As the main and largest contributors to the organization, United States hold great influence to the decision making of the Council, and through strong lobbying and economic pressure, it can often sway the vote of the non-permanent members. In many cases, the P5 have often abused their veto power, The Soviets used Cold War political logic to bar Italy from the United Nations by casting their vetoes at least six times and against Japan four times. The United States, on the other hand, used its veto seven times barring Vietnam from the world body, and cast it once against post-independent Angola (both countries with political or military ties to the Soviet Union). Having said that, recent events has show the world that the US has used its veto on far more often than any other country on occasions when the vote would have gone against them, a clear sign of power without influence. The war in Iraq is a good example, although the UN security council did not vote to proceed with military action in Iraq, the United States work on its own and attacked Iraq in 2003 without the mandate of the international organization. In my opinion the UN did not try too hard to do so because US, being the chief financier of the organization, might have come down hard on them and cut back some of its funding.
The governance of the United States however doesn't solely reflect on the wishes of its citizen but strongly by the influence of the pro-Israel lobby, the AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and CUFI (Christian United for Israel). AIPAC and CUFI are Christian Zionist organization who collaborated with the Jewish Zionist and its Zionist government or bureaucracy. Each of these entities have their own different understanding for both long and short term goals, but in order to achieve it, they have to go through a process that each of them share in common, the invasion of the Middle East. Please take note that not all Jewish and Christians are Zionist, and not all Israeli support their Zionist government policy. There are the military refusenik such as the Ometz LeSarev and Yesh Gvul who refused to serve in the occupation, independent groups like Women And Peace Coalition, Dai LaKibush and also WCC (World Churches Council). These are some examples of those who are opposing the State of Israel government policy. Refer to my article the Freedom Movement for the Palestinian and Israeli in and outside The States of Israel.
Under a deal proposed by the UN, Iran was urge to accept International Atomic Energy Plan to ship 1,200 kg (2,646 lb) of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) with European nations. Which in return shall provide Iran with more highly enriched uranium in a form that can only be used in medical reactor. Iran was to swap its low-enriched uranium (LEU) for fuel made in Russia and France for a medical reactor in Tehran. The proposal, backed by the United States, Russia and France, was aimed at giving time for diplomatic talks with Iran. However, the failure of the first proposal resulting a new deal with Turkey and Brazil to revive a fuel swap plan drafted by the United Nations with the aim of keeping Tehran's nuclear activities in check. However, as soon as the deal was decided, the United States went on with its predetermined draft resolution against all political costs which were involved.
With the urge from of AIPAC and CUFI, the United States with the support of United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany, negotiated the final draft of Resolution 1929 and put forth for a vote at the United Nation Security Council. AIPAC and CUFI are the biggest non-government organization in the United States that have the biggest influence over the United States foreign policy and governance. With the support of AIPAC, more than three-quarters of the House and Senate signed letters to President Obama urging him to impose "crippling sanctions" on Iran. The letters further urge the president to sanction Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran's banking system, and Iran's ability to import refined petroleum. The bipartisan House letter was spearheaded by Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. and Mike Pence, while the bipartisan Senate letter was led by Sens. Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham.
On 9th June 2010, the resolution passed with 12 affirmative votes, 2 dissenting votes from Brazil and Turkey, and an abstention from Lebanon. Speaking before the vote, the representatives of Brazil and Turkey said they had voted against the text because it ran against their efforts to bring about a negotiated solution through the agreement on the Tehran Research Reactor and the related Tehran Declaration of 17 May, which provided a new opportunity for diplomacy. Following the vote, Lebanon’s representative said Iran had a right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy as well as an obligation to adhere to the safeguards regime, adding that the fuel swap deal it had negotiated with Brazil and Turkey provided a way towards a resolution of the problems that had arisen. The sanctions regime, on the other hand, represented a painful failure of diplomatic efforts, he added.
The new sanctions aim to curtail Iranian military capabilities by restricting missile investment and testing, enforcing a conventional arms ban, suggesting a cargo inspections regime, and targeting sanctions at new individuals and entities. These targeted sanctions impose an asset freeze on 40 entities and one individual, and a travel ban on 36 new individuals allegedly involved in Iran's nuclear program.
Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, Brazilian Ambassador to the UN, announced that Brazil would vote against the draft resolution on the grounds that it was just one more event in a spiral of threats and isolation. She said she was very concerned that the letter of the Vienna Group had only arrived hours before the meeting and no time had been given for Iran to react to its opinion, including its call for a technical group meeting on details. Also of concern was the fact that the Council’s permanent members (P5) together with a state that was not a member (Germany), had negotiated behind closed doors for a month.
Describing the Tehran Declaration as a unique opportunity that should not be missed, she went on to point out that it had been approved by the highest Iranian officials as well as Parliament. The Declaration provided for the use of nuclear energy and set out ways to verify fully its peaceful purposes. The only possible way to further that collective goal was to achieve Iran’s cooperation through dialogue and negotiations. Indeed, the Declaration showed that dialogue could do more than sanctions, she said, expressing the Brazilian Government’s deep regret that the document had neither received the recognition it deserved, nor been given time to bear fruit. Brazil reaffirmed the imperative to carry out all nuclear activity under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and Iran’s activities were no exception, she emphasized, adding that the Tehran Declaration was “sound policy” that should be pursued. The resolution would delay rather than accelerate or ensure progress, and concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme would not be resolved until dialogue began. By adopting sanctions the Council was adopting one of two tracks to solving the question, and in Brazil’s opinion, it had chosen the wrong track.
In response to the 1929 UN resolution, Iran’s National Security Council announced that the draft makes no reference to the eleven suggestions put forth by the Islamic Republic at the NPT meeting and insists that the resolution is based on “unfounded accusations.” They claim that not only have these charges never been proved, in the report of the head of the IAEA, published two days before the passing of the resolution, “for the 22nd time it is confirmed that Iran’s nuclear activities show no deviation from peaceful goals.” The statement goes on to emphasize that the Tehran Agreement, between Iran, Turkey and Brazil highlights “peaceful nuclear cooperation” and “avoidance of transgressions against the rights
Following the vote, Lebanon’s representative said Iran had a right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy as well as an obligation to adhere to the safeguards regime. He added that the fuel swap deal it had negotiated with Brazil and Turkey provided a way towards a resolution of the problems that had arisen. The sanctions regime, on the other hand, represented a painful failure of diplomatic efforts, he added.
As reported by Haaretz on 16th May 2010, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on six major world, the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany, which have been discussing further UN sanctions on the major oil producer, for fresh talks on Iran's nuclear program after the fuel exchange agreement. It is interesting how the Security Council perceives without question that the Iran’s peaceful nuclear program is more hazardous than of a country that possesses 200 nuclear warheads and was never allowed of inspection of its nuclear facilities.
In my opinion, this shows the double standards attitude adopt by the P5 which suggest that they might not have the interest of the international peace and security at heart but of a different agenda. One must never forget that Iran have been under pressures and sanctions by many decades including preventing Iran’s nationalization of its own oil. The Council was showing its political biases by its reaction to the deal on the Tehran Research Reactor, and its lack of action on Israeli violations of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the threats made against Iran by that country and the United States.
Tehran Declaration : Declaration on INPIM 10th seminar on PIM and 4th Regional Asian Conference, 2-5 May 2007, Tehran, Iran
Reuters : Turkey, Brazill, seal deal on Iran nuclear fuel swap by Parisa Hafezi
Bloomberg : Iran May Agree to Brazil’s Plan for Nuclear-Fuel Swap
My other articles :
- Freedom Movement for the Palestinian and Israeli in and outside The States of Israel.
-The Twisted Ideology : English Reformation and Christian Zionist.
-Zionism and the creation of the State of Israel, the history that shaped it's political policy today.
-AIPAC, CUFI and the United States foreign policy : Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land
-United Nation for the United States : looking back through timeline
-The Runaway General?? : The Rolling Stone and the contradicting speech in (IISS) London