Let us hope that the people of the world will not wake up to these realities, because if they do the reckoning which the west will face will be very severe.
References
* Dr Farhang Jahanpour is a former professor and dean of the Faculty of Languages at the University of Isfahan, Iran, and a former Senior Fulbright Research Scholar at Harvard. He is Associate Fellow at the Faculty of Oriental Studies and tutor in Middle Eastern Studies at the Department of Continuing Education at the University of Oxford.
*
Copyright
© TFF & the author 1997 till today. All rights reserved.
Tell a friend about this TFF
article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
Get
free TFF articles & updates
|