Image by jesuscm via Flickr
http://www.inteldaily.com/news/172/ARTICLE/11842/2009-09-16.html
|
(The Intelligence Daily) -- Tensions are mounting in the Black Sea with the threat of another conflict between U.S. and NATO client state Georgia and Russia as Washington is manifesting plans for possible military strikes against Iran in both word and deed.
Referring to Georgia having recently impounded several vessels off the Black Sea coast of Abkhazia, reportedly 23 in total this year, the New York Times wrote on September 9 that “Rising tensions between Russia and Georgia over shipping rights to a breakaway Georgian region have opened a potential new theater for conflict between the countries, a little more than a year after they went to war.” [1]
Abkhazian President Sergei Bagapsh ordered his nation’s navy to respond to Georgia’s forceful seizure of civilian ships in neutral waters, calling such actions what they are – piracy – by confronting and if need be sinking Georgian navy and coast guard vessels. The Georgian and navy and coast guard are trained by the United States and NATO.
The spokesman of the Russian Foreign Ministry addressed the dangers inherent in Georgia’s latest provocations by warning “They risk aggravating the military and political situation in the region and could result in serious armed incidents.” [2]
On September 15 Russia announced that its “border guards will detain all vessels that violate Abkhazia’s maritime border….” [3]
Russia would be not only entitled but obligated to provide such assistance to neighboring Abkhazia as “Under mutual assistance treaties signed last November, Russia pledged to help Abkhazia and South Ossetia protect their borders, and the signatories granted each other the right to set up military bases in their respective territories.” [4]
In attempting to enforce a naval blockade – the International Criminal Court plans to include blockades against coasts and ports in its list of acts of war this year [5] – against Abkhazia, the current Georgian regime of Mikheil Saakashvili is fully aware that Russia is compelled by treaty and national interests alike to respond. Having been roundly defeated in its last skirmish with Russia, the five-day war in August of last year, Tbilisi would never risk actions like its current ones without a guarantee of backing from the U.S. and NATO.
Days after last year’s war ended then U.S. Senator and now Vice President Joseph Biden flew into the Georgian capital to pledge $1 billion in assistance to the nation, making Georgia the third largest recipient of American foreign aid after Egypt and Israel.
U.S. and NATO warships poured into the Black Sea in August of 2008 and American ships visited the Georgia port cities of Batumi and Poti to deliver what Washington described as civilian aid but which Russian sources suspected contained replacements for military equipment lost in the conflict.
Less than a month after the war ended NATO sent a delegation to Georgia to “evaluate damage to military infrastructure following a five-day war between Moscow and Tbilisi….” [6]
In December a meeting of NATO foreign ministers agreed upon a special Annual National Program for Georgia and in the same month Washington announced the creation of the United States-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership.
In the past week a top-level delegation of NATO defense and logistics experts visited Georgia on September 9 “to promote the development of the Georgian Armed Forces” [7] and on September 14 high-ranking officials of the U.S. George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies arrived at the headquarters of the Georgian Ministry of Defense “to review issues of interdepartmental coordination in the course of security sector management and national security revision.” [8]
The ongoing military integration of Georgia and neighboring Azerbaijan, which also borders Iran – Washington’s Georgetown University is holding a conference on Strategic Partnership between U.S. and Azerbaijan: Bilateral and Regional Criteria on September 18 – by the Pentagon and NATO is integrally connected with general military plans in the Black Sea and the Caucasus regions as a whole and, even more ominously, with joint war plans against Iran.
As early as January of 2007 reports on that score surfaced in Bulgarian and Romanian news sources. Novinite (Sofia News Agency) reported that the Pentagon “could be using its two air force bases in Bulgaria and one on Romania’s Black Sea coast to launch an attack on Iran….” [9]
The bases are the Bezmer and Graf Ignitievo airbases in Bulgaria and the Mihail Kogalniceanu counterpart near the Romanian city of Constanza on the Black Sea.
