After two weeks
of meetings the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council
(UNSC) – the United States, Russia, Britain,
France and China
– were unable to reach agreement over a draft resolution on the Iranian nuclear
issue. The United States, Britain and France
were on one side; on the other side were Russia
and China.
The draft resolution was circulated among the 15 members of the Security
Council, but it was never put to a vote because either Russia or China would
have vetoed it. The contentious issue was Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. Russia and China
were both opposed to invoking this against Iran.
According to
Articles 41 and 42 of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, the Security Council is authorized
to choose punishments for any country which may “pose a threat to international
peace and security”, “disturb international peace and security” or “take an
aggressive measure”. Article 41 says that the Security Council is authorized to
take measures to enforce its decisions such as the partial or complete breaking
of economic relations. This includes severing railway, marine and aerial links,
as well as post, telegraph, radio and any other type of communication, as well
as political ties. Meanwhile, Article 42 says that if the UNSC determines that
the measures taken under Article 41 are not sufficient, then it can use aerial,
marine or ground forces to protect or restore international peace and security.
The stand taken by Russia
and China favours Iran’s struggle
to defend its sovereign right to build its national economy based on modern
technology and its legal right to engage in nuclear research and development
for peaceful purposes. It temporarily blocks the United States, Britain
and France from using the
authority of the UN Security Council to justify their war preparations against Iran
in the name of the “international community”. However, it would be wrong to
believe that Russia and China have
become opponents of hegemony or defenders of the sovereignty of nations.
Rather, they are taking this stand to advance their own interests and to weaken
those of the United States, Britain and France. This is part and parcel of
the contention among the major powers for spheres of influence, while they
collude among themselves against the struggles of the peoples for national and
social liberation.
Russia and China are playing a questionable
role in the Iranian nuclear dispute. Their interests converge with Iran on some fronts, but with those of the United States on
others. For example, on the economic front, Russia does not want to alienate Iran and lose a
lucrative market for its nuclear reactors, but neither does it want to alienate
the United States
which holds the key to its entry into the World Trade Organization. Similarly, China does not want to alienate Iran and lose a much-needed source of oil and
gas, but it does not want to alienate the United States and lose access to a
major market for Chinese goods.
As a result, Russia and China have been content to keep the
Iranian nuclear dispute within the framework of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA). In this forum they could play the role of honest brokers with
little or no consequences to themselves. They allowed the United States, Britain,
France and Germany, as well as the Director-General of the
IAEA, to make countless false accusations against Iran,
and they abstained from the harshest resolutions against Iran. At the
same time, they presented themselves as friends of Iran by advocating the peaceful and
diplomatic resolution to the dispute within the framework of the IAEA.
This tactic worked
as long as the dispute remained in the hands of the IAEA. However, for some
reason, Russia and China threw
their support behind the British-French-German resolution at the Board of
Governors meeting of the IAEA on February 4, 2006. This resolution cleared the
way for the IAEA to report Iran
to the UN Security Council which is what the United States had been demanding all
along. It is possible that Russia and China thought
that Iran
would capitulate in face of this united front of the five major powers. But
events did not proceed that way.
The February 4
resolution of the IAEA constituted a flagrant violation of the terms of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Safeguards Agreement signed between Iran and the
IAEA. It violated the inalienable right of Iran to engage in nuclear research
and development for peaceful purposes. It stated that Iran must: suspend all
uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and
development; reconsider its decision to construct a research reactor moderated
by heavy water; ratify and implement in full the voluntary Additional Protocol;
implement transparency measures extending beyond the formal requirements of the
Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol.
No such demands
had ever been placed on another country in the entire history of the IAEA. The
resolution was unprecedented, but Russia
and China
voted in favour of it. The Iranian government unequivocally rejected it. One
month later, the President of the UN Security Council issued a statement
demanding that Iran
submit to the IAEA terms. Once again Iran refused to comply with such
conditions. This has now led to the current crisis and division among the major
powers.
The United States is using the nuclear issue to push
a political agenda against Iran
– an agenda it has been pursuing since the Iranian revolution in 1979 which
overthrew the pro-U.S. regime. Even though the United
States accuses Iran
of trying to develop nuclear weapons, the General-Director of the IAEA, after
years of inspections by the agency, has grudgingly admitted in his otherwise
ambiguous reports, that there is no evidence of the diversion of nuclear
research and development for military purposes in Iran.
The United States
is not really interested in resolving the dispute. Its idea of “diplomacy” is
to get other countries to join in the attack on Iran. Only a few days ago, the
President of Iran proposed direct talks with the U.S. but the offer was rejected. At
the same time, Britain, France and Germany
(the EU-3), who terminated their discussions with Iran in January 2006, have asked
for the resumption of talks. They want Iran to consider what they call a
“new” proposal.
However, there
is nothing new in the EU-3 proposal. It demands that Iran give up its right to develop
and control its own nuclear fuel cycle. The capacity to create nuclear fuel is
the key for the self-reliance of any country in nuclear power generation. Without
self-reliance on this front a country must rely on a few nuclear technology
supplier countries like the United
States and Russia for nuclear fuel.Iran has made it clear that it does
not want its economic development dependent upon or vulnerable to the whims of
these suppliers. This conclusion is based on their past experience.
Many years ago the
Iranians openly requested the assistance of the IAEA in order to develop
nuclear technology for peaceful purposes in their country. This was consistent
with Iran’s
rights as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But Iran was
blocked by the nuclear suppliers who withheld this technology in violation of
the NPT. As a result, Iran
was forced to acquire this technology through unofficial sources. After 27
years Iran
has acquired this technology. Today, after the fact, Britain and France, two of the nuclear
suppliers, are offering what they refused Iran since 1979.
The failure of
the United States, Britain and France
to invoke Chapter 7 of the UN Charter does not eliminate the danger of
aggression by the United States
and its allies against Iran.
Even though the situation is not the same as when the United States
attacked Iraq,
it would be wrong to believe that the United States could not launch a
war, including a nuclear war, against Iran. There is also no guarantee
that Russia
and China
will not reverse their position on Chapter 7.
U.S. President
George Bush and U.S. Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice declared only last
month that “all options are on the table” including a nuclear strike against
Iran. Iran’s
ambassador to the UN responded to these threats by sending a letter to UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan and to the UN Security Council in which he urged
them to take action to condemn and stop these threats. Kofi Annan responded by
accusing Iran
of taking an “aggressive posture” and of refusing to engage in discussions to
resolve the dispute. The UN Secretary-General said nothing against the U.S. threats of
nuclear war against Iran.
As the Iranian
ambassador pointed out in his letter, the UN Secretary-General and the UN
Security Council are emboldening the United States by their silence. In
contrast, the working class and people around the world, and the governments of
a growing number of countries, are raising their voices to condemn the U.S. war
preparations and threats against Iran.