http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=437911
Ahmadinejad Explains Problems with Security Council
The 2010 Review Conference for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) opened in New York at the United Nations on Monday May 3. At the opening session President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran spoke to the delegates gathered for the Review Conference. He said that "none of the non-nuclear states has ever been able to exercise their inalienable and legal rights for the peaceful use of nuclear energy without facing pressures and threats." (1)
He was referring to the difficulty to utilize the right protected by Article IV of the Treaty, which states:
"Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this treaty."(2)
At a press conference with President Ahmadinejad held the next day at the Millennium Hotel across from the United Nations, he provided a more comprehensive understanding of the means by which this right is denied.
Ahmadinejad reported that several members of the UN Security Council told Iran that they were pressured to vote in favor of sanctions against it. He said that two or three members of the Security Council impose their will on other members. So when these other members vote in favor of sanctions, it isn't that their votes have been freely obtained. The result he explained would be that, "in the near future this Security Council will lose its legitimacy."
He remarked that there is no meeting that Iran has on the issue but the representatives "tell us unofficially" that "they are under pressure from the US."
One journalist questioned Ahmadinejad about the security threat to Iran posed by the nuclear umbrella NATO provides to member states. "Wouldn't it be safer for Iran to have nuclear weapons than to refrain from nuclear weapon development?" the journalist asked.
Describing how nuclear weapons do not provide a nation with protection, he gave the example of the breakup of the Soviet Union even though it had many nuclear weapons.
Ahmadinejad was asked if he thought there was some weakness or problem with the NPT represented by the discriminatory actions and double standards marking the experience Iran and other states have had trying to exercise their rights under the article IV provision of the NPT protecting the inalienable right to the peaceful development of nuclear technology.
The President of Iran referred to the 11 points in his speech the day before, where he urged there be a stronger requirement that the nuclear weapon states disarm.
Reports in the US press echo the US government claims that the ability to do nuclear enrichment for peaceful purposes provides that state with the technological know-how to create a nuclear weapon. Even if the US claim were true, which it isn't, under the language of the NPT treaty, it would not be an appropriate basis to deprive a state of the technological know-how to do nuclear enrichment for peaceful purposes. Enrichment of uranium and the weaponization of enriched uranium are two different technologies. So the US claim is sophistry, only meant to hide an understanding of the technology from the public.
Iran maintains it needs to develop a nuclear enrichment capacity for the production of nuclear fuel to produce nuclear energy and medical isotopes. This claim is dismissed by the US.
To advance the requirement that the non-nuclear states must give up their right to develop nuclear enrichment self sufficiency for the peaceful uses of the technology is to negate the very foundation for the treaty. Such a requirement is refuted by the language of Article IV which emphasizes that nothing in the treaty "shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination...."
If such a requirement is allowed to prevail, the nuclear weapon possessing states included in the treaty can continually strengthen their monopoly on the research, production and use of nuclear technology and make the non-nuclear weapon states increasingly dependent on them. (4)
There are US government documents that corroborate Ahmadinejad's accounts that Security Council members, "even permanent members", are being subjected to pressure to vote in favor of sanctions against Iran. Such compulsion, particularly targeting China, is well documented in two government documents, which are publicly available. These documents are the transcripts of hearings conducted by the US Congress.(5)The pressure takes the form of coercive measures. For example, in testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission held during the 109th Congress, in 2006, Commissioner Patrick A. Mulloy refers to the imposition of sanctions against Chinese companies as one form of compulsion used against China. Mulloy notes, "On July 13, 2006, United States imposed sanctions on four Chinese companies for assisting with missile proliferation in Iran." (2006 Hearing, p. 22)
The significance of such US action is that under Article 24(1) of the UN charter, member states on the Security Council are given the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. If instead of an independent vote according to the judgment of the member states, they are pressured or compelled to follow the dictate of one or a few of the members of the Council, their obligations under the charter are subverted as is the role of the Security Council. Instead of fulfilling its charter role to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council is turned into part of the toolbox to enforce the aggressive national policy of one or a few powerful nations. (7)
Through such mechanisms, the inalienable right of Iran to do research, develop and use nuclear technology which is protected in Article IV of the NPT, is tranformed into an act to be punished. Iran has been the target of such Security Council imposed sanctions.
Iran, the NPT and the Right to the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Technology
http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog
A different version by the same author
There is much more excellent detail including links to articles. It was a delight to see such a competent outline of the problems of maintaining a working relationship which allows the functioning of the Nuclear nonProliferation Treaty.
I cheerfully admit I've been compulsive about keeping some kind of overview on the situation demonizing Iran : an asset in intimidation and deterioration of the country in preparation for assault. Since the job of destroying Iraq is well along and Afghanistan/Pakistan now also receiving the benefits of heightened military assault on civilian populations ( thinning it out somewhat ) , the assessment that carrier forces deployed in the Persian Gulf are there for strategic reasons has operated for years. Add this to assassination campaigns against the military and government of Iran - just to augment continued economic blockade targeting infrastructure spanning decades - and the busy operations spinning elections for a person who does not have a free hand in 'running the country' as biased via BBC operations providing Persian 'coverage' ... 'pressure' seems too weak a word for U.S. efforts to kill off the government that threw out its pet tyrant a few decades back.
From Personal and Noted and Notable Posts
- "1945-1998" by Isao Hashimoto"2053" - This is the number of nuclear explosions conducted in various parts of the globe.
Loose Lips on Iran Can Sink America
How Iran is ruled
Who's who in Iran
Covert US Military Strategy on Iran
Read the IAEA Reports on Iran
North Korean timeline towards inevitable war
Persian Empire
What every American should know about the Middle East
Iran and the Left
US as nuclear rogue state
NIE : non-nuclear fallout - Iran
Bush's Secret War on Iran - Seymour Hersch
Can outsiders manage change in alien cultures ?
A day with a war-injured child
NATO's secret armies linked to terrorism ?
Blood Money Project - PNAC - New World Order
The most dangerous place in the world
The United States and her Fundamentalist Stooges are the main human rights violators in Afghanistan
Does bin Laden have access to U.S. Army medical files?
Afghanistan's war, gender and the role of Islam in development - A series
Understanding the Long War
Bold action needed on Iran
Al Qaeda - the CI-A Team
Obama and Osama - McChrystal Clear
Rumsfeld's renegade unit blamed for Afghan deaths
How we helped create the Afghan crisis
Thoughts on the War between the USA and Pakistan
Afghanistan : the case against the "Good War"
Eyewitness to the Wreckage of Iraq
The CIA's 'Drone Wars' - Tactic substituted for Strategy
Exposed : the secrets behind state secrets - Sibel Edmonds,Turkey's and their U.S. neocon allies
Distorting U.S. Intel, Obama follows Bush's lead again
The CIA and the Iranian Experiment : from Mossadegh to Ahmadinejad
Demonising Iran hides uncomfortable truths for the West
Obama's War :- hpw the USA wants to turn the page on the Hindu Kush
Iran and Us
Washington's 'Terror Diplomacy' in Latin America : Destabilize countries and overthrow governments
What 'the Left' should be learning from Iran
Who's telling the truth about Iran's nuclear program?
Iranian Planes and the Hidden Toll of Economic Sanctions
The Story of My Shoe
Related Posts at this blog
Reality check - Iran 6/24/09
The Dysfunction of the 21st Century Crusades 6/25/09
War Breaks Infrastructure - As Does Neglect 7/18/09
Once World's Breadbasket, Iraq Now a Basket Case 7/20/09
Foreign Policy SitRep - Middle East 8/03/09
Playing Politics as the World Dies 8/10/09
Information Control | Data Omission and 'Framing' 8/22/09
Lawlessness and Chaos : Policy 8/30/09
War and Pieces 9/07/30
Spy vs. Spy : Nuclear Blackmail 9/9/09
Hiding the Truth 9/12/09
Manoevers 9/17/09
Of Mice and Men...and Murder 9/23/09
'Bulwark of Freedom' : Ignorance is Strength Edition 9/26/09
Ecoposts...and Informed Foreign Policy from CASMII 9/30/09
War is not a 'Nation Building' Exercise 10/06/09
Anniversary Afghanistan : 'Peace' Prize 10/09/09
Wars & Rumours of Wars 10/15/09
Is It 'News' if You've Never Seen It ? 10/17/09
Miscellaney and NPT 10/18/09
Geopolitics and Economy 10/21/09
Wars and Politics 10/30/09
Politics : What is Said vs. What is Done 10/31/09
The Mission in Afghanistan,etc. 12/20/09
Global Research.ca
The 'Scoop' on Afghanistan 2/20/10
The View From Tehran 2/24/10
CASMII - Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran 3/6/10
Punditry at TPM Cafe - Iran,Israel and Nukes 3/19/10
TPM Cafe - What Do Israel and Iran Have to Do With Each Other ?
Analysis of the Feb 2010 IAEA Report on Iran 3/21/10
CASMII Articles 4/11/10
Drums in the Night 3/29/10
Late Links on Hypocrisy 6/15/10
The start of Oldephartte(intraining) contains links to stories about the assassination of Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto - which was compared to a mob hit and the assassination of JFK in style .
Someone should care, maybe not you....
http://exmi.blogspot.com/
Fired ?
Battle Company: Loving Life, Making War
http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/movies/25restrepo.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
“Restrepo,” a documentary that sticks close to a company of American soldiers during a grueling 14-month tour of duty in an especially dangerous part of Afghanistan, is an impressive, even heroic feat of journalism. Not that the filmmakers — Sebastian Junger, an adventurous reporter perhaps best known as the author of “The Perfect Storm,” and Tim Hetherington, a photographer with extensive experience in war zones — call attention to their own bravery. They stay behind the portable high- and standard-definition video cameras, nimble flies on a wall that is exposed to a steady barrage of bullets.
The League of Extraordinary Warmongerers
http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2010/06/extraordinary-warmongerers/comment-page-1#comment-56096
First we have the attack on the Turkish flotilla bringing aid to Gaza.
Then we see humanitarians murdered in Oaxaca while delivering aid.
And now, the US Supreme Court is on board to curb humanitarianism and peaceful resistance, with its ruling in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project. Any “material contribution” or “service” extended by American citizens to “terrorist groups” designated by the State Department is a violation of the PATRIOT Act and punishable by imprisonment — even if the contributions and services advocate peaceful means to accessing international legal remedies.
In the NYT article, Chief Justice Roberts claims First Amendment protections are unencumbered by criminalizing support for peaceful conflict resolution between nation-states and terrorist groups:
“Plaintiffs may say anything they wish on any topic,” he wrote. “They may speak and write freely about” the Kurdish and Tamil groups, “the governments of Turkey and Sri Lanka, human rights and international law.” Indeed, the chief justice added, the plaintiffs are free to become members of the two groups.( * Shit. With rulings like that...find one. )
What they cannot do is make a contribution to a foreign terrorist organization, even if that contribution takes the form of speech. “Such support,” he wrote, “frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends,” “helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups” and strains “the United States’ relationships with its allies*.”
Problem Chylde
http://problemchylde.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/extraordinary-warmongerers
I am probably not the first to admit that I don’t understand Chief Justice Roberts’ nuanced “clarity.” What I interpret from his words is that Free Speech is not Free Speech unless it unequivocally, and without reservation, supports any US action or position. Any less than 100% support might indirectly embolden, hearten, or lend moral support to any unilaterally declared enemy. This declaration of enmity can not be debated without violating the law.
How does this not portend the resurrection of The Sedition Act of 1798? (held to be constitutional by all members of the Supreme Court at that time) JP
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment