UN
on Trial
by
Gordon Prather
by Gordon Prather
DIGG THIS
Last week,
thousands
of angry demonstrators attacked United Nations headquarters in Beirut
in an outpouring of grief, anger and frustration at yet another
Qana massacre.
Although not
a demonstrator herself, refugee Sawsan Ali from Southern Lebanon
said she wishes the UN would "disappear because its presence is
as useless as its non-presence."
"The UN never
helped us. It always favors Israel with all its atrocities, and
bows down in front of the US and Israeli will. It is a UN for
the strong nations, not small and peaceful countries like ours."
Meanwhile,
back at UN Headquarters in New York, Bonkers Bolton prevented the
Security Council from condemning Israeli for its atrocious actions,
while strong-arming it into passing Resolution 1696 which;
Acting
under Article 40 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United
Nations –
- Calls
upon Iran without further delay to take the steps required by
the IAEA Board of Governors in its resolution GOV/2006/14, which
are essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful
purpose of its nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding
questions;
- Demands,
in this context, that Iran shall suspend all enrichment-related
and reprocessing activities, including research and development,
to be verified by the IAEA;
What does that
mean – acting under Article 40?
Well, in this
case it means the Board of Directors of the International Atomic
Energy Agency has asked the Security Council to determine under
Article 39 that Iran’s refusal to re-suspend certain IAEA Safeguarded
activities constitutes a "threat to the peace, breach of the
peace, or act of aggression."
Understandably,
the Security Council has refused to make such a determination, and
has, instead, invoked Article 40 –
In order
to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council
may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures
provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to
comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or
desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice
to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The
Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply
with such provisional measures.
The Security
Council went on to underline
the necessity
of the IAEA continuing its work to clarify all outstanding issues
relating to Iran’s nuclear programme, and calls upon Iran to act
in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol and
to implement without delay all transparency measures as the IAEA
may request in support of its ongoing investigations;
In other words,
the Security Council has once again refused to make the determination
that Bonkers Bolton has been demanding.
So, once again,
Bonkers repeated the false allegations he had previously made about
Iran’s IAEA Safeguarded programs and repeated the false claim that
the Security Council actually had actually made the determination
he had been demanding.
Four months
have passed since the Security Council called upon Iran to fully
and verifiably suspend its nuclear programs, and nearly two months
have passed since the EU3-plus-three made its generous offer inviting
Iran to enter into negotiations and avoid further Security Council
Action.
Let us not
forget that this diplomatic activity was preceded by more than
three years of Iranian noncompliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty and its IAEA Safeguards Agreement.
Sadly, Iran
has consistently and brazenly defied the international community
by continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the continued
intransigence and defiance of the Iranian leadership demands a
strong response from this Council.
The Resolution
before us today does just that.
Mr. President, we are pleased the Council has taken clear and
firm action in passing this Resolution. The pursuit of nuclear
weapons by Iran constitutes a direct threat to international peace
and security and demands a clear statement from the Council in
the form of a tough Resolution.
What did the
Iranians have to say about Bolton’s outrageous strong-arm tactics?
The sole
reason for pushing the Council to take action, as highlighted
in the proposed resolution, is that Iran decided, after over two
years of negotiations, to resume the exercise of its inalienable
right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, by partially
reopening its fully safeguarded facilities and ending a voluntary
suspension.
Today's proposed
action by this Council – which is the culmination of those efforts
aimed at making the suspension of uranium enrichment mandatory
– violates the fundamental principles of international law, the
Non Proliferation Treaty and IAEA Board resolutions. It also runs
counter to the views of the majority of UN member states, which
the Security Council is obliged to represent.
Amen.
August
5, 2006
Physicist
James Gordon Prather [send
him mail] has served as a policy-implementing official for national
security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency,
the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department
of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department
of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for
national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. –
ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the
Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather
had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory
in New Mexico.
Copyright
© 2006 Gordon Prather
Gordon
Prather Archives
|