The Pentagon has seven new bases altogether in Bulgaria and Romania and in addition to stationing warplanes – F-15s, F-16s and A-10 Thunderbolts – has 3,000-5,000 troops deployed in the two nations at any given time, and Washington established its Joint Task Force-East (JTF-East) permanent headquarters at the Mihail Kogalniceanu airbase in Romania.
A U.S. government website provides these details about Joint Task Force-East:
“All U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force training operations in Romania and Bulgaria will fall under the command of JTF–East, which in turn is under the command of USEUCOM [United States European Command]. Physically located in Romania and Bulgaria, JTF East will include a small permanent headquarters (in Romania) consisting of approximately 100-300 personnel who will oversee rotations of U.S. Army brigade-sized units and U.S. Air Force Weapons Training Deployments (WTD). Access to Romanian and Bulgarian air and ground training facilities will provide JTF-East forces the opportunity to train and interact with military forces throughout the entire 92-country USEUCOM area of responsibility. U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) and U.S Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) are actively involved in establishing JTF-East.” [10]
The four military bases in Romania and three in Bulgaria that the Pentagon and NATO have gained indefinite access to since the two nations were incorporated into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 2004 allow for full spectrum operations: Infantry deployments in the area and downrange to Afghanistan and Iraq, runways for bombers and fighter jets, docking facilities for American and NATO warships including Aegis class interceptor missile vessels, training grounds for Western special forces and for foreign armed forces being integrated into NATO.
Added to bases and troops provided by Turkey and Georgia – and in the future Ukraine – the Bulgarian and Romanian sites are an integral component of plans by the U.S. and its allies to transform the Black Sea into NATO territory with only the Russian coastline not controlled by the Alliance. And that of newly independent Abkhazia, which makes control of that country so vital.
Last week the Romanian defense ministry announced the intention to acquire between 48 and 54 new generation fighter jets – American F-16s and F-35s have been mentioned – as part of “a new strategy for buying multi-role aircraft, which means to first buy aircraft to make the transition to fifth generation equipment, over the coming 10-12 years.” [11]
With the recent change in government in the former Soviet republic of Moldova – the aftermath of this April’s violent “Twitter Revolution” – the new parliamentary speaker, Mihai Ghimpu, has openly spoken of the nation merging with, which is to say being absorbed by, neighboring Romania. Transdniester [the Pridnestrovian Moldovan Republic] broke away from Moldova in 1990 exactly because of the threat of being pulled into Romania and fighting ensued which cost the lives of some 1,500 persons.
Romania is now a member of NATO and should civil war erupt in Moldova and/or fighting flare up between Moldova and Transdniester and Romania sends troops – all but a certainty – NATO can activate its Article 5 military clause to intervene. There are 1,200 Russian peacekeepers in Transdniester.
Transdniester’s neighbor to its east is Ukraine, linked with Moldova through the U.S.-concocted GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova) bloc, which has been collaborating in enforcing a land blockade against Transdniester. Ukraine’s President Viktor Yushchenko, whose poll ratings are currently in the low single digits, is hellbent on dragging his nation into NATO against overwhelming domestic opposition and can be counted on to attack Transdniester from the eastern end if a conflict breaks out.
A Moldovan news source last week quoted an opposition leader issuing this dire warning:
“Moldova’s ethnic minorities are categorically against unification with Romania.
“If we, those who are not ethnic Moldovans, will have to defend Moldova’s statehood, then we will find powerful allies outside Moldova, including in
Russia. Along with it, Ukraine, Turkey and Bulgaria would be involved in this fighting. Last year we all witnessed how Russia defended the interests of
its nationals in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Why does somebody believe that in case of a civil war in Moldova Russia will simply watch how its nationals are dying? Our task is to prevent such developments.” [12]
Indeed, the entire Black Sea and Caucasus regions could go up in flames if Western proxies in GUAM attack any of the so-called frozen conflict nations – Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Georgia, Nagorno Karabakh by Azerbaijan and Transdniester by Moldova and Ukraine. A likely possibility is that all four would be attacked simultaneously and in unison.
An opportunity for that happening would be a concentrated attack on Iran, which borders Azerbaijan and Armenia. The latter, being the protector of Nagorno Karabakh, would immediately become a belligerent if Azerbaijan began military hostilities against Karabakh.
On September 15 news stories revealed that the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, DC, founded in 2007 by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole and George Mitchell, had released a report which in part stated, “If biting sanctions do not persuade the Islamic Republic to demonstrate sincerity in negotiations and give up its enrichment activities, the White House will have to begin serious consideration of the option of a U.S.-led military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.” [13]
The report was authored by Charles Robb, a former Democratic senator from Virginia, Daniel Coats, former Republican senator from Indiana, and retired General Charles Wald, a former deputy commander of the U.S. European Command.
Iran is to be given 60 days to in essence abandon its civilian nuclear power program and if it doesn’t capitulate the Obama administration should “prepare overtly for any military option” which would include “deploying an additional aircraft carrier battle group to the waters off Iran and conducting joint exercises with U.S. allies.” [14]
The main Iranian nuclear reactor is being constructed at Bushehr and would be a main target of any U.S. and Israeli bombing and missile attacks. As of 2006 there were 3,700 Russian experts and technicians – and their families – living in the environs of the facility.
It has been assumed for the past eight years that a military attack on Iran would be launched by the United States from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf and by long-range Israeli bombers flying over Iraq and Turkey.
During that period the U.S. and its NATO allies have also acquired access to airbases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan (in Baluchistan, bordering Iran), Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan in addition to those they already have in Turkey.
Washington and Brussels have also expanded their military presence into Bulgaria, Georgia and Romania on the Black Sea and into Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea bordering northeastern Iran.
Plans for massive military aggression against Iran, then, might include air and missile strikes from locations much nearer the nation than previously suspected.
The American Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced plans last week to supply Turkey, the only NATO member state bordering Iran, with almost $8 billion dollars worth of theater interceptor missiles, of the upgraded and longer-range PAC-3 (Patriot Advance Capability-3) model. The project includes delivering almost 300 Patriots for deployment at twelve command posts inside Turkey.
In June the Turkish government confirmed that NATO AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) planes would be deployed in its Konya province.
The last time AWACS and Patriot missiles were sent to Turkey was in late 2002 and early 2003 in preparation for the invasion of Iraq.
On September 15 the newspaper of the U.S. armed forces, Stars and Stripes, ran an article titled “U.S., Israeli forces to test missile defense while Iran simmers,” which included these details on the biannual Juniper Cobra war games:
“Some 1,000 U.S. European Command troops will soon deploy to Israel for a large-scale missile defense exercise with Israeli forces.
“This year’s Juniper Cobra comes at a time of continued concern about Iran’s nuclear program, which will be the subject of talks in October.
“The U.S. troops, from all four branches of service, will work alongside an equal number of Israel Defense Force personnel, taking part in computer-simulated war games….Juniper Cobra will test a variety of air and missile defense technology during next month’s exercise, including the U.S.-controlled X-Band.” [15]
The same feature documented that this month’s exercise is the culmination of months of buildup.
“In April, about 100 Europe-based personnel took part in a missile defense exercise that for the first time incorporated a U.S.-owned radar system, which
was deployed to the country in October 2008. The U.S. X-Band radar is intended to give Israel early warning in the event of a missile launch from Iran.
“For nearly a year, a mix of troops and U.S. Defense Department contractors have been managing the day-to-day operation of the X-Band, which is situated at
Nevatim air base in the Negev Desert.” [16]
The same publication revealed two days earlier that the Pentagon conducted a large-scale counterinsurgency exercise with the 173rd Airborne Brigade and the 12th Combat Aviation Brigade last week in Germany, “the largest such exercise ever held by the U.S. military outside of the United States….” [17] The two units are scheduled for deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, but could be diverted to Iran, which has borders with both nations, should need arise.
What the role of Black Sea NATO states and clients could be in a multinational, multi-vectored assault on Iran was indicated in the aftermath of last year’s Georgian-Russian war.
At a news conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels a year ago, Russian ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin “said that Russian intelligence had
obtained information indicating that the Georgian military infrastructure could be used for logistical support of U.S. troops if they launched an attack on Iran.” [18]
Rogozin was further quoted as saying, “What NATO is doing now in Georgia is restoring its ability to monitor its airspace, in other words restoring the whole locator system and an anti-missile defence system which were destroyed by Russian artillery.
“[The restoration of surveillance systems and airbases in Georgia is being] done for logistic support of some air operations either of the Alliance as a whole or of the United States in particular in this region. The swift reconstruction of the airfields and all the systems proves that some air operation is being planned against another country which is located not far from Georgia….” [19]
Early last October Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of the Russian Security Council “described the U.S. and NATO policy of increasing their military presence in Eastern Europe as seeking strategic military superiority over Russia.
“The official added that the United States would need allies in the region if the country decided to attack Iran.” [20]
Patrushev stated, “If it decides to carry out missile and bomb attacks against Iran, the US will need loyal allies. And if Georgia is involved in this war, this will pose additional threats to Russia’s national security.” [21]
Later last October an Azerbaijani website reported that 100 Iranian Air Force jets were exercising near the nation’s border and that “military sources from the United States reported that territories in Azerbaijan and in Georgia may be used for attacking Iran….” [22]
Writing in The Hindu the same month Indian journalist Atul Aneja wrote of the effects of the Georgian-Russian war of the preceding August and offered this information:
“Russia’s military assertion in Georgia and a show of strength in parts of West Asia [Middle East], combined with domestic political and economic preoccupations in Washington, appear to have forestalled the chances of
an immediate strike against Iran.
“Following Russia’s movement into South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev acknowledged that Moscow was aware that serious plans to attack Iran had been laid out. ‘We know that certain players are planning an attack against Iran. But we oppose any unilateral step and [a] military
solution to the nuclear crisis.’
“Russia seized control of two airfields in Georgia from where air strikes against Iran were being planned. The Russian forces also apparently recovered weapons and Israeli spy drones that would have been useful for the surveillance of possible Iranian targets.” [23]
The same newspaper, in quoting Dmitry Rogozin asserting that Russian military intelligence had captured documents proving Washington had launched “active military preparations on Georgia’s territory” for air strikes against Iran, added information on Israeli involvement:
“Israel had supplied Georgia with sophisticated Hermes 450 UAV spy drones, multiple rocket launchers and other military equipment that Georgia, as well as
modernised Georgia’s Soviet-made tanks that were used in the attack against South Ossetia. Israeli instructors had also helped train Georgia troops.” [24]
Rather than viewing the wars of the past decade – against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq – and the concomitant expansion of U.S. and NATO military presence inside all three countries and in several others on their peripheries as an unrelated series of events, the trend must be seen for what it is: A consistent and calculated strategy of employing each successive war zone as a launching pad for new aggression.
The Pentagon has major military bases in Kosovo, in Afghanistan and in Iraq that it never intends to abandon. The U.S. and its NATO allies have bases in Bulgaria, Romania, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait, Bahrain (where the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet is headquartered) and other nations in the vicinity of the last ten years’ wars which can be used for the next ten – or twenty or thirty – years’ wars.
1) New York Times, September 9, 2009
2) Ibid
3) Russian Information Agency Novosti, September 15, 2009
4) Ibid
5) Wikipedia
6) Agence France-Presse, September 8, 2009
7) Trend News Agency, September 9, 2009
8) Georgia Ministry of Defence, September 14, 2009
9) Turkish Daily News, January 30, 2007
10) U.S. Department of State
11) The Financiarul, September 9, 2009
12) Infotag, September 11, 2009
13) Bloomberg News, September 15, 2009
14) Ibid
15) Stars and Stripes, September 15, 2009
16) Ibid
17) Stars and Stripes, September 13, 2009
18) Russian Information Agency Novosti, September 17, 2008
19) Russia Today, September 17, 2008
20) Russian Information Agency Novosti, October 1, 2008
21) Fars News Agency, October 2, 2008
22) Today.AZ, October 20, 2008
23) The Hindu, October 13, 2008
24) The Hindu, September 19, 2008
Ahmadinejad Rants to UN on U.S. Foreign Policy, Structure of Security Council
http://vitalperspective.typepad.com/vital_perspective_clarity/2006/09/ahmadinejad_ran.html
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke late on Tuesday to the UN General Assembly, where he focused on "a few examples of the most pressing global issues: the unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; occupation of countries and exacerbation of hostilities; and lack of respect for the rights of members of the international community." He argued against U.S. foreign policy and against American and British membership on the Security Council. He also worked in subtle arguments against the Security Council's legitimacy. The full translated text of his remarks are below.
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Madame President, distinguished heads of state and government, distinguished heads of delegation, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. I praise the merciful, all-knowing and Almighty God for blessing me with another opportunity to address this assembly on behalf of the great nation of Iran, and to bring a number of issues to the attention of the international community. I also praise the Almighty for the increasing vigilance of peoples across the globe, their courageous presence in different international settings, and the brave expression of their views and aspirations regarding global issues.
Today humanity passionately craves commitment to the truth, devotion to God, quest for justice, and respect for the dignity of human beings. Rejection of domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed, and longing for peace constitute the legitimate demand of the peoples of the world, particularly the new generations and the spirited youth who aspire to a world free from decadence, aggression and injustice, and replete with love and compassion.
The youth have a right to seek justice and the truth, and they have the right to build their own future on the foundations of love, compassion and tranquility, and I praise the Almighty for this immense blessing.
Madame President, Excellencies, what afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity. The Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against others and oppress them. By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.
Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger.
Some occupy the homeland of others thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes, their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country, and their homes reduced to rubble. Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the truth, to justice and to human dignity.
The fundamental question is that under such conditions, where should the oppressed seek justice? Who or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is the seat of global justice?
A brief glance at a few examples of the most pressing global issues can further illustrate the problem. A, the unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Some powers proudly announce the production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or are these weapons in fact instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments?
How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals?
Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these instruments of death? Aren't wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons?
If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away, and no reason will remain for conflict.
This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice and from the powerful not being contented with their own rights striving to devour the rights of others. People across the globe embrace justice and are willing to sacrifice for its sake.
Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of justice, compassion and peace, than through continuing the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their use?
The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is before us. Has it achieved anything for the perpetrators, other than the exacerbation of tension, hatred and animosity among nations?
B, occupation of countries and exacerbation of hostilities. Occupation of countries, including Iraq, has continued for the last three years. Not a day goes by without hundreds of people getting killed in cold blood. The occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq. Despite the establishment of the lawful government and National Assembly of Iraq, there are covert and overt efforts to heighten insecurity, magnify and aggravate differences within Iraqi society, and instigate civil strife.
There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability.
Numerous terrorists were apprehended by the government of Iraq, only to be let loose under the various pretexts by the occupiers.
It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq. Where can the people of Iraq seek refuge, and from whom should the government of Iraq seek justice? Who can ensure Iraq's security? Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire region. Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and security in Iraq, while the occupiers are themselves permanent members of the council? Can the Security Council adopt a fair decision in this regard?
Consider the situation in Palestine. The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the second world war. Under the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that war, the land of Palestine was occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants. It was placed under the control of some of the war survivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in the world who had not been even affected by the second world war, and a government was established in the territory of others with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and homelessness.
This is a great tragedy, and with hardly a precedent in history. Refugees continue to live in temporary refugee camps, and many have died still hoping to one day return to their land. Can any logic, law or legal reasoning justify this tragedy? Can any member of the United Nations accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland?
The pretexts for the creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods Al- Sharif are so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice trying to merely speak about them, as they are concerned that the shedding light on the facts would undermine the raison d'etre of this regime, as it has.
The tragedy does not end with the establishment of a regime in the territory of others. Regrettably, from its inception that regime has been a constant source of threat and insecurity in the Middle East region, waging war and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries, and has also been used by some powers as an instrument of division, coercion, and pressure on the people of the region.
Reference to these historical realities may cause some disquiet among supporters of this regime, but these are sheer facts and not myth. History has unfolded before our eyes.
Worse yet is the blanket and unwarranted support provided to this regime. Just watch what is happening in the Palestinian land. People are being bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and alleys. But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support or protection. Why?
At the same time, a government is formed democratically and through the free choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory. But instead of receiving the support of the so-called champions of democracy, its ministers and its members of parliament are illegally abducted and incarcerated in full view of the international community. Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally besieged government? And why can't the Security Council take any steps?
Let me here address Lebanon. For 33 long days, the Lebanese lived under the barrage of fire and bombs, and close to 1.5 million of them were displaced. Meanwhile, some members of the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the aggressor to achieve its objectives militarily.
We witnessed that the Security Council of the United Nations was practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for a cease- fire. The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were persistently repeated. Why? In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this council fulfill its responsibilities?
C, lack of respect for the rights of members of the international community. Excellencies, I now wish to refer to some of the grievances of the Iranian people and speak to the injustices against them.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the NPT. All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors. Why then are there objections to our legally recognized rights? Which governments object to these rights? Governments that themselves benefit from nuclear energy and the fuel cycle.
Some of them have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends, including the production of nuclear bombs. And some even have a bleak record of using them against humanity.
Which organization or council should address these injustices? Is the Security Council in a position to address them? Can it stop violations of the inalienable rights of countries? Can it prevent certain powers from impeding scientific progress of other countries?
The abuse of the Security Council as an instrument of threat and coercion is indeed a source of grave concern. Some permanent members of the Security Council, even when they are themselves parties to international disputes, conveniently threaten others with the Security Council and declare, even before any decision by the council, the condemnation of their opponents by the council. The question is: What can justify such exploitation of the Security Council, and doesn't it erode the credibility and effectiveness of the council? Can such behavior contribute to the ability of the council to maintain security?
Excellencies, a review of the preceding historical realities would lead to the conclusion that, regrettably, justice has become a victim of force and aggression. Many global arrangements have become unjust, discriminatory and irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from some of the powerful.
Threats with nuclear weapons and other instruments of war by some powers have taken the place of respect for the rights of nations and the maintenance and promotion of peace and tranquility.
For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and intimidation against other nations. But when it comes to the interests of the claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of nations, respect for the rights and intelligence of peoples, international law and justice have no place or value.
This is blatantly manifested in the way the elected government of the Palestinian people is treated, as well as in the support extended to the Zionist regime. It does not matter if people are murdered in Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned or besieged; that apparently does not violate human rights.
Nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent upon the whim of certain major powers. Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. But when the oppressed are decimated under bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a cease-fire.
Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council, which is charged with maintaining the security of countries?
The prevailing order of contemporary global interaction is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community and consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world, and other nations as only second class in the world order.
Excellencies, the question needs to asked: if the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the U.N. can take them to account? Can a council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council, and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner.
Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice? Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing their exclusionist policies on the international decision-making mechanisms, including the Security Council, has resulted in the growing mistrust in global public opinion, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of this most universal system of collective security.
Excellencies, how long can such a situation last in the world? It is evident that the behavior of some powers constitutes the greatest challenge before the Security Council, the entire organization and its affiliated agencies. The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity.
Today it is undeniable that the Security Council most critically and urgently needs legitimacy and effectiveness.
It must be acknowledged that as long as the council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective.
Furthermore, the direct relation between the abuse of veto and the erosion of the legitimacy and effectiveness of the council has now been clearly and undeniably established. We cannot, and should not, expect the eradication, or even containment, of injustice, imposition and oppression without reforming the structure and working methods of the council.
