By Steve Hynd
Today, the United Nations Security Council agreed to impose additional sanctions on Iran.
The 15-member council adopted its fourth sanctions resolution on Iran in four years by a vote of 12 to 2. Brazil and Turkey voted against the resolution, citing concerns that the council had not exhausted diplomatic efforts to resolve its standoff with Iran. Lebanon abstained.
The Obama administration succeeded in securing support for sanctions from the council's major powers, including China and Russia, by ensuring that the measure would not impair their ability to trade with Iran.
Mark Goldberg at UN Dispatch has a good run-down on what the sanctions actually do. They don't impact Iran's petroleum industry at all (that sop to China and Russia) but they do have some unusual elements. In particular I'm talking about the strictures banning Iran from "investing in sensitive nuclear activities
abroad, like uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities" and from "undertaking any activity related to ballistic missiles".
The first makes me wonder if France will now quietly pocket the billions of dollars Iran has invested in the Eurodif enrichment plant via Sofidif, a Franco-Iranian consortium shareholder which owns 25 % of the international joint venture. The second makes me wonder if the UNSCR is illegally imposing restrictions on a nation's right to have and develop space launch technology under the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind" is pretty specific.
Be that as it may,these sanctions will not be the last ones and they will not deter Iran from continuing uranium enrichment, which it correctly claims as its right under the NPT. Obama is hailing this resolution as sending an "unmistakable message" to iran and it does:
The U.S., Russia and France have replied to a proposal by Iran to swap some of its enriched uranium for reactor fuel, effectively dismissing the idea...
The message is that no matter what Iran does, short of total surrender, the U.S. will pressure other nations to ignore its overtures. The course is set and it will be stayed, as I predicted in December 2008. Negotiating got one shot, for which it was set up to fail. Sanctions will be tried and they too will fail. Then the bombs will fall.
As J-Street and AIPAC vie with each other to be the ifrst to hail these new sanctions and call for more, a measure of sanity comes from The Center for Arms ontrol and Non-Proliferation:
�Diplomatic engagement should underscore the need for Iran to agree to stronger IAEA involvement and acceptance of the Additional Protocol,� said Mary Slosson, Scoville Fellow at the Center, �which ensure greater IAEA oversight and flexibility in nuclear inspections.� While Iran has the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy, it must fulfill its commitments under the NPT, which means full cooperation with the IAEA and a commitment to non-proliferation.
Iran, the United States, the members of the UN Security Council and a large majority of the international community just spent a month of dedicated diplomacy at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Through their month-long diplomatic effort, they reached consensus and agreed to the same action plan on disarmament and non-proliferation for the next five years. Diplomacy can and does work.
Laicie Olson, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center, said that, �hopefully this will clear the path for the Obama administration to further negotiate with Iran while encouraging Iran to cooperate in confidence-building measures.�
That's not going to happen, unfortunately. The Beltway Boys and Clintonites are as one voice with the neocons there. Clinton herself signalled that when she told reporters that sanctions were a "convincing answer" to iran's attempt at outreach by agreeing a fuel-swap deal with Brazil and Turkey. Could anyone really blame Iran for saying the UNSCR marks the point at which its clear the negotiation path is closed, at America's insistence?
I'd like to ask: How come we voted for Obama but got Hillary Clinton's policy on Iran? We've gone from "negotiations without preconditions" to demanding that enrichment must halt before we talk about halting enrichment and yelling that sanctions are the answer even when we know they aren't. President Obama is getting a lot of flak for taking his eye of the ball in the Gulf, but almost none for abrogating his Commander-in-Chiefiness to Clinton on Iran. Yet the latter is ultimately likely to be both more dangerous and more expensive than the former.
France knuckled under to US pressure?
ReplyDelete*Russia* knuckled under to US pressure?
That seems unlikely. More likely they too have concerns regarding Iran's actual motivations when exercising the NPT.
Observer, where did I write "knuckled under"? However, in Russia's case there's plenty of mainstream media reports on the web on the horse-trading that went on behind the scenes to get their support. Ditto for India on the last set of sanctions, where Bush precidated their own nuclear deal on their UNSC vote. As for France, thier FM, Kouchner, has if anything been even more hawkish than Clinton on this.
ReplyDeleteEven after Iraq, you don't get that "concerns" are not evidence. Nice. Show me a single thing that points to more than Iran seeking a "Japan Option", which is entirely legal under the NPT.
Regards, Steve
We also voted for Obama but got Hillary Clinton's knotheaded policy on the coup in Honduras which, if you trace it back, is really where the rise of Brazil as a major player on the international stage began.
ReplyDeleteOne almost has to cheer for Clinton's bungling. First Brazil and now Turkey are starting to act as regional and even international leaders, filling a vacuum created by the vacancy in Hillary Clinton's head where there should be some knowledge about making friends and influencing people.