Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
UN Resolution 1929 - Sanctions on Iran
#1
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:
Quote: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:
Quote: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:
Quote: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:
Quote: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
Peter Presland

".....there is something far worse than Nazism, and that is the hubris of the Anglo-American fraternities, whose routine is to incite indigenous monsters to war, and steer the pandemonium to further their imperial aims"
Guido Preparata. Preface to 'Conjuring Hitler'[size=12][size=12]
"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied"
Claud Cockburn

[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Reply
#2
Seems like China and Russia have been coerced into this by the US, Britain and you know who and they voted for the resolution in order to buy more time.

Maybe something like "vote our way or Iran will be attacked by next week".

The evil empire still needs a plausible pretext to attack Iran though. I'm sure they'll invent one.
Reply
#3
Russia and China screwed up, they misread the strategic situation and US intentions, and were suckered into thinking the sanctions were cosmetic rather than substantive. In exhcange they surely received "assurances" from the CIA regime led by Barry Soetoro of "non-aggression" and "mutual assistance." It feels like the calm before the solar storm, to this Martian.
Reply
#4
Frankly I can't help suspecting that there are much deeper things than alluded to by Mark and Helen in all this.

Russia especially has been behaving very strangely these past couple of years. Ostensible indignant posturing over 'anti'-missile missile systems in Eastern Europe - and a host of other things - but no significant action.

There is deep collusion going on here I fear.

As for China - I just don't know. They seem to take action over the US/Taiwan arms thing - Korea too to a degree - but then it all just fizzles and they roll over.

That Chussudovsky article linked in my opening post is a 'Must Read' on the subject IMHO
Peter Presland

".....there is something far worse than Nazism, and that is the hubris of the Anglo-American fraternities, whose routine is to incite indigenous monsters to war, and steer the pandemonium to further their imperial aims"
Guido Preparata. Preface to 'Conjuring Hitler'[size=12][size=12]
"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied"
Claud Cockburn

[/SIZE][/SIZE]
Reply
#5
Peter Presland Wrote:Frankly I can't help suspecting that there are much deeper things than alluded to by Mark and Helen in all this.

Russia especially has been behaving very strangely these past couple of years. Ostensible indignant posturing over 'anti'-missile missile systems in Eastern Europe - and a host of other things - but no significant action.

There is deep collusion going on here I fear.

Serious courtship by the US: help us isolate China and there will be benefits, up to and including NATO membership, presumably.

The inevitable note of caution: we don't know the full range of US incentives and inducements. My guess would be that the US has traded quite a bit to get this resolution through.

Peter Presland Wrote:As for China - I just don't know. They seem to take action over the US/Taiwan arms thing - Korea too to a degree - but then it all just fizzles and they roll over.

The most remarkable feature is the degree of political control exercised over the Chinese military: will this hold?
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"

Joseph Fouche
Reply
#6
There is a bill about to go through the US to apply sanctions against China if they don't reduce the value of their currency. US rent-a-politician say it is too over valued and bad for US trade.

Besides that there could be some other serious pressure or black mail on them.
Alternatively they are pissed of with Iran for some reason.
Certainly, something fishy in the state of.....Denmark?
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.

“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Reply
#7
Iran and the Balkans: Russia Risks Making the Same Mistakes
UN Security Council Resolution Slapping Sanctions on Iran: Defeat for Russian Diplomacy

by Pyotr Iskenderov


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=19693

Quote:The recent UN Security Council resolution slapping new sanctions on Iran is likely to become the worst defeat suffered by the Russian diplomacy over the past years. Its negative impact may be persistent and more serious than that of the proclamation of Kosovo's independence to which Russia continues objecting. What we are witnessing seems to be an unexpected recurrence of the syndrome of unilateral concessions to the West which eroded Russia's international politics, especially its Balkan part, in the 1990ies. Following the Western lead in dealing with Iran, Russia is risking to lose both its positions in a region much more extensive than the Balkans and its hard-earned key role in the raising multipolar world.

Commenting on the vote in the UN Security Council (where Russia's BRIC peer Brazil and NATO member Turkey voted against the sanctions), the influential Tehran Times wrote: “The fact that Turkey and Brazil, two U.S. allies, voted against the resolution provides further proof that the actions against Iran and the latest decision of the Security Council are based on secret deals struck by the major powers. Thus, those who say the U.S. abandoned its Eastern European missile shield plan in order to win the support of Russia were probably correct”.

In 2009, the Russian foreign ministry was on a number of occasions forced to deny that — as Western media kept suggesting — there existed a «missile defense for Iran» swap deal. Indeed, it probably did not exist as a formalized agreement, but the truth is that at a certain moment Russia adopted a much tougher stance on Iran and froze its arms transactions with the country (suspending the supply of the S-300 air defense systems), as well as that currently Moscow risks loosing its strategic partner in the Middle East without any visible reasons for such sacrifice. Can the invisible reason be an obscure deal with US President B. Obama?

Recent developments signal a complicated array of shifts in the region and outside of it. The mediation successfully undertaken by Turkey and Brazil in the talks over the enrichment of Iran's uranium stockpile outside of the country, the escalation in the Middle East, the tensions between Turkey and Israel, new geopolitical maneuvers around the Karabakh settlement and related energy projects (in which Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan, the country with a special position, are to play the key roles) altogether confront the US with the threat of isolation and loss of leadership. As for Iran, it is no secret that the three rounds of sanctions imposed on the country in 2006-2008 failed to undermine its capability to implement a nuclear program, which has become an element of the Iranian national identity. There are no indications that the situation is going to change from Iran's perspective this time.

The situation is going to change from Russia's perspective, though, and certainly for the worse. Loosing Iran, demonstratively distancing itself from the Turkish-Brazilian mediation (for which President Medvedev expressed support previously), and siding with the US Moscow put in jeopardy the political gains of the recent years such as independence and assertiveness in international politics and the clarity of geopolitical priorities. Voting for new sanctions and constructing the nuclear power plant in Bushehr at the same time is an example of the very double standards that Moscow justly rebelled against whenever it encountered them in Western policies.

Russia evidently tried to recoup some of its geopolitical losses immediately after the vote in the UN Security Council. Russia's foreign ministry promptly posted an extensive comment saying: “However, we can’t ignore the signals indicating that some partners intend, almost immediately after the decision in New York, to move to considering additional sanctions against Iran, more stringent than those provided by the UNSC resolution. We regard this as the manifestation of a policy that runs counter to the principles of joint work within the Six and the UNSC format. Unacceptable to us are attempts in such a way to place oneself “above” the Security Council. We also categorically reject any national decisions on the imposition of “extraterritorial sanctions,” i.e., restrictive measures under one’s own legislation with regard to individuals and legal entities in third countries. Such decisions, should they affect Russian legal entities or individuals, would entail retaliatory response by us.

The new resolution leaves extensive room for further cooperation with Iran in the trade and economic field and on energy, transport and peaceful space exploration. As applied to Russian-Iranian bilateral ties, all of these areas have significant potential and growth opportunities. Of fundamental importance for us is the further development of cooperation with Iran in the construction of light water reactors”.

The arguments seem OK but still reek of an attempt to save face. It is unlikely that the US and the EU, overwhelmed with gratitude to Russia, will in the future show greater respect for its interests or adapt to the Russian foreign ministry's position on Iran. The Russian diplomacy's pledges to go on cooperating with Iran would have been more credible if Russia at least abstained during the UN Security Council vote, as, for example, did Lebanon.

Washington pursued its own interests without exceptions throughout the Russian-US debates over Iran. Obama's decision against deploying missile defense infrastructures in Poland and the Czech Republic was predictable due to purely economic regards and did not take Russia's consent to sanctions against Iran. In fact, the missile defense program is still on but will employ more advanced technologies ensuring radar surveillance over a greater area. In the foreseeable future Russia will be confronted with an evasive network of mobile systems instead of two undisguised stationary installations. The Persian Gulf zone and the Black Sea region will be given key roles in the framework of the initiative. It did not go unnoticed that the US Administration carefully avoided linking any of the provisions of the New Start treaty with the state of the US missile defense program.

The most alarming aspect of the current situation is the analogy it invokes with the 1990-ies — early 2000i-es Balkan developments. In that epoch Russia also demanded on the formal level that all sides in the Balkan conflicts equally abide by the international law, called for compromises, and voted for sanctions in the UN Security Council, holding that this was the only way to stop escalations. The overall result was progressing imbalance in the Balkan and broader European security architecture. The norms declared were supposed to be mandatory for all nations, but the Serbs invariably ended up disadvantaged. The format of the international contact group which handled Balkan crises is frighteningly similar to that currently employed in dealing with Iran (the six-party talks). Russia was defeated in the five-party talks on Kosovo when it consented to the so-called three principles, one of them being that the situation should not revert to the 1999 condition. The provision was eventually used by the proponents of Kosovo independence to justify its unilateral declaration.

Now Russian envoys quite reasonably blame the UN and its Secretary General for being either reluctant or unable to address the Kosovo problem and charge the EU and the US with bias and unilateralism. But isn't the West demonstrating bias and acting unilaterally when it consents to the nuclear statuses of India and Pakistan, shields Israel from criticism over its nuclear program, but keeps pushing for ever tighter sanctions to be imposed on Iran?

The Balkan settlement has shown the inadequacy of international negotiating formats like five-party or six-party talks and the pointless character of UN discussions. In practice, the West relies entirely on its own mechanisms to promote its own geopolitical interests. Russia chose to be on the side of the US and the EU instead of strengthening its commercial ties with Iran (including the Caspian Sea delimitation and the energy projects), involving countries with unbiased positions in the talks over the Iranian nuclear dossier, and supporting the independent and successful mediation contributed by Turkey and Brazil. Will the US and the EU return the favor — for example, in the form of concessions in Kosovo, Caucasus, or energy politics? Based on the Balkan experience, it is clear that they will not.

Petr Iskenderov is a senior research fellow at the Institute for Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Science and an international commentator at Vremya Novstey and the Voice of Russia.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"

Joseph Fouche
Reply
#8
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-06-11/nato-r...istan.html

“NATO route is connected with Russia’s decision on Iran” – journalist

Quote:NATO has opened a new military supply route to Afghanistan which passes through Russia. At a meeting of the alliance's defence ministers, the bloc also signaled its eagerness to work with Moscow on missile defence.

Investigative journalist Giulietto Chiesa sees a connection between the opening new supply route and Russia’s decision to approve sanctions against Iran.

“This is a big gift that Russia is giving to President Obama, taking into account the very difficult situation that NATO is facing in south Afghanistan. This new road would be very important and comes at a very delicate moment,” Chiesa told RT.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"

Joseph Fouche
Reply
#9
Paul Rigby Wrote:Iran and the Balkans: Russia Risks Making the Same Mistakes
UN Security Council Resolution Slapping Sanctions on Iran: Defeat for Russian Diplomacy

by Pyotr Iskenderov


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=19693

Quote:The recent UN Security Council resolution slapping new sanctions on Iran is likely to become the worst defeat suffered by the Russian diplomacy over the past years. ...

That's what I said, sort of! Consider a thought experiment: Russian and Chinese intelligence estimates have the US collapsing by 2011.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070327/62697703.html

Quote:Russian intelligence sees U.S. military buildup on Iran border
Topic: Possible U.S. strike on Iran
17:31 27/03/2007
MOSCOW, March 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future.

A new U.S. carrier battle group has been dispatched to the Gulf.

The USS John C. Stennis, with a crew of 3,200 and around 80 fixed-wing aircraft, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, eight support ships and four nuclear submarines are heading for the Gulf, where a similar group led by the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has been deployed since December 2006.

The U.S. is also sending Patriot anti-missile systems to the region.

If it's a life-or-death struggle between USA and Iran... What would the most beneficial pre-placement of cards be?

It is almost a given that some large-scale deals are going on, Hillary in Beijing, Kaczynksi etc. How would Russia and China play poker here if they had "inside info" about the state of the US economy?
Reply
#10
Arabic original here:

http://islammemo.cc/akhbar/arab/2010/06/13/101841.html

Googlese translation to follow:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl...google.com

Quote:LONDON: newspaper, Yediot Aharanot, for massive arms deals between Moscow and Tel Aviv, noting that Russia will sign with the aerospace industries, "Israel" on the 3 arms deals in two years by 300 million euros for the production of unmanned aerial vehicles.

The paper quoted a spokesman for "Doron Sacelik" "Israeli" as saying: The company is involved in business deals of this kind with Russia, while refusing to discuss the details which such deals.

The paper disclosed that it is likely that Russia will buy weapons from companies, "Israel" and several other companies worth 12 billion dollars over the next five years.

Iranian freeze on the deal:

She added: As Russia's second military power in the world want to get different types of weapons and more sophisticated to keep pace with development in the field of armaments.

The Yedioth in another report it to the fact that the deal comes at a time in which it declared Russia's recent freeze on the sale of surface to air missiles and air defense systems of advanced type S 300 to Iran in implementation of Security Council resolution calling for tougher sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear program.

The Russian President has announced officially yesterday to freeze the deal after meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Elysee Palace, and after long discussions took place between them.

Add comment: It's certainly cynical enough to be plausible. And the US would have to give its permission...
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"

Joseph Fouche
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Baer predicts imminent Israeli attack on Iran Jan Klimkowski 1 3,123 01-08-2011, 10:44 AM
Last Post: Ed Jewett
  Israel stations Nuclear Subs near Iran Carsten Wiethoff 3 4,443 16-06-2010, 08:54 PM
Last Post: Ed Jewett
  Deadline for Iran compliance moved forward to September Mark Stapleton 4 2,336 19-08-2009, 06:57 AM
Last Post: Mark Stapleton
  WHICH PATH TO PERSIA? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran Magda Hassan 5 3,020 01-07-2009, 06:23 PM
Last Post: Jan Klimkowski
  What hath USA wrought? Blowback upon blowback....?! Iran NOW! Peter Lemkin 1 2,012 14-06-2009, 05:03 PM
Last Post: David Guyatt
  Iran crosses red line, can enrich uranium up to 20pc grade Peter Presland 0 4,364 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  Israel Dolphins Subs off Iran (200kt nukes) 0 79 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  A coup in Turkey before any attack on Iran ?? Peter Presland 0 5,274 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  Iran Begins Loading Fuel at its Bushehr Nuclear Reactor Keith Millea 0 1,960 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  Iran Crosses Into Iraq to Attack Parade Bombing Suspects Ed Jewett 0 1,759 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)