Is it appropriate to expect this generation to submit to the decisions and arrangements established over half a century ago? Doesn't this generation or future generations have the right to decide themselves about the world in which they want to live?
Today, serious reform in the structure and working methods of the Security Council is, more than ever before, necessary. Justice and democracy dictate that the role of the General Assembly, as the highest organ of the United Nations, must be respected. The General Assembly can then, through appropriate mechanisms, take on the task of reforming the organization and particularly rescue the Security Council from its current state.
In the interim, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African continent should each have a representative as a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege. The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.
Madame President, Excellencies, it is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the teachings of the divine prophets, justice, freedom and human rights cannot be guaranteed.
Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety. Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant objective, then injustice, ill temperament, aggression and war will fade away.
Human beings are all God's creatures and are all endowed with dignity and respect.
No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the "international community."
Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over six billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect. Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world. It is for this reason that we state: Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity.
All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security. We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.
All members of the United Nations are affected by both the bitter and the sweet events and developments in today's world.
We can adopt firm and logical decisions, thereby improving the prospects of a better life for current and future generations. Together, we can eradicate the roots of bitter maladies and afflictions and instead, through the promotion of universal and lasting values such as ethics, spirituality and justice, allow our nations to taste the sweetness of a better future.
Peoples driven by their divine nature intrinsically seek good, virtue, perfection and beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection. Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world with the will of the Almighty God. It is imperative, and also desirable, that we, too, contribute to the promotion of justice and virtue.
The Almighty and merciful God, who is the Creator of the universe, is also its Lord and ruler.
Justice is His command. He commands His creatures to support one another in good, virtue and piety, and not in decadence and corruption. He commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue and not to sin and transgression.
All divine prophets, from the Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) to the Prophet Moses, to the Prophet Jesus Christ, to the Prophet Mohammad have all called humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion. Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship?
I emphatically declare that today's world more than ever before longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity, and above all, longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.
Oh, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.http://www.sidewalklyrics.com/?p=635
President Mohammad Khatami
Nov 25th, 2008 by pedestrian
I was 14 when Khatami became the fifth president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I remember those days well: the heated dinner conversations every where I went, the TV interviews, the posters … I had just moved back to Iran and all I knew of Iranian politics were an Ayatollah Khomeini and an ousted Shah. I had never heard of Khatami, and it was awe inspiring to me how a relatively unknown politician (as I assumed) could stir so much debate.
He was running against Nateq Nouri – the notorious parliament speaker, a well known “insider” and possibly the best looking politician I’ve ever had the misfortune of watching. Rumor had it that he achieved his crystal white beard using peroxide and his thumb was so huge because he spread cheese on his bread with his fingers. He didn’t use knives the way the “Westerners” did.
Khatami, a well educated scholar who was once the minister of culture during the early days of the revolution was an instant sensation with youth, many of whom were hearing his name for the first time. All around my school, even though we were not even of voting age, the students were going wild. “Did you watch him last night?” they would say, with the same enthusiasm they would talk about seeing a well known Iranian singer on a satellite channel. And this was a public school, a religious school: Madreseyeh Shahed as they called them because they were once set up primarily for children of war veterans - but were now open to all.
Many of my classmates were in the streets after school giving out posters of Khatami (as “volunteer campaigning” meant in Iran) while their parents were devout followers of his opponent.
But Khatami was also an instant failure with many elders, who I remember saying at the dinner table: “this guy is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He’s as much as an insider as Nateq, the bastard only pretends otherwise.”
What was phenomenal about Khatami’s relatively short rise was that youth and women were the first to hear his call. What goes around comes around: because he was the first to hear theirs. His campaign speeches focused on women’s issues and youth, as much as they did on economics and foreign policy. It was my father’s aunts, teachers in our small town of Dezful, who were some of the first to begin “campaigning” for him inside the city. Going to local town meetings, organizing debates in schools, and donating to his campaign. It was my great grandmother who got her son (my grandfather) to vote.
