"Brave" Order From The UN: Its Lack Of Teeth Is Obvious
(Clap) (Clap) (Clap) (Clap) The Un is once again showing how "relevant" it is. According to the AP Wire, it isn't nearly as relevant as it believes.
The U.N. Security Council demanded Wednesday that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the first time the powerful body has directly urged Tehran to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons.
Iran remained defiant, maintaining its right to nuclear power but insisting that it was committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and had no intention of seeking weapons of mass destruction.
"Pressure and threats does not work with Iran. Iran is a country that is allergic to pressure and to threats and intimidation," Iranian Ambassador Javad Zarif said. He later added that "Iran insists on its right to have access to nuclear technology for explicitly peaceful purposes. We will not abandon that claim to our legitimate right."
The 15-nation council unanimously approved a statement that will ask the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the
International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium.
Diplomats portrayed the statement, which is not legally binding, as a first, modest step toward compelling Iran to make clear that its program is for peaceful purposes. The Security Council could eventually impose economic sanctions, though Russia and China say they oppose such tough measures.
"The council is expressing its clear concern and is saying to Iran that it should comply with the wishes of the governing board," France's U.N Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said.
The document was adopted by consensus and without a vote after a flurry of negotiations among the five veto-wielding council members. In the end, Britain, France and the United States made several concessions to China and Russia, Iran's allies, who wanted as mild a statement as possible.
Still, the Western countries said the statement expresses the international community's shared conviction that Iran must comply with the governing board of the IAEA and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Enrichment is a process that can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead.
Members of the council wanted to reach a deal before Thursday, when foreign ministers from the five veto-wielding council members and Germany meet in Berlin to discuss strategy on Iran.
Diplomats would not say exactly what will happen if Iran does not comply the statement within 30 days, but suggested that would be discussed by the foreign ministers in Berlin.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the statement an "important diplomatic step" that showed the international community's concern about Iran.
"Iran is more isolated now than ever," she said in a statement. "The Security Council's Presidential Statement sends an unmistakable message to Iran that its efforts to conceal its nuclear program and evade its international obligations are unacceptable."
The council has struggled for three weeks to come up with a written rebuke that would urge Iran to comply with several demands from the board of the IAEA to clear up suspicions about its intentions. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
The West believes council action will help isolate Iran and put new pressure on it to clear up suspicions about its intentions. They have proposed an incremental approach, refusing to rule out sanctions.
U.S. officials have said the threat of military action must also remain on the table.
Russia and China, both allies of Iran, oppose sanctions. They wanted any council statement to make explicit that the IAEA, not the Security Council, must take the lead in confronting Iran.
The draft circulated to the council calls upon Iran to "resolve outstanding questions, and underlines ... the particular importance of re-establishing full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities."
Still, it removed language that China and Russia opposed.
The text removes language saying that proliferation is a threat to international peace and security. Also gone is a mention that the council is specifically charged under the U.N. charter with addressing such threats.
Russia and China had opposed that language from the start because they wanted nothing in the statement that could automatically trigger council action after 30 days.
"For the time being we have suspicions," Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov said. "So from that point of view, it is like a ladder. If you want to climb up, you must step on the first step, and then the second, and not try to leap."
Anyone got shivers over this? I didn;t think so. This is more bureaucratic wrangling that's going to give Iran more time. So, the games begin. I understand the idea of taking a diplomatic route towards Iran. But where are the teeth. If the world has supposedly looked at Iran and said "knock it off, or else," then can someone please point out where the "or else" is? Anyone?
The UN ambassadors concede that they don't know what the consequences will be. Can we afford to go through this whole dog-and-pony show again? Did we not learn this lesson with Iraq? While we diddled away over the proper diplomatic route, what is considered "material breach," and other retarded ideas, Saddam was able to build his WMDs, and on the brink of a war he knew he was going to lose, he got rid of them. Some in Syria, some possibly in Iran; maybe Jordan and Saudi Arabia, as well. We don't know exactly where they went. But too much corroboration within the Saddam documents, the work of investigative journalists, and those who once served under Saddam all make the same claim. He had them, and got rid of them in the run-up to the war.
Can we afford this with Iran? Let's consider a worse scenario. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Iran takes less time than the 12 year record Saddam racked up with the UN. But by the time we move for action, Iran unveils our nightmare: the ability to create a nuclear weapon, and the ability to reproduce them. Scary prospect, huh? Experts place Iran's ability to do this within the next nine-to-twenty-four months. Up to two years.
I'm not out cruising for a fight here, but damn, I would have thought that the bureaucrats would have remembered what their dithering led to three years ago. Do we want to do that? No. If asked, will we? I wouldn't, but it's likely that we would. The future isn't written here, folks. I call things as I see them. This "order" from the UN Security Council is going to be met with derision from Tehran. They know that the UN is not ready to escalate this confrontation to violence. But, then again, Tehran doesn't want to risk a confrontation, either.
Fine, they have thirty days to show compliance. We'll see, but I'm not holding my breath over an Iranian change of heart.
Publius II
(Clap) (Clap) (Clap) (Clap) The Un is once again showing how "relevant" it is. According to the AP Wire, it isn't nearly as relevant as it believes.
The U.N. Security Council demanded Wednesday that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the first time the powerful body has directly urged Tehran to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons.
Iran remained defiant, maintaining its right to nuclear power but insisting that it was committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and had no intention of seeking weapons of mass destruction.
"Pressure and threats does not work with Iran. Iran is a country that is allergic to pressure and to threats and intimidation," Iranian Ambassador Javad Zarif said. He later added that "Iran insists on its right to have access to nuclear technology for explicitly peaceful purposes. We will not abandon that claim to our legitimate right."
The 15-nation council unanimously approved a statement that will ask the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the
International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium.
Diplomats portrayed the statement, which is not legally binding, as a first, modest step toward compelling Iran to make clear that its program is for peaceful purposes. The Security Council could eventually impose economic sanctions, though Russia and China say they oppose such tough measures.
"The council is expressing its clear concern and is saying to Iran that it should comply with the wishes of the governing board," France's U.N Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said.
The document was adopted by consensus and without a vote after a flurry of negotiations among the five veto-wielding council members. In the end, Britain, France and the United States made several concessions to China and Russia, Iran's allies, who wanted as mild a statement as possible.
Still, the Western countries said the statement expresses the international community's shared conviction that Iran must comply with the governing board of the IAEA and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Enrichment is a process that can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead.
Members of the council wanted to reach a deal before Thursday, when foreign ministers from the five veto-wielding council members and Germany meet in Berlin to discuss strategy on Iran.
Diplomats would not say exactly what will happen if Iran does not comply the statement within 30 days, but suggested that would be discussed by the foreign ministers in Berlin.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the statement an "important diplomatic step" that showed the international community's concern about Iran.
"Iran is more isolated now than ever," she said in a statement. "The Security Council's Presidential Statement sends an unmistakable message to Iran that its efforts to conceal its nuclear program and evade its international obligations are unacceptable."
The council has struggled for three weeks to come up with a written rebuke that would urge Iran to comply with several demands from the board of the IAEA to clear up suspicions about its intentions. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
The West believes council action will help isolate Iran and put new pressure on it to clear up suspicions about its intentions. They have proposed an incremental approach, refusing to rule out sanctions.
U.S. officials have said the threat of military action must also remain on the table.
Russia and China, both allies of Iran, oppose sanctions. They wanted any council statement to make explicit that the IAEA, not the Security Council, must take the lead in confronting Iran.
The draft circulated to the council calls upon Iran to "resolve outstanding questions, and underlines ... the particular importance of re-establishing full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities."
Still, it removed language that China and Russia opposed.
The text removes language saying that proliferation is a threat to international peace and security. Also gone is a mention that the council is specifically charged under the U.N. charter with addressing such threats.
Russia and China had opposed that language from the start because they wanted nothing in the statement that could automatically trigger council action after 30 days.
"For the time being we have suspicions," Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov said. "So from that point of view, it is like a ladder. If you want to climb up, you must step on the first step, and then the second, and not try to leap."
Anyone got shivers over this? I didn;t think so. This is more bureaucratic wrangling that's going to give Iran more time. So, the games begin. I understand the idea of taking a diplomatic route towards Iran. But where are the teeth. If the world has supposedly looked at Iran and said "knock it off, or else," then can someone please point out where the "or else" is? Anyone?
The UN ambassadors concede that they don't know what the consequences will be. Can we afford to go through this whole dog-and-pony show again? Did we not learn this lesson with Iraq? While we diddled away over the proper diplomatic route, what is considered "material breach," and other retarded ideas, Saddam was able to build his WMDs, and on the brink of a war he knew he was going to lose, he got rid of them. Some in Syria, some possibly in Iran; maybe Jordan and Saudi Arabia, as well. We don't know exactly where they went. But too much corroboration within the Saddam documents, the work of investigative journalists, and those who once served under Saddam all make the same claim. He had them, and got rid of them in the run-up to the war.
Can we afford this with Iran? Let's consider a worse scenario. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Iran takes less time than the 12 year record Saddam racked up with the UN. But by the time we move for action, Iran unveils our nightmare: the ability to create a nuclear weapon, and the ability to reproduce them. Scary prospect, huh? Experts place Iran's ability to do this within the next nine-to-twenty-four months. Up to two years.
I'm not out cruising for a fight here, but damn, I would have thought that the bureaucrats would have remembered what their dithering led to three years ago. Do we want to do that? No. If asked, will we? I wouldn't, but it's likely that we would. The future isn't written here, folks. I call things as I see them. This "order" from the UN Security Council is going to be met with derision from Tehran. They know that the UN is not ready to escalate this confrontation to violence. But, then again, Tehran doesn't want to risk a confrontation, either.
Fine, they have thirty days to show compliance. We'll see, but I'm not holding my breath over an Iranian change of heart.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home