UN Resolution 1929 - Sanctions on Iran

[Peter Presland]

I'm mystified by the latest UN shenanigans over Iran.

One view has it that the US is peed off that China and/or Russia did not veto the increased sanctions resolution. The argument being that it still allows Russia to supply a viable air defence system and pull the rug from under what the US/Israel REALLY want, which is a military attack.

The other - best expounded by Michael Chussudovsky in yesterday's Global Research piece - is that Russia and China have been effectively neutered, if not fully co-opted memners of the push for a NWO based on the vast globalised military capability of the US.

So which is it?

Not only did China and Russia NOT use their voto. They both voted in favour:

Russia:

VITALY CHURKIN ( Russian Federation) said his vote in favour had been guided by his country’s consistent position on the need for to resolve through dialogue all questions involving Iran’s nuclear programme. Hopefully Iran would see the resolution as an appeal to launch substantial negotiations to clarify all issues and to fulfil its responsibilities towards IAEA and the Security Council. The Russian Federation would continue to make significant efforts to promote dialogue and the resolution of all such problems.

China:

LI BAODONG (China) said that, like previous texts, the current one reflected international concerns as well as the desire of all parties to resolve the matter through dialogue and negotiations. China therefore called on all States to implement the resolution fully and effectively. However, any actions undertaken must be conducive to stability in the Middle East, must not affect the daily lives of the Iranian people, must be commensurate with Iran’s actual practice in the nuclear field, and must respect all international norms on nuclear matters.

Iran:

MOHAMMAD KHAZAEE (Iran) said that his nation had endured unfair pressures for many years due to the aggression of some of the same countries that supported today’s resolution. He pointed specifically to a suit by the United Kingdom which had claimed that the nationalization of Iran’s oil endangered international peace, and the subsequent United States-supported coup, mounted under a similar pretext of maintaining international peace, which had reinstated the dictatorship of the Shah. The clear message was that no one should be allowed to endanger the vital interests of the capitalist world, he asserted.

The similarity of those efforts was that the United States and United Kingdom were, then as now, trying to deprive Iran of its absolute right to achieve energy self-sufficiency, he said. However, the difference was that today Iran was more powerful and enjoyed greater support among its people, who had enjoyed three decades of political experience, a scientific, cultural and industrial renaissance, and the support of the overwhelming majority of nations.

Recalling also the support that the United States had offered Iraq in its war with his country, he said that the Security Council Powers that had refused to take action against Iraq’s use of chemical weapons in that conflict were the same ones that had imposed today’s resolution. Weapons of mass destruction were religiously proscribed in Iran, which was committed to strengthening the Non-Proliferation Treaty, while remaining determined to exercise its right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

He said there was robust cooperation with IAEA, with more than 4,500 person-day inspections permitted since 2003. But even so, a few Western countries continued their provocative behaviour, exemplified by the politically motivated reactions to the deal for the supply of fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. However, Iran still responded positively to the efforts of Turkey and Brazil, which had pursued that deal in good faith, leading to a declaration on the exchange of fuel. But instead of welcoming that agreement, the hostile Powers had immediately introduced the current resolution.

The Council had been turned into the tool of a few countries which did not hesitate to abuse it, he said. Those countries should provide answers about their behaviour, including their threats of force against Iran. Their prevention of Council action against the criminal Israeli regime, which daily issued such threats, indicated double standards, he said, maintaining that his own country was merely trying to exercise its legal and inalienable rights, while Israel violated the most basic principles of international law, as demonstrated by the Goldstone Report and the recent “flotilla massacre”. Iran would never bow to hostile actions and pressures on the part of a few Powers, and would continue to defend its rights, he vowed.

And get this from the UK:

Mr. LYALL GRANT (United Kingdom) said in response that Iran’s “distorted account of history and personal attacks against my country” only demeaned that representative. In fact, his statement seemed to be an attempt not to respond to the concerns of the international community and the specific concerns set out in Council resolutions about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The Iranian delegate’s attacks were an insult to the Council and all those who had sought a negotiated settlement over the past four years. “I hope that on more sober reflection, Iran will respond honestly to the questions asked by the Council over the past four years about its nuclear programme [and] will engage more positively with the Council.”

Pretend you are a disinterested Martian (or Vesuvian - or whatever) observer with objective knowledge of planet Earth's history. Which of those contributions has the ring of accuracy and truth about it? And which the stench of 'do as I say, not as I do hypocricy? - apart from the UK that is, which frankly is in a class of its own