UN sanctions on Iran

FOLLOWING months of back-door diplomacy, rive veto-yielding states and all the ten non-permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council; unanimously passed a resolution on Saturday slapping sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran on account of what the movers stated Tehran’s persistent refusal to halt its sensitive nuclear fuel work. Obviously, the resolution calls upon all states to only “prevent the supply, sale or transfer of all items materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme”. While the UNSC calls upon member-states to freeze funds, economic resources and assets of Iranians linked to Islamic Republic’s “proliferation sensitive nuclear programme or the development of nuclear weapon delivery system”, the UN body has chosen not to impose any economic sanctions on the state of Iran.
The watered-down resolution indicates that finally Russia and China have agreed to go along with US, France and U.K. to target Iran’s alleged programme of nuclear weapons development. As expected, Tehran has rejected this move and has vowed not to halt its uranium enrichment activities. Tehran has repeatedly declared that it is its sovereign right to harness nuclear technology for power generation and that the U.S.-backed allegations that it had nuclear ambitions were unfounded. The resolution will be seen as demonstration of the Western powers’ bias towards the Muslim countries. They do not want any Muslim state to acquire nuclear capability other than Pakistan with whom, despite its role as a frontline state in the US-led war on terror, Washington has made it clear that it will not cooperate with Islamabad in the nuclear field. As against this, Washington has bent forward and backward to ensure that its controversial nuclear cooperation deal with India is implemented. The legal impediments in the way of implementation of this deal are being removed through necessary amendments in American laws. In fact, Washington is facilitating amendment of policies being followed by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to accommodate Indian requirements.
The American stance on Iran’s nuclear programme and ignoring Israel’s weapon development activities which are no more a secret have exposed duplicity of American policy. In fact, while Washington on the one hand is committed to efforts at stopping proliferation of nuclear weapons, it is doing on the other hand whatever is possible to ensure that Israel and India beef up their nuclear arsenals. Iran is a signatory to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and so far it has cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency in allowing inspections by experts of IAEA of its nuclear facilities. It has already threatened to quit NPT if some sanctions are imposed on Tehran. The UNSC resolution may therefore harden Iranian attitudes this does not augur well for the region and the world peace. Unfortunately, UN sanctions have been i8mposed on Iran after hints were being dropped by Western powers and Iranian officials that the crisis over Iran’s nuclear programme can be successfully addressed at diplomatic level. This development is certainly not helpful.

Kofi Annan

Tributes are piling up over Kofi Annan’s ten years as UN secretary-general. By and large they are richly deserved. The soft-spoken Ghanian is likely to go down as an outstanding occupant of his office. Yet ironically much of his success was born of failure. For the greater part of his two terms, Annan had to work with a Republican president in the White House who was totally unprepared to admit the pivotal role the UN was designed to play in world affairs.
Time and again, the UN was snubbed or ignored by the Bush administration. But thanks to Annan’s dignity and persistence, the UN was never marginalized. The secretary-general continued to represent the voice of compromise and moderation even when Washington was at its macho peak of aggressive intervention in world affairs. Momentously Annan declared the invasion of Iraq to be illegal under the terms of the UN Charter. It is certain that he had come under immense pressure to get on side with American policy. It is more than likely that the behind-the-scenes arm-twisting involved US threats to expose the scandal of his son Kojo’s dubious involvement in Iraq’s oil-for-food program. Annan preferred to let the matter come out in the open and he himself was later entirely cleared of any involvement in Kojo’s business dealings.
The Bush administration never forgave him for his refusal to sign off on their belligerent Iraqi policy. As the failure of their ill-judged intervention became ever more apparent, White House anger only increased even though Annan never set out to rub salt in its wounds. Ironically, Annan himself believed that the UN actually did have a duty that overrode a country’s sovereignty, a duty to intervene on behalf of civilians threatened with mass slaughter and the ravages of war; hence, Annan’s consistently interventionist policy toward Sudan over its failures in Darfur, which in the closing hours of his secretary-generalship appear to at last be bearing fruit. Annan’s concept of intervention was pluralist not unilateral. He believed that the United Nations should act as the strong arm of the international community, regardless of politics and pressure, working to protect and succor the weak and the oppressed. The doggedness with which he defended and expounded this vision, through conflicts from Cambodia through Bosnia to Darfur has given considerable substance to his vision. He passes on a brightly burning torch to his successor, Ban Ki-moon.
His very real failure was over UN reform. Though he slimmed the organization’s bloated bureaucracy and avoided a real risk of bankruptcy a decade ago, he did not get to grips with administrative restructuring. This was not entirely his fault. Big-power dominance builds in inefficiencies. However, perhaps because he himself was a career official in the UN, he lacked a clear overview of what needed to be done. His far less charismatic successor Ban Ki-moon is probably better qualified for the reform task. Politically and morally however, Annan leaves a very big pair of shoes for his successor to step into.

—Arab News