Editorial

Two Scales of Justice in the Security Council

On October 28, 2005 the 15 members of the United Nations Security Council passed a unanimous resolution condemning the remarks about Israel made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The UN press statement said: “The members of the Security Council support the Secretary-General’s statement of 27 October noting that, under the United Nations Charter, all Members have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.” The resolution refers to the October 26 statement, made by the President of Iran to a conference titled “World without Zionism”, that Israel should be “wiped off the map”.

Modern Communism is opposed to the remarks by Iran’s president and is also opposed to the UN Security Council resolution. Ahmadinejad’s remarks concerning Israel are an attempt to appeal to the most backward and reactionary elements in Iran, while reducing the political problem of the Israel-Palestine conflict to a matter of simply “wiping Israel off the map”. It is no secret that the Islamic Republic of Iran is opposed to Zionism and supports the struggle of the Palestinian people for their rights. At the 60th Session of the UN General Assembly, President Ahmadinejad stated: “In Palestine, a durable peace will be possible through justice, an end to discrimination and occupation of Palestinian lands, the return of all Palestinian refugees, and the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state with Al-Qods al-Sharif as its capital.”  One may argue in favour of a “one-state” solution in Palestine, or a “two-state” solution, but that is not the issue. Zionism is an ideology that combines racism with colonialism and expansionism; it was put into practice by the racist claim that Palestine was a land without a people.

The Zionists expelled the Palestinians from their homes. This injustice must be reversed. However, it is not the Jewish people that should be “wiped out”, nor the buildings and the houses and the schools that the settlers have built.  It is the institutional framework that is represented by the Israeli state founded on Zionism that needs to be abolished. The issue is not the name of the “state” or the name of the country. The issue is to reverse the injustice in what was called Palestine and is now called Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, an issue which Ahmadinejad simply ignores in favour of whipping up hysteria. What is certain is that as long as Israel continues along the path of Zionism, and as long as Israel and other regimes in the Middle East continue to serve as proxies for the interests of the big powers in that region, all of the peoples in the Middle East, including the Palestinian and Israeli people, will go from crisis to crisis, and from war to war.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has never committed aggression against any other country. Yet, the United States and Britain, as well as Israel, are building a case to justify a military attack against Iran, either with or without the approval of the UN Security Council. The U.S. and Britain are proceeding against Iran in the same manner that they did against Iraq. After the last American election, U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney openly threatened to attack Iran. Since the International Atomic Energy Agency passed its resolution against Iran on September 24, 2005, alleging non-compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United States and Britain have been trying to get support to refer Iran to the Security Council over its nuclear activities. In a television interview last week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned that Iran will face “a much more difficult life” if it does not co-operate with the U.S. and the European Union (EU), and as far as military action against Iran is concerned, he said: “You don’t ever take any option off the table.” This was before President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made his remarks. In view of this situation, the other members of the UN Security Council, if they were determined to censure the remarks of Iran’s president, could have insisted that the resolution include a disclaimer that it in no way constitutes a moral or legal ground for military action against Iran.

The UN Security Council is very selective in responding to the threat and the use of force against its members. The Security Council has ignored countless aggressions and threats against member states because one or another of the five permanent members threatened to use its veto.  Only when the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China come to some prior arrangement does the UN Security Council act on these issues. However, no action is ever taken against the interests of the imperialist powers or their allies, no matter what the crimes. This double-standard in the Security Council puts into question the motives behind this particular resolution.


Back to Modern Communism