Iran Gets Slapped on the Wrist
Iran Gets Slapped on the Wrist
The Washington Post reports that the IAEA’s board has passed a resolution stating that Iran has violated its nuclear treaty obligations by secretly developing a nuclear program.
A sign of progress? Nope. While the resolution obligates the board to report Iran to the Security Council, it leaves open the issue of when. This outcome reflects the fact that only 22 of the board’s 35 members voted in favor of the resolution. Just one (Venezuela!) voted against it; Russia, China, Pakistan, South Africa and Brazil were among the abstainers. By implication, a stronger resolution would have had even less support. At least the UK, France, Germany and — reflecting its warming relations with the US — India were among the yeas.
Russia and China were at least partially motivated by commercial considerations; as far as the others are concerned, pure and unadultered anti-Americanism is the explanation. Pray tell, how do South Africa and Brazil benefit from an (indefinite) delay?
The outlook for reporting Iran to the Security Council isn’t good. The composition of the board changes next month and several countries, including Cuba and Belarus, that tend to be unfavorable to US policies, will take up seats currently occupied by countries that voted in favor of the resolution. “When” may be never.
The head of the Iranian delegation, Javad Vaeidi, told reporters that the divided vote demonstrated that the resolution had the backing only of Western countries and was “politically motivated.” In a statement to the board, he said Iran was “prepared” to work with the atomic agency to build confidence and increase transparency. But if Iran is reported to the Security Council, Vaeidi added, “we will have no alternative to pursue and preserve our rights.”
So much for multilateralism. The mullahs must be rejoicing. Appeasement continues.
[Cross-posted at American Future]
Posted by Marc Schulman at September 25, 2005 01:51 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/10664
1
.
BobW
said:
The UN's Security Council allows for Great Power vetos. What can an expedited request do when the result is still a veto? PR China is developing long-range oil acquisition from Iran.
The related question is why petrol is still cartel priced? Any assistance from the West to maintain the artificial price?
If it's highly expensive to establish an aerospace industry, isn't it highly expensive to establish a nuclear program?
Just follow the money.
Kol tuv,
BobW
Posted by: BobW on September 25, 2005 04:03 AM
2
.
equilibriumme
said:
thanks. helped fill in the blanks on the referral. www.indianequity.blogspot.com for commentary on indian economy and financial markets
Posted by: equilibriumme on September 25, 2005 04:58 AM
Iran Gets Slapped on the Wrist
The Washington Post reports that the IAEA’s board has passed a resolution stating that Iran has violated its nuclear treaty obligations by secretly developing a nuclear program.
A sign of progress? Nope. While the resolution obligates the board to report Iran to the Security Council, it leaves open the issue of when. This outcome reflects the fact that only 22 of the board’s 35 members voted in favor of the resolution. Just one (Venezuela!) voted against it; Russia, China, Pakistan, South Africa and Brazil were among the abstainers. By implication, a stronger resolution would have had even less support. At least the UK, France, Germany and — reflecting its warming relations with the US — India were among the yeas.
Russia and China were at least partially motivated by commercial considerations; as far as the others are concerned, pure and unadultered anti-Americanism is the explanation. Pray tell, how do South Africa and Brazil benefit from an (indefinite) delay?
The outlook for reporting Iran to the Security Council isn’t good. The composition of the board changes next month and several countries, including Cuba and Belarus, that tend to be unfavorable to US policies, will take up seats currently occupied by countries that voted in favor of the resolution. “When” may be never.
The head of the Iranian delegation, Javad Vaeidi, told reporters that the divided vote demonstrated that the resolution had the backing only of Western countries and was “politically motivated.” In a statement to the board, he said Iran was “prepared” to work with the atomic agency to build confidence and increase transparency. But if Iran is reported to the Security Council, Vaeidi added, “we will have no alternative to pursue and preserve our rights.”
So much for multilateralism. The mullahs must be rejoicing. Appeasement continues.
[Cross-posted at American Future]
Posted by Marc Schulman at September 25, 2005 01:51 AM