Thursday, March 16, 2006

Politics: UN Security Council: China & Russia stop veto-holders unity toward UNSC discipline of rogue-state Iran

The United Nations Security Council which meets tomorrow apparently has been stopped in its tracks by China and Russia, which refuse to unite with fellow veto-holders France and Britain (with US concurrence) in addressing the necessity of severe discipline against the unabashed threat to world peace by Iran, including its announced intention of exterminating Israel. Specifically, Iran is a threat due to its drive to position itself to manufacture nuclear warheads for its enlarging missile system. Previously, France and Britain had sought in numerous consultations with the other two, to have a united front of the veto-holders prepared when the Security Council meets tomorrow, all 15-members strong. The other members (non-permanent, non-veto-holding, 2-yr terms) are: Argentina, Denmark, Greece, Japan, Tanzania, Congo Republic, Ghana, Peru, Qatar and Slovakia.

The specific point for which pre-arranged unity of the five was sawt, is the endorsement tomorrow by the Security Council of a requirement that the International Atomic Energy Agency (with 35 member states) bring in a report within 14 days on Iran's compliance or refusal to comply with prohibition of the latter's pursuit of nuclear weapons. This is what the diplomacy of China and Russia are obstructing.

Should they vote with the other three permanent members, or at least abstain, the IAEA would not have room to back away from its responsiblity. The next step, should Iran not comply and allow effective inspections of its nuclear facilities and the placement of seals on the program's relevant locations, would be UN Security Council sanctions against Iran.

Rookmaker Club geostrategic analysis:

Of course, the almost-certain failure of China and Russia to allow the UN to function in disciplining Iran brings us back to the parallel situation in regard to Iraq under Saddam Hussein (which just a day or so ago was shown to have had Al-Quaeda operatives functioning on its territory a year before 9/11 to advance the international terrorist program, coddled by the Saddam Hussein regime).

If the UN balks again, as it seems likely tonite (but tomorrow will probably tell all), this would put the US in the difficult position of having to invoke again its right and power of pre-emptive strike, this time against the Iranian nuclear facilities and its regime. (Or, perhaps Israel could function as surrogate in that regard, since it's been threatened with extermination, at the very moment when Iran is conducting a conference to Deny the Holocaust).

Another parallel exists as well: China is playing the same game in the Middle East with Iran that it has been playing in the Far East with the North Korean project of nuclear weaponry. In both cases, China has advanced the cause of the two rogue anti-states by using its diplomacy to delay and ever delay the consolidation of international prevention of nuclear proliferation endangering all humankind.

Russia is more opportunistic. It wants to leverage its status on the international diplomatic scene, and has tried brokering solutions in a number of cases where it hoped to serve as middleman. None of them has succeeded. Russia's role is opportunistic; but China's is not. China's behaviour has been principled in its own interests - not least of all the securing of a steady flow of oil. That steadly flow also could include Iranian oil for which it has a plan to construct a series ports and fortresses from the Persian Gulf to its own southern coastal terminals thru the pirate-infested Stait of Malacca to its own coastal terminals, or to terminals in Burma or Vietnam, both of which would allow massive pipeliness to connect a China-fortified oilport in one of their designated harbours on their own soil with China itself (the client would get a pumping fee plus some oil splash). So, China has extremely strong reasons to satisfy Iran diplomatically.

The difficulty mentioned, that the US again had to face its responsiblity of pre-empton when circumstances warrant cannot be lost on its allies, nor on China and Russia, nor on Iraq, nor on Iran. Just today, a major return to airborne tactics, if not bombing, saw the deployment of American Airborned Combat Teams in the terrorist-infested Samarra region of Iraq. The occasion was coupled with a hi-ly significanct announcement (CNN;Mar16,2k6).

Also Thursday, the White House reaffirmed the principle of pre-emptive war in its updated National Security Strategy, despite the fact that no weapons of mass destruction, which were a key justification for the pre-emptive 2003 invasion of Iraq, were found.
That is to say, is it not?, that what held true for Saddam Hussein's regime clearly hold true now also for Iran's regime.

Associated Press via CNN for tomorrow carries a full report on the reaffirmation of the pre-emption strategy:

President Bush reaffirmed his strike-first policy against terrorists and enemy nations on Thursday and said Iran may pose the biggest challenge for America.

In a 49-page national security report [titled National Security Strategy], the president said diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons.

"The president believes that we must remember the clearest lesson of September 11 -- that the United States of America must confront threats before they fully materialize," national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.

"The president's strategy affirms that the doctrine of pre-emption remains sound and must remain an integral part of our national security strategy," Hadley said. "If necessary, the strategy states, under longstanding principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."

The AP report continues, after the apparent failure by France and Britain to bring China and Russia around to a Security Council mandate to the IAEA:
The report had harsh words for Iran. It accused the regime of supporting terrorists, threatening Israel and disrupting democratic reform in Iraq. Bush said diplomacy to halt Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons work must prevail to avert a conflict.

"This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided," Bush said.

Bush went on to say: "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran. For almost 20 years, the Iranian regime hid many of its key nuclear efforts from the international community. Yet the regime continues to claim that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons."

He did not say what would happen if international negotiations with Iran failed. The Bush administration currently is working to persuade Russia and China to support a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution demanding that Iran end its uranium enrichment program.

Since Iran is already at war with the fledgling Iraqi democracy, supplying ever-more complex road bombs (for instance) to disrupt the Iraqi military, Iran is also actively at war with the USA, Britain and the other allies in Iraq. Iran is siding with the terrorists. Therefore, the use of an armada of planes that could carry aerial bombs instead for dropping paratroopers in the Samarra region, can also serve as a warm-up for the planes that most likely will have to be used to halt nuclear-weapon manufacture in Iran, but also to make the border between the two countries extremely difficult to negotiate for the Iranian infiltrators.

I'm so doubtful that Iran will pull back, because the evidence is overwhelming in regard to the mullahs' desire for another Shiite agony in which Iranians will be whipped again to shed blood all the way from Teheran to Baghdad in the messianic quest of the mullah's for imperial power. Moqtada Sadr is creature of the Iranians in Iraq; his forces within the Shiite political umbrella in the new Parliament of Iraq do Iran's dirty work there, obstructing as much as possible the functioning of Iranian democracy. There is one war against terrorism in in Mesopotamia and Persia. The excision of Iran's nuclear facilities is an integral part of winning that war and protecting Iraqi democracy and pluralism. - Politicarp

Dr Keith Pavlischek on a Christian approach to pre-emptive war, Mar10,2k3.

Report of a debate on pre-emptive war, Mar23,2k3.

Popular Posts