Opinion | Columnists
Selective and unjust sanctions
Much of what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says in his reactionary speech to the announcement of sanctions against his country makes sense.
- By Manal Alafrangi, Staff Writer
- Published: 00:00 December 27, 2006
- Image Credit: Illustration by Nino Jose Heredia/Gulf News
Much of what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says in his reactionary speech to the announcement of sanctions against his country makes sense.
Certainly, his comment that the West had lost its chance to improve relations with Iran applies.
Only recently, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was insisting that the US and his country should talk directly to Tehran regarding the escalating situation in Iraq but, following American refusal of the idea, Blair decided to pretend this suggestion never meant anything. Instead, he toured the region with a clear message: Iran is "at war" with "moderate Arab states" and "Western forces trying to bring peace and stability to the region".
He is instilling the "us vs them" mentality and doing it in a very dangerous manner, as if to prepare for the next international move: attack. The last state leader to do this using Iran was none other than Saddam Hussain.
Ahmadinejad also responded to the UN sanctions by saying: "No matter [whether] they accept it or not, Iran is now an established nuclear state and it is in their interest to live alongside the Iranian nation."
That is the case today and with UN sanctions banning the supply of nuclear materials to Iran and freezing assets overseas, not much will change as far as the Iranian pursuit goes.
In fact, Russia, which along with China invested much effort to water down these sanctions, already announced that the UN resolution will not prevent Moscow from honouring all its contracts signed with Tehran.
Their foreign affairs minister Sergei Lavrov declared: "There's an arrangement in this resolution... All the contracts signed before the resolution remain in place and can be honoured."
Matter of fact
The debate over Iran's uranium enrichment programme often skips Tehran's declaration that their aim is peaceful and takes it as a matter of fact that Iran has its eye on acquiring nuclear weapons - even within a hypothetical setting.
The West doesn't consider the pragmatic argument that Iran wants to develop nuclear technology for energy purposes and as a means of gaining international muscle and negotiating credibility.
Let us not forget that Iran is neighbour to two countries which have been attacked by the US within the last 5 years. It has every right to be protective and alert.
To put it simply, if the US was non-nuclear and Canada and Mexico were invaded by say a nuclear China (as well as its allies), at minimum, the US would definitely seek nuclear technology.
And despite aggressive US rhetoric, Iran has never stated any interest in nuclear weapons; they certainly never threatened to attack Israel as the Jewish state has done of them. My guess is that the next country to attack another will not be Iran. And that is where the real threat lies.
Something that should be pointed out is that the UN resolution concerning Iran was passed unanimously. For the most part, the US is still keeping mum about recent announcements by Gulf States of their interest in nuclear energy.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did, however, question recently why Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, might need atomic energy; she sounded very sceptical when she addressed Arab interest saying: "It's one thing for a state to be running out of natural gas in 34 years, which is the case of Egypt. It's quite another for the state to be the most oil-rich in the world" and be interested in nuclear energy.
At the Arab Strategy Forum which was held in Dubai earlier this month, Ali Larijani, Iran's authorised nuclear negotiator, spoke of the negotiations that took place between his country and the US and disclosed "we were told if we agree for you to have this [nuclear] technology then we would have to agree for Egypt and Saudi Arabia to have it too".
It's going to be interesting to watch America's manoeuvring when it comes to this particular subject.
At the end of the day, these UN sanctions are considered a pseudo-action by both Iran and its enemies. They are a warning but their impact is said to be limited - although it's sure to rally the Iranian nation behind their country's nuclear policy.
While Ahmadinejad should not dismiss outright the Security Council's resolution as just "a piece of paper", the resolution is in itself unjust as it does not recognise Iran's right to develop facilities to generate nuclear power.
As far as the UN is concerned, this body continues to act as a pedestal from which the US administration and Israel forward their policies onto the world stage.
By not condemning or imposing sanctions against India, Pakistan and Israel on the same basis, the latest resolution shows exactly how international law is abused and exactly who is in control.
More from Columnists
More from Opinions
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Threat of German amnesia
By Joschka Fischer, Special to Gulf News
Rarely has the country been as isolated as it is now. Hardly anyone understands its dogmatic austerity policy, which goes against all experience
-
Moral implication of America's security mindset
By Gordon Robison, Special to Gulf News
After a decade in which torture became official government policy, America’s moral standing when it comes to looking at other governments’ human rights failings is much-diminished
-
Europe's salvation lies in euro's demise
By Bruce Anderson
A return to national currencies is the only hope, but it won’t be easy or cost-free
Your turn
