Threats to Iran – Oppose the Disinformation and Warmongering!

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Threats to Iran – Oppose the Disinformation and Warmongering!

Statement of a British Iranian Woman

Legal Mist Stokes US-Iran Tensions in Strait

Parts of NIE Report Incorrect

Hands Off Iran!

World Against War International Peace Conference

Interview with an Activist at the World Against War International Peace Conference

Iranian Foreign Minister’s Address to the UN Security Council

Information on Iran Nuclear Programme

National Hands Off Iraqi Oil day of action - 23rd Feb

It is nearly five years on from the threat to the Iraqi people which was the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, when the British, American and much of the world’s people faced an onslaught of propaganda, falsehoods, and faced all out warmongering from the British and American governments. Now the imperialists are attempting to repeat that history, a “history as such” imposed on the people, with a campaign of complete disinformation about the sovereign nation of Iran. However, due largely to a massive anti-war movement which has developed the people’s consciousness, the aim of Anglo-American revenge seeking is not well hidden. But the importance of opposing the disinformation and supporting the anti-war movement, a movement that must join with all sections and fight for an anti-war government, is imperative to the struggle of humankind to prevent war and build a peaceful future. What are the US imperialists with their British cohorts up to?

            The massively promoted “incident” in the Strait of Hormuz, off Iran, revealed the same Goebbels technique of deceiving the people through the media and trying to form a basis by which a pre-emptive strike can be launched on Iran. Information has come to light that the US in fact doctored the video tape that reportedly shows a threat to a US ship by an Iranian speedboat.

            A video released by Iran shows a different situation altogether. The Iranian commander is heard to say, “Coalition warship 73, this is Iranian navy patrol boat.” He then requests the “side numbers” of the US warships. A voice with a US accent replies, “This is coalition warship 73. I am operating in international waters.” This is in direct contradiction with the US version, which paints a scene of a dramatic threat by Iran that could have culminated in a “battle at sea”.

            This video tape was used to further justify Iran as the enemy in the Middle East with Bush reiterating his warmongering tactic that Iran is “a threat to world peace”. But after evidence to suggest that the video tape shown by American media could well have fake audio, like the evidence of a veteran US naval officer who said his “first thought” was that “the message “might not have come from the Iranian craft”; Pentagon officials had to admit that the message may have come from another source. In other words, the warmongering tactics of the Bush administration are so apparent to the vast majority of people that they the US state are left with no choice but to face the exposure to their lies.

            It seems that one of the main aims of Bush on his tour of the Middle East was to use the “policy of fear” to convince Middle Eastern countries that Iran is the enemy. Being received by some of the richest oil men, Bush was trying to form alliances with countries such as Saudi Arabia to unite against Iran. Meanwhile his policy towards Israel is to be behind it 100% in its continued armed offensive against the Palestinians. Of Israel, Bush stated that the government would have its “security” while saying nothing about the long endured hardship and struggle of the Palestinian people.

            Israel being the ally and agent of the Anglo-American imperialist agenda is itself the threat to Middle East peace, having a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons. But it is Iran which is being attacked as the warmongering nation who must comply with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. What is all this nonsense about Iran’s nuclear arms programme? Even according to the US National Intelligence Estimate, Iran has not had a nuclear arms programme since 2003. Iran has its uranium enrichment programme which is to be used for peaceful purposes, which has been confirmed by the IAEA who have been working with Iran.

            Anglo-US imperialism is creating an ever-increasing threat to world peace. It is the Bush-Brown alliance that perpetuates a foreign policy geared towards attacking any nation that stands in the way of the unilateral demands of the US and its hegemony. Opposed to this are Iran and other threatened nations and most importantly the majority of the world’s people. It is the force of this opposition to the war plans of the imperialists that has already seen troops being pulled out of Basra and it is this force who will bring an end to these wars. If any further plans of an attack on Iran occur, the British people know their responsibility to hold Brown to account.

            The British people including workers, women, youth, national minorities, veteran soldiers and all sections of the people are already in preparation for a national demonstration to take place on March 15, 2008, five years on from the start of the Iraq war. What needs to be acknowledged by the many opposed to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the threat to Iran is that Brown will not change course on this front and it is the people who must put forward their agenda of fighting to bring into being a democratic anti-war government that vests sovereignty in the people. This is the most important question, that it must be the people who decide what the future of British foreign policy is, a policy that holds the sovereignty of nations as inviolable.

WDIE asked a British Iranian Woman who visited Iran in early January during the much publicised Strait of Hormuz “incident” to give her views on Iran and its people and the defence of Iran’s sovereignty. Here is her reply.

            The Iranian people have fought for their freedom and, yes, they still do have many problems. But let us not forget that it was indeed the British who stirred up propaganda well before the revolution as soon as the former Iranian president decided he was going to nationalise Iran’s oil (BP). The intentions of the West have been crystal clear from the start. The poverty in Iran was horrendous before the revolution when the US backed the shah in all his brutal regimes. The Iran people have seen the outcome in Iraq and have no trust in the West and their motive of the pursuit of profit. And so, as we see, the media in Britain continue to find more ways to stir up propaganda. If they run out of “terrorist stories”, I’m sure they will use the suppression of women to have us thinking how brutal Iran is.

            Yes, it is true that women are still fighting for their rights, but they are succeeding. There are more women in university than men, laws are being adapted after the increase in women Iranian lawyers, and like most of us young women they are getting on working and studying day to day. After attending an event in Shiraz, Iran, which celebrates the role of Iranian women I was happy to see there were more men there than woman. Most women will tell you that Iran does have problems, but they do not live in the stone ages. I find it very offensive that people have this perception, but when the only information you get on Iran is a victim of propaganda it does not surprise me.

            Iranian people, like most people, are fighting for better living conditions. Most will tell you they find it very hypocritical when Bush refers to them as "axis of evil" and only highlights the problems in their country as he has many social problems like gun crime that cause problems for the American people. As much as we in Britain may be shocked with what the media tells us, the Iranian people are equally as shocked that for such a "liberated country" as the US, democracy does not fully exist. Nobel peace prize winner Shirin Ebadi had to fight a court case in the US just to get her book published.

            The Iranian people like all people are fighting for their rights and building their country and do not need the “help” of America.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi*, Asia Times Online, January 15, 2008

The recent, and escalating, tension between Iran and the US in the narrow corridor of the Strait of Hormuz has once again drawn attention to the strait's international maritime status, and to the ramifications of this tension as a flashpoint in the Middle East.

            In a significant raising of the temperature, US President George W Bush on Sunday accused Iran of threatening security around the world by backing militants and urged his Gulf Arab allies to confront "this danger before it is too late".

            Speaking in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates during his seven-nation tour of the Middle East, Bush said the US is strengthening its "security commitments with our friends in the Gulf" and "rallying friends around the world to confront this danger". He also called Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terror".

            Tension spiked markedly last week when Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) speedboats were involved in an "incident" with three US Navy vessels, which claimed they were international waters.

            Yet there is no "international water" in the Strait of Hormuz, straddled between the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. The US government claimed, through a Pentagon spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the three US ships "transiting through the Strait of Hormuz" were provocatively harassed by the speedboats. This was followed by the Pentagon's release of a videotape of the encounter, where in response to Iran's request for ship identification, we hear a dispatch from one of the US ships stating the ship's number and adding that "we are in international waters and we intend no harm".

            Thus there is the issue of the exact whereabouts of the US ships at the time of the standoff with the Iranian boats manned by the IRGC patrolling the area. According to Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgiff, the US ships were "five kilometres outside Iranian territorial waters". Yet, this is disputed by another dispatch from the US ships that states, "I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law."

            Given that the approximately three-kilometre-wide inbound traffic lane in the Strait of Hormuz is within Iran's territorial water, the US Navy's invocation of "transit passage" harking back to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, (UNCLOS) is hardly surprising. [1]

            Although the US has yet to ratify the UNCLOS, it has been a strong advocate of its provisions regarding navigational rights, thus explaining the US officers' availing themselves of "international law". [2]

            It is noteworthy that in May 2006, Bush urged the US Congress to "act favourably on US accession to the convention". But, in light of the legal ramifications of the US-Iran standoff in the Persian Gulf, discussed below, opponents of the UNCLOS may have become emboldened. According to them, the convention "prohibits two functions vital to American security: collecting intelligence and submerged transit of territorial waters".

            However, irrespective of how Congress acts on the pending legislation on UNCLOS, the fact is that the US cannot have its cake and eat it. That is, rely on it to defend its navigational rights in the Strait of Hormuz and, simultaneously, disregard the various limitations on those rights imposed by the UNCLOS – and favouring Iran. These include the following:

• Per Article 39 of the UNCLOS, pertaining to "duties of ships during transit passage" US ships passaging through the Strait of Hormuz must "proceed without delay" and "refrain from any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of states bordering the strait".

• Per Article 40, "During transit passage, foreign ships may not carry out any research or survey activity without the prior authorisation of the states bordering the straits." And yet, by the US Navy's own admission, it has been conducting sonar activities in the area, to detect submerged vessels. This, in turn, has harmed the Persian Gulf's aquatic mammals. In light of a recent US court ruling limiting the US Navy's sonar activities off the California coast, Iran now has greater political leverage to seek information regarding the activities of US warships transiting through its territorial waters.

• Given the US's verbal acrobatics, of trying to depict as "international waters" what is essentially Iran's territorial water in the inbound traffic channel of the Strait of Hormuz, it collides with Article 34 of UNCLOS. This regards the "legal status of waters forming the straits used for international navigation", that strictly stipulates that the regime of passage "shall not affect the legal status of the waters forming such straits". Following the UNCLOS, Iran's territorial water extends 12 nautical miles at the Strait of Hormuz.

• The Pentagon videotape of the incident shows a US helicopter hovering above the US ships, which is in clear contradiction of Article 19 of the UNCLOS, which expressly forbids "the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft" during transit passage.

• Article 19, elaborating on the meaning of "innocent passage", states that "passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state". And that means a prohibition on "any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind" and or "any act of harmful and serious pollution".

In other words, US warships transiting through Hormuz must, in effect, act as non-war ships, "temporarily depriving themselves of their armed might". And any "warning shots" fired by US ships at Iranian boats, inspecting the US ships under customary international laws, must be considered an infringement on Iran's rights. This technically warrants a legal backlash in the form of the Iranians temporary suspending the US warships' right of passage. Again, the US could be technically prosecuted by Iran in international forums for conducting questionable activities while in Iranian territorial waters.

• Under Article 25 of the UNCLOS, a "coastal state may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent ... the coastal state may suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its of security, including weapons exercise."

• Per Article 30, "If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal state concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal state may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately."

• Pursuant to Article 42 of the UNCLOS, "states bordering straits may adopt laws and regulations relating to transit passage" and "foreign ships exercising the right of transit passage shall comply with such laws and regulations." In this connection, Iran's 1993 maritime law echoes Article 20 of the UNCLOS: "In the territorial sea, submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on surface and to show their flag." Yet, disregarding both international law and Iran's laws, the US Navy until now has refused to comply with the requirement of surface passage of its submarines through the Strait of Hormuz.

            In light of the above, the Strait of Hormuz has now turned into a most fertile source of tension and conflict between Iran and the United States, touching on the larger issue of international law of the sea and the navigational regime through the strait(s).

            Iran could conceivably use its privileged geographical position to tap into the complex set of rules pertaining to the navigational regime, as a form of (geo) political leverage to wring concessions from the US Navy, and its regional allies, with respect to security and maritime affairs of the Persian Gulf.

 

Notes

1. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea strikes a balance between the sovereign rights of coastal states and the right of passage of foreign ships, requiring concessions from both sides. It prohibits passing ships from "any act aimed at collecting information or use and threat of force".

2. The Iranian press have complained of the US's intention to use the man-made, artificial islands by the United Arab Emirates for military purposes, to complement the US's forward base in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. They wonder if this has been one of the unstated purposes of Bush's visit to the region, given the brisk operational tempo of the US Navy with regard to Iran. This includes the US's plan to implement the provisions of its multilateral PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative), such as ship interdiction, already exercised with regard to North Korea, with respect to Iran. Yet, the PSI initiative collides head-on with the UNCLOS-based limitations on the US Navy's activities in the semi-landlocked Persian Gulf and, especially in the Strait of Hormuz, discussed in this article.

 

* Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He also wrote "Keeping Iran's nuclear potential latent", Harvard International Review, and is author of Iran's Nuclear Programme: Debating Facts Versus Fiction.

According to the Iranian News Agency IRNA, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini on December 9, 2007, termed some parts of the US report on Iran's nuclear programme as "incorrect".

            Talking to reporters at his weekly press conference, he said, "What is mentioned in the report on Iran's nuclear activities before 2003 is incorrect, wrong and unreal."

            A report released on December 3 by the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), had said that Iran had halted its atomic weapons programme in 2003.

            Unlike what was claimed by the 16 US intelligence bodies, Iran has never pursued a programme to develop nuclear weapons and the reports released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have confirmed that the country has had no deviation from its peaceful nuclear activities, Hosseini reiterated.

            "Resistance of the Iranian nation and government took the other side to a point where it confessed to some realities and facts and that is a great victory," he added.

As part of a national day of action, “Don’t Attack Iran” on November 24 last year, the Tyneside Stop the War Coalition (TSWC) held a protest action in Newcastle.   Following is the speech given there by the Chair of the TSWC.

 

The threat to Syria and Iran through both war propaganda and diplomatic pressure has the aim to further violate the sovereignty of these nations and balkanize the Middle East into fractions .

            If anyone is in doubt about the further war threat that Bush and Brown are posing to the Middle Eastern countries then look no further than the condoning of the Israeli Air Strike on Syria on September 6.  Both Israeli and US officials dropped hints soon after the Israeli air raid that it was aimed at sending a message to Iran.

            That the Anglo-Americans are using diplomatic and "international" pressure is not a sign that they want to resolve their differences between themselves Syria and Iran.

            The Anglo-American ambitions pertaining to Iran and Syria are not one of co-operation. The ultimate objective is political and economic subordination through diplomatic or military means.

            Moreover, as either a friend or foe, America cannot tolerate Iran within its present borders. The balkanization of Iran, like that of Iraq and Russia, is a major long-term Anglo-American goal.  Just as the attack on the nation building of the Palestinians has always been at the centre of their control over the Middle East via their armed client state Israel, their occupation of Iraq was undertaken not just for oil but to try and smash the nation building and unity among the Arabs and peoples of the Middle East.

            Is it their strategy to try and subvert the resistance and smash up Iraq – a nation that has a history of some three thousand years – and who is behind the death squads and violence?   This is what they have in mind for Syria and Iran, but this will not happen without widening the conflict further.

            Russia, which has itself been subject to the same treatment of being piece by piece pulled apart, is engaged with China and Iran. The contention over the Middle East, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq threatens a new world war

             That there was no condemnation of the Israeli air strikes on Syria shows that it is part of the criminal war preparations of Bush and Brown and they are preparing for war in almost exactly the same way as with Iraq. They are demonising Iran over its nuclear power programme claiming without any evidence that Iran has nuclear weapon ambitions. This sounds criminally familiar to the propaganda over Iraq.    This is a crime against the peace, defined as such when after the Second World War such a crime was regarded as the most serious of war crimes because all other crimes follow from it. Without the propaganda for war and the bogus pretext, genocide would not take place.

            Join with us today in this day of action, discuss with your friends and work colleagues and let us build the resistance to these war preparations and not let this pass.

            The people have shown that they are peace loving. Next year on February 15 it will be the fifth anniversary of the 2-million-strong demonstration in London to oppose the invasion of Iraq.  This was a defining moment when millions of people all over the world took a stand that war is not the solution in solving international problems.

            It was a realisation that pro-war government is an anachronism and must be replaced by an anti-war government    This means that we need people’s assemblies, local forums and that we do not recognise those laws that try to stop our actions and activities which are building resistance to war.

            Let us make our stand:

Bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan!
No troops on foreign soil!
Hands off Syria and Iran!
Fight for an anti-war government!

Over 1,200 delegates from the anti-war movement across the globe came to London for the World Against War International Peace Conference on December 1, 2007.

Delegates from 26 countries addressed the conference, reported on developments in their regions and discussed strategy for the movement. The conference issued a declaration which is included below. There was unanimous agreement to organise demonstrations for Troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and against an attack on Iran in every country around the fifth anniversary of the attack on Iraq between 15 and 22 March.

Delegates attended from Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Egypt, Iceland, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Palestine, Poland, Somalia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

 

Declaration of World against War Conference

This conference of delegates from peace, anti-war, anti-imperialist and liberation movements across the world declares its opposition to the “endless war” prosecuted by the US government against states, peoples and movements in all parts of our planet.

We oppose the interference of the US and its allies in sovereign states, and assert the right of all peoples to self-determination. We support all people fighting for peace and against imperialism.

In particular, we demand:

·         An immediate end to the illegal military occupation of Iraq, which has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and displaced millions of people, a withdrawal of all foreign troops and the full transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people and their representatives.

·         A halt to all preparations for an attack against Iran, and a commitment to solve any issues through exclusively diplomatic means.

·         A withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan, allowing the Afghan people to determine their own future.

·         Justice for the Palestinian people, and an end to Israeli aggression throughout the Middle East.

·         An end to plans for US missile defence, and that all states actively pursue nuclear disarmament .

We affirm the solidarity of all those fighting for peace, social justice and self-determination worldwide, and commit ourselves to strength­ening our unity and developing new forms of co-operation.

We therefore designate the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq as a worldwide day of action in support of the demands No Attack on Iran and Troops Out of Iraq/Afghanistan and call on all national anti-war movements to hold mass protests and demonstrations on that day.

What were the main aims in convening the conference?

The conference came after six years of the so-called “war on terror”, of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the spreading of war to the “wider middle east” and the increasing militarisation of international relations led by the United States.

            The conference was called to strengthen international campaigning against the war drive and to promote “an alternative based on peace, justice and equality”.

 

What were the issues raised, and how were they discussed in the conference?

The continuing war in and occupation of Iraq was a key issue, as was the threat of war on Iran and the road leading to one in the form of sanctions and other measures.

            The war in and occupation of Afghanistan was another major issue. The US/NATO “missile defence” programme and the issue of the new nuclear wea­pons plans of the big powers, particularly Britain and the US, were raised.

            There were opening and closing plenaries. Between these were sessions on Iraq, Iran, Afghan­istan, the anti-war movement in Europe and reports from Pakistan, Canada, Korea, the United States and Lebanon.

 

On Iran what was the sentiment and the general idea of what it is that needs to be done to prevent war?

Opposition to war on Iran as well as sanctions and other measures leading to one was a major theme of the conference.

            There was a call for an organised movement to combat government and media disinformation on the issue.

            The conference designated the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, between 15 and 22 March 2008, as a worldwide week of action. Demonstrations will be organised against an attack on Iran as well as calling for troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

How did the discussion manifest the interests of the people?

Speakers came from 26 countries and from heart of the anti-war and anti-occupation movements in their own countries. So the contributions they presented to the 1,200 participants bypassed the “official” sources and reinforced each other.

            This attitude of building the “other superpower” which defines its own aims and does not let the agenda be set by the dominant powers was clear.

 

What are the ideas that you think the people should uphold in regards to preventing war and organising for an antiwar government?

What we have seen is that the United States government, along the British government and what­ever “coalition” they can put together, identifies a “problem” which they will “solve” with the threat or actual use of armed force. We have to take things up with the spirit that they don’t define the “problem”, that their warmongering is the problem.

            One of the key things is to combat their disinformation. One thing is for people to do their own investigation. The availability of the internet makes this much more feasible.

 

Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki on March 24, 2007, called a new UN sanctions resolution against Iran unlawful and unjustified in an address to the UN Security Council. The Security Council's 15 members unanimously adopted a resolution on Saturday expanding the sanctions imposed on Iran in December for refusing to freeze its uranium enrichment programme. "This is the fourth time in the last 12 months that in an unwarranted move orchestrated by a few of its permanent members, the Security Council is being abused to take an unlawful, unnecessary and unjustifiable action against the peaceful nuclear programme of the Islamic Republic of Iran," Mottaki told the Council as carried by AFP news agency. Following is the statement.

 

***

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

            Mr President,

            This is the fourth time in the last 12 months that in an unwarranted move, orchestrated by a few of its permanent members, the Security Council is being abused to take an unlawful, unnecessary and unjustifiable action against the peaceful nuclear programme of the Islamic Republic of Iran which presents no threat to international peace and security and falls therefore outside the Council’s Charter-based mandate.

            As we have stressed time and again, Iran’s nuclear programme is completely peaceful. We have expressed our readiness, taken unprecedented steps and offered several serious proposals to address and allay any possible concern in this regard. Indeed, there has been no doubt for us from the very beginning, nor should there be any for the Council, that all these schemes of the co-sponsors of the Resolution are for narrow national considerations, and aimed at depriving the Iranian people of their inalienable rights, rather than emanating from any so-called proliferation concerns.

            In order to give this scheme a semblance of international legitimacy, its initiators first manipulated the IAEA Board of Governor and – as they acknowledged themselves – “coerced” some of its members to vote against Iran in the Board, and then have taken advantage of their substantial economic and political power to pressure and manipulate the Security Council to adopt three unwarranted resolutions within 8 months.

            Undoubtedly, those resolutions cannot indicate universal acceptance, particularly when the heads of state of nearly two thirds of UN members, who belong to the Non-Aligned Movement and the OIC, supported Iran’s positions as recently as September 2006 and expressed concern about policies pursued inside the Security Council. These resolutions do not even reflect the views of the Council’s own 15 members, since most of them were not thoroughly informed about, let alone engaged in, the discussions held in secret meetings where only a few, among them non-members of the Council, decide for the whole Security Council.

            Mr President,

            This is not the first time the Security Council is asking Iran to abandon its rights. When Saddam Hussein invaded Iran 27 years ago, this Council waited 7 days so that Iraq could occupy 30000 sq kilometres of Iranian territory. Then it unanimously adopted Security Council Resolution 479. That unanimously adopted resolution asked the 2 sides to stop the hostilities, without asking the aggressor to withdraw. That is, the Council – then too – effectively asked Iran to suspend the implementation of parts of its rights; at that time is its right to 30000 sq kilometres of its territory.

            As expected, the aggressor dutifully complied. But imagine what would have happened if Iran had complied. We would still be begging the Council’s then sweetheart, President Saddam Hussein, to return our territory.

            We did not accept to suspend our right to our territory. We resisted 8 years of carnage and use of chemical weapons coupled with pressure from this Council, and sanctions from its permanent members.

            In the course of the war, the United States joined the United Kingdom, Germany, France and the Soviet Union along with other Western countries in providing Saddam with military hardware and intelligence and even the material for chemical and biological weapons. The Security Council was prevented for several years and in spite of mounting evidence and UN reports, to deal with the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iranian civilians and military personnel.

            I am confident that today, most of the permanent members of this Council, do not even want to remember that travesty of justice, the Charter and international law, let alone blame Iran for non-compliance with SCR 479.

            I am also confident that they do not want to remember that when the Iranian people nationalised their oil industry, they attempted to impose a resolution on this Council condemning Iran for threatening peace and security. But they cannot coerce the international public opinion to forget that and certainly the Iranian people will never forget it.

            Who among you does not know – and rest assured that the international public opinion does know – that two permanent members of this Council, with full and prior knowledge of Zionist regime intention to commit aggression against Lebanon, preven­ted for over a month any decision in this Council, the Rome Conference and other initiatives to put an end to that regime’s atrocities? You in the Council could not even adopt an appropriate position vis-à-vis the bombardment of UN facilities in Lebanon which caused the death of your own representatives. The Security Council should be accountable not only for its unlawful actions and decisions, but indeed for its repeated failures to act against threats to international peace and security.

            Mr President,

            As an organ of an international organisation created by States, the Security Council is bound by law, and Member States have every right to insist that the Council keeps within the powers they have accorded to it under the Charter. The Security Council must exercise those powers consistently with the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Equally, the measures it takes must be consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the UN and with other international law. Members of the Security Council do not have the right to undermine Council’s credibility.

            There is every reason to assert that consideration by the Security Council of the Iranian peaceful nuclear programme has no legal basis as the referral of the case to the Security Council and then adoption of Resolutions fail to meet the minimum stand­ards of legality. Iran's peaceful nuclear activities cannot be characterised as a threat to peace by any stretch of law, fact or logic. Rather, certain members of the Security Council decided to hijack the case from IAEA, as the principal specialised technical organ in charge of the issue, and politicise it. How can Iran's peaceful nuclear programme be considered in the Security Council while Iran has carried out its obligations, and cooperated to the fullest extent possible, far more than it is obliged to in accordance with its treaty obligations, namely the NPT and the Safeguard Agreement? Isn't it simply because the IAEA could not find any diversion from lawful and peaceful purposes? How could one expect the IAEA to prove a negative fact?

            Mr President,

            In order to achieve the politically motivated and unlawful goal of depriving Iran from its inalienable right to nuclear technology, attempts have been made to manufacture evidence. According to a recent report in an American newspaper, "most US intelligence shared with the UN nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran.” The same news article also quotes a senior IAEA official as saying "since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong."

            However, in order to enable the IAEA to reach this conclusion, Iran had to implement transparency measures outside all IAEA safeguards and proto­cols and allow the IAEA inspectors over 20 visit to its sensitive military sites which had no connection whatsoever to its nuclear programme. Can any mem­ber of this Council accept to do likewise? Are permanent members of this Council even prepared to simply inform the international public of the number of centrifuges they own?

            In fact, over the last 4 years, the IAEA has conducted more than 2100 person-days of scrutiny of all Iranian nuclear facilities. All reports by the IAEA since November 2003 have been indicative of the peaceful nature of Iranian nuclear programme. The Agency confirmed in 2003, and maintained since then that “to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities … were related to a nuclear weapons programme.”

            On several occasions, the Agency concluded that “all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities.” As recently as February 2007, the IAEA Director General stated in his report that "pursuant to its NPT Safeguards Agreement, Iran has been providing the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and facil­ities, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with such material and facilities." The same report also indicates "the Agency is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran." He also indicated to the Board of Governors on March 5, 2007 that the Agency has seen no “industrial capacity to produce weapons-useable nuclear material, which is an important consideration in assessing the risk."

            Mr President,

            It is very unfortunate that the Security Council, und­er the manifest pressure by a few of its perman­ent members, persists in trying to deprive a nation of its "inalienable right" to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, while that nation has met, and continues to honour, its international obligations. The Security Council's decision to try to coerce Iran into suspension of its peaceful nuclear programme is a gross violation of Article 25 of the Charter, and contradicts Iranian people’s right to development and the right to education. While Member States have agreed, in accordance with Article 25 of the Charter, to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter, the Security Council could not pressurise countries into submitting either to its decisions taken in bad faith or to its demands negating the Fundamental purposes and principles of the UN Charter. Likewise, as the International Court of Justice held in its 1971 advisory opinion, the Member States are required to comply with its decisions only if they are in accordance with the UN Charter. Does the UN Charter authorise the Security Council to require Member States of the UN to give up their basic rights emanating from treaties? To do that would violate established principles of international treaty law and that of the purposes of the UN Charter to establish conditions under which justice and respect for treaty obligations is to be maintained.

            Who could deny that preventing a whole nation from higher education in specific fields as well as from benefiting from nuclear technology for hum­an­itarian and civil uses is contrary to the basic rights of all people to education and the right to development? Isn't it an alarming discriminatory approach vis-à-vis knowledge and development? How could an organ of the United Nations, established to maintain peace and security, be manipulated by certain States not only to act contrary to fundamental purposes and principles of the Charter, but also to aggravate an easily-resolvable issue into an international crisis? However, it is evident that such an approach will strengthen the resolve of developing countries to expedite their independence-seeking efforts and attain even greater scientific and technological achievements.

            Mr President,

            The Resolution which was just adopted about Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme, while those who voted in favour of it did not even bother to listen to my country’s positions and explanations, has a number of characteristics which I wish to underline for the record and for the awakened global public opinion:

            1. This Resolution, by establishing sanctions, is punishing a country, which according to the IAEA has never diverted its nuclear programme. This Resol­ution punishes a country, which has been a comm­itted member of the NPT, with all its nuclear facil­ities under the monitoring of the IAEA inspectors and their camera. This Resolution imposes sancti­ons on a country that has fulfilled all its commit­ments to the NPT and IAEA safeguards, and demands nothing more than its inalienable rights under the NPT. Is there any better way to undermine an important multilateral instrument which deals directly with international peace and security? Isn’t this action by the Security Council not, in and of itself, a grave threat to international peace and security?

            2. The current Resolution has clearly departed from the stated claims of its sponsors and through target­ing my country’s defence, economic and educational institutions, is pursuing objectives far beyond Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme. The sanctions in this Resolution are clearly targeting an independent, proud and tireless nation with thousands of years of culture and civilisation. What can harming of hundreds of thousands of depositors in Bank Sepah, with 80 year history in Iran, mean other than confronting ordinary Iranians?

            3. This Resolution is adopted at a time when not only all rational proposals and initiatives to return to a negotiated solution have been neglected, but also certain countries have not even allowed the presentation of such proposals. Iran has always been ready for time-bound and unconditional negotiations aimed at finding a mutually acceptable solution. Iran has done its best to achieve this objective and has presented numerous proposals to provide necessary assurances about the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme. In the last several weeks, other proposals were advanced, each of which could have provided an opportunity to break the current stalemate and lead to a rational and just resolution. The only interpretation that can be drawn from the rush to adopt this resolution and prevent negotiations is that ulterior motives of the sponsors and the lack of political will to find solutions.

            4. Finally, the current Resolution is adopted against Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme at a time when major nuclear powers continue to flout the persistent demand of the international community for nuclear disarmament and instead jeopardise international peace and security by developing new generations of these weapons and by threatening to use them.

            Mr President,

            I ask you: Does the adoption of the present Resolution strengthen international peace and security? Does it augment the credibility of important international mechanisms such as the NPT, the IAEA and even this very Council? Does it enhance the confidence of countries and developing nations that they can attain their rights through these mechanisms and instruments? Does it increase trust in multilateral mechanisms? Does it decrease unilateralist tendencies? Certainly, the answer to all these questions is NO. The only outcome of this Resolution is that freedom-loving people and governments in the world would gain confidence that they cannot rely on multilateral institutions to attain their legitimate rights.

            Because of the unlawful and unjust approach of the Security Council, its Resolutions have until now failed to lead to a resolution of the issue. These Resolutions – and the certainty of some permanent members that they can get them one way or another – are, and have always been, a part of the problem and an impediment to finding a real and mutually acceptable solution. That is why Iran continues to insist on the imperative of stopping this practice which will only exacerbate the situation and will erode the authority and undermine the credibility of the Council.

            Mr President,

            It was clear from the outset that there are only two alternatives in dealing with Iranian peaceful nuclear programme: cooperation and interaction or confrontation and conflict. The Islamic Republic of Iran, confident of the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme always insisted on the first alternative.

            Iran does not seek confrontation, nor does it want anything beyond its inalienable rights. I can assure you that pressure and intimidation will not change Iranian policy. If certain countries have pinned their hopes that repeated Resolutions would dent the resolve of the great Iranian nation, they should not doubt that they have once again faced a catastrophic intelligence and analytical failure vis-à-vis the Iranian people’s Islamic Revolution. Probably in the history of Iran there can be no time that the entire people have been so solidly behind a national demand. As the Iranian nation paid a heavy price for its nationalisation of its oil industry and its 8 years of sacred defence, we realise now that we must be prepared to pay the price for our dignity and our independence. But the world must know – and it does – that even the harshest political and economic sanctions or other threats are far too weak to coerce the Iranian nation to retreat from their legal and legitimate demands.

            If you are seeking to sanction and block the wealth and capabilities of the Iranian nation, particularly our national heroes, who are mentioned in the Resolution, then I will tell you what the main assets are: Faith in God, Seeking justice, and resisting against threats and intimidations.

            Can this resolution block these valuable assets? Could 8 years of imposed war confiscate this great asset? A war that was designed by certain perman­ent members and implemented with the endless support of weapons and petro-dollars, missiles, Mirage and Super Etandard aircrafts, intelligence support and promises from the former US defence secretary.

            The Iranian nation, following its esteemed leader, advises you not to undermine the dignity of the United Nations and the IAEA. We invite you to come back to the path of negotiation based on justice and truth. The only way is to abandon the unwise pre-conditions and come back to negotiat­ion with good faith. Suspension is neither an option nor a solution.

            Mr President,

            The Iranian people, guided by Islamic teachings and values, are peace loving and civilised nation. In fact, our people have never had any role in crimes against humanity such as the crimes com­mitted during the last two World Wars, genocides taken place in different parts of the world, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedy, Vietnam war and the crimes perpetrated during the war in Balkan and the atrocious crimes that are being systematically committed against the Palestinian people. Iran has not started any war in the past two hundred years. We have been even the victim of terrorism and WMD during the 8 year imposed war. We call for peace, stability and well-being of all people throughout the world especially in our own region. We have always endeavoured to play a constructive and effective role as a responsible member of the international community.

            Thank you Mr President.

(source: YaleGlobal Online, September 13, 2005)

 

To the disappointment of the US and the European Union Troika (EU3) – Britain, France, and Germany – the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran's nuclear program fell short of the critical declaration for which the Western nations were hoping.

            Indeed, the document said that the IAEA tests vindicated Tehran's claims that traces of enriched uranium found two years earlier at the Iranian nuclear facilities were from the imported equipment, believed to be of Pakistani origin. Unsurprisingly, Washington immediately dismissed this IAEA finding as meaningless.

            Equally disappointing to the Europeans and the United States was the report by the prestigious London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies that followed soon thereafter. The report revealed that Iran would need more than 10 years to build an industrial-scale centrifugal plant at Natanz, where a relatively small pilot centrifugal plant currently exists.

            By now, the European frustration with Iran is palpable – and is shared by Washington. Such a convergence should easily gain them a majority at the 15-strong United Nations Security Council – where four of the five permanent members are European or American – to punish Tehran for its refusal to permanently abdicate its right to enrich uranium.

            Unfortunately for the Western powers, the nuclear matter may be referred to the Security Council only by the IAEA's Board of Governors, and the composition of the 35-member Board is not as iniquitous as the UN Security Council. Fifteen of the IAEA governors belong to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which represents 116 of the 191 members of the UN.

            The principle underlying the current spat over uranium enrichment is this: Does the developing world have the right to develop and use all nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment?

            Tehran's answer is an unequivocal "Yes," and the NAM agrees. The Europeans do not deny that right; they wants Iran to permanently cede its prerogative in exchange for an EU commitment to construct nuclear power plants in the Islamic Republic and strengthen commercial links with Iran.

            Signing such a deal would render Iran totally dependent on the EU for its civilian nuclear power plants and the fuel needed to run them – a fundamental negation of aims of the 1979 revolution in Iran: regaining Iranian independence and sovereignty.

            "For Iran, nuclear technology is a source of national pride and a demonstration of its political and technological independence from its former colonial masters," says Daryl Kimball, executive director of Arms Control Association, a non-partisan organization that researches nuclear issues. Kimball adds, "This is much more complicated than a simple economic and energy calculation."

            For their part, the Iranians have concentrated on fulfilling the European demands for a nuclear program geared toward civilian, not military, operations. In March, they submitted to European negotiators detailed proposals for strict IAEA monitoring of their nuclear program. The outlined regime extended far beyond the provisions of the Additional Protocol on the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which they signed in December 2003. But Iran also repeatedly ruled out the prospect of permanently renouncing their right to develop nuclear technology.

            The framework that the EU3 proposed to Tehran in early August made commercial incentives and building of nuclear electric generating plants conditional on Iran's permanent renunciation of its rights under the nuclear NPT. The framework also included the demand that Iran sign a legal agreement not to quit the NPT – as North Korea had – under any circumstances.

            Tehran rejected the package. In a clear breach of its agreement to suspend all uranium-enrichment-related activities, Iran resumed its work at the plant near Isfahan, where uranium oxide is converted to uranium hexafluoride gas – but only under the watchful eyes of the IAEA inspectors. This gas is the feedstock for centrifuges that enrich uranium to varying degrees: 4 percent for power plants, 20 percent for research reactors, and 90 percent-plus for weapons.

            In response to the rejection, the Europeans threatened to take Iran to the United Nations Security Council. It was an empty threat.

            At the IAEA governors' emergency meeting in Vienna, the EU3 and the US discovered that they actually lacked the wide majority they had sought. So they settled for asking Iran to suspend its activities related to uranium enrichment, and for the IAEA secretary-general Muhammad El Baradei to report on the issue by September 3.

            El Baradei's 15-page document proved to be a mixed bag. While insisting that Iran maintain transparency, the report did not invalidate the IAEA's earlier conclusion that it had not found evidence that Iran was engaged in a banned nuclear weapons program.

            The plain fact is that the only valid basis for hauling Iran before the UN Security Council is its breach of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime as enshrined in the NPT. Following the IAEA emergency meeting, Russia – which is about to finish constructing a civilian nuclear power plant near Bushehr – said that it saw no evidence that Tehran was violating the non-proliferation regime.

            At the IAEA emergency session, among those who remained coolly cognizant of the facts on the ground were the IAEA governors belonging to the NAM, including such heavyweights