U.S.-EU conspire against Non-Proliferation Treaty
Part one
By
Ardeshir Ommani
Published Dec 4, 2005 10:49 PM
Vice President Dick Cheney—whose
popularity plunged in mid-November to 27 percent, even lower than his boss,
President George W. Bush, who has managed to please only 34 percent of the U.S.
public—once said that the country that controls Middle East oil can
exercise a “stranglehold” over the global economy. Did Cheney let
the cat out of the bag?
Far back in 1997, in a Foreign Affairs article
titled “A Geo-strategy for Eurasia,” Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former
National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, wrote: “A power that
dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the
world’s most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East
Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would
almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa.”
On the
basis of what has transpired since these opinions reached print, one can
conclude that the United States has been in the deadly business of dominating
the world—and at this juncture targeting Iraq, Iran and Syria, three
countries that have dared to differ with Washington’s whims and
wants.
U.S. belligerence against other nations can take many forms. These
include economic and trade sanctions, diplomatic containment, orchestrating an
environment of isolation, spreading fabricated propaganda and outright lies,
intruding into air space, carrying out acts of sabotage, buying off individuals
to commit acts of treason, bribing other governments to take Washington’s
side, or carrying out naked acts of aggression and war to subvert or overthrow a
government.
In the language of the U.S. government, all these acts are
committed under the cover of spreading “American democracy.” And now
an old, all-too-familiar argument is being resurrected to bring countries into
line with U.S. plans to dominate the Middle East: that Iran cannot be
“trusted” and must be “thwarted” in its plans to develop
nuclear energy.
To deny Iran or any other country from “researching,
developing and producing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” is a
violation of the right of not only Iran, but other nations, as is embodied in
the fourth paragraph of the Nuclear Non-Prolif eration Treaty. The NPT is
administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is currently
headed by Mohammed ElBaradei.
Officials of the IAEA, a United Nations
monitoring agency, have visited the Iranian nuclear facilities many times in the
last two-and-a-half years. They have held meetings with the Iranian authorities
in charge of the nuclear energy programs. Throughout this long period the United
States has adamantly claimed, without a shred of proof, that Iran plans to
produce nuclear bombs—and therefore must be denied the right to produce
enriched uranium, a process for producing nuclear fuel used in nuclear
reactors.
All along, Washington has brought pressure on the agency and its
governing board to pass a resolution stating that Iran is in violation of the
NPT—another unsubstantiated charge—and must be referred to the UN
Security Council for possible economic sanctions.
And what has been
Iran’s response? In order to build confidence, the Iranian government has
not only allowed regular inspection by the IAEA. It has accepted an additional
protocol that permits the nuclear agency to inspect any nuclear site without
prior warning.
It is interesting to note that Israel is not a party to
the NPT agreement, has more than 250 nuclear bombs in its “secret”
arsenal and is building a huge apartheid wall on Palestinian land, against
international law—but has never been referred anywhere for any
reason.
Also, “the United States has not yet adop ted the necessary
implementing legislation for the additional protocol to become a law,”
according to the Arms Con trol Association’s fact sheet of January 2005.
In contrast, Iran, in addition to cooperating with ongoing inspections by
the IAEA, held joint meetings with the three major Western European powers. And,
for the purpose of “confidence building,” Iran
“voluntarily” suspended its nuclear-enrichment operations for almost
a year.
After the three European and the Iranian representatives had met
for a year, the Europeans insisted that Iran extend the period it would suspend
uranium enrichment—but did not agree on a resolution to assure
Iran’s right to produce its own fuel for nuclear reactors. On the
contrary, this period of suspension sets a pre ce dent. So if Iran decides to
resume the enrichment process, in the eyes of the so-called international
community this resump tion would be considered a violation.
In other
words, the apparent European enthusiasm to meet with the Iranian government
really serves the U.S. policy of containment and imposition of sanctions. As in
Iraq, having Europeans hold the meeting usurps the UN’s authority and
paves the way for a genocidal crime against the people of Iran.
Learning
from this experience, the Iranian government under the new president,
Ahmadinejad, decided to withdraw from the endless meetings and bickering. Iran
began not the process of uranium enrichment, but the earlier stage of turning
yellow cake (uranium raw material) into a gaseous state called
tetrafluoride.
A day did not pass without the major European
countries—Britain, France and Germany, with the United States lurking
behind the scenes—declaring Iran in utter violation of the NPF and
pressing the IAEA to pass a resolution referring Iran to the UN Security Council
for probable economic and trade sanctions. At this stage the European powers had
completely capitulated to Wash ington’s foreign policy designs against not
only Iran but all the countries in the Middle East and Central Asia,
particularly Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Palestine.
It did not take much
persuasion on the part of the United States to make the Euro pean powers and
Britain’s Labor government show their true imperialist colors.
In
the history of the IAEA, no resolution had passed without a total consensus on
the part of its board, composed of 35 members. In this case, even though the
resolution lacked muscle and teeth, the United States and the European
imperialist powers could not muster a consensus. Without a deadline for
referral, the IAEA resolution passed with 26 for, eight abstentions including
China and Russia, and one against. The no vote came from Venezuela.
The
Iranian response was that should the resolution be referred to the UN Security
Council, Iran may decide to withdraw from the IAEA and end its membership in the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It was at this point that George W. Bush
and British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared that no measure with regard to
Iran is off the table. In other words, they were implying a threat of force and
war against Iran.
Ardeshir Ommani is co-founder of the
recently formed American-Iranian Friendship Committee.
Next, Bush
and Blair’s threats, the Iranian Oil Bourse and dollar
supremacy v. euro
Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email:
[email protected]
Subscribe
[email protected]
Support independent news
DONATE