From Khatami onwards, not one single candidate ran for high office in Iran without placing women’s issues on top of their agenda. As Naj pointed out: “It remains remarkable, that after Khatami, the “woman vote” constituted an important enough platform that every single fundamentalist was running on it; being more zealous than others in their promises to women!”
Khatami soon became a message, rather than a political candidate. The concept of “community organizing” or “civil society” were not in the Iranian political vernacular until Khatami came around. Voting for him soon came represent saying No to a system, rather than a Yes to his candidacy. It wasn’t who he was, but who people wanted him to be. Twenty years after the revolution in Iran, he became the first messenger of change instilled in a political movement.
Our vote could for the first time represent our goals and our ideals. It was with Khatami’s run for office that a discourse for peaceful, progressive political reform began to take shape. Before Khatami, it was either the zealous followers of the revolution on IRIB, or the opponents on Radio America. But with the rise of Khatami came the rise of another message, far greater than he could ever claim to be.
And that was one of the cornerstones of Khatami’s victory. He was at once an educated elite to one group, and a well loved “Seyed” (a descendant of prophet Muhammad) and cleric to another. He at once represented secular reforms for some, and religious piety for others. He was enthusiastically cheered by 16 year olds and 60 year olds at once.
Perhaps Obama took his cue from Khatami. Or, perhaps it is customary for all men of change to not give any specifics. They promise something beyond what the system offers today; at this given moment. And people are left to dream of all that they want that “something” to be.
He spoke of civil society and freedom of speech; he spoke of youth and economic reform. He spoke of women’s rights and justice for all irrespective of ethnicity, religion or beliefs.
But what exactly did those things mean when he became president?
In retrospect, I’m not sure he himself knew the answers. In retrospect, he made many blunders and his presidency will forever coincide with some of the darkest evenst in our modern history: the death of the Fourouhars, Mohammad Mokhtari and Pouyandeh. Zahra Kazemi. The attack on students on the 18th of Tir.
For none of those events was Khatami himself responsible. But we all wanted him and expected him to react much differently then he did.
And yet, even with all of that, if you believe in the rhetorical “change must come from within the people” – that we need cultural, social shifts before mass political movements, then, Khatami was indeed quite successful in carrying out his promises. At the least, he had as many successes as he had failures. Khatami was the one to carry out the first ever city council elections. Naj said here that “the revolution in Iran’s democracy, in my opinion, started with “the city council” elections”. These elections remain the only elections in Iran that the guardian council does not control.
He remains, for many of us Iranians, the first of our representatives whom we were proud to see on the world stage. From New York to Tehran, man and woman, religious or not at all, many of us took pride in the fact that he was our representative. That he was there for us, by us and because of us.
Years later, looking back, although being a teenager in the Islamic Republic of Iran is one of the hardest roles to undertake, I am eternally grateful that I was there.
I watched that shift: the student movement; the media, the people. I saw taxi drivers go from their daily cigarettes and chitchat every morning to ALL holding the morning paper in their hands and heatedly debating last night’s events. I was there to see Taatr-e Shahr, Tehran’s famed stage, take on some of the most glorious plays I’ve ever had the pleasure of watching. I was there for Payam-e Emrooz and Khordad and Jameh-eh. And there’s no doubt in my mind that had even one of those publications lived on, it would have had nothing less to offer than any other internationally recognized publication.
And despite the death of each newspaper, time and time again, year after year, I was there to see another one reborn.
And now, four years later, there is a chance that Khatami will run once more.
I wonder if those same enthusiastic youth, who are now young adults trying to find their way in the Islamic Republic of Iran, will even bother voting for him this time. My great grandmother has long passed away and I know grandpa will certainly not be going to the polls. I wonder what a third term Khatami presidency would even mean. And I doubt that even he knows the answer.
Nor do I. But it’s called a leap of faith, or blind trust, … or hope … or naivety … Call it what you will, but I have my shenasnameh (ID) ready … And we will be on our way to Ottawa.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=b8e66581-048d-476a-84b6-d37f1c8e771c)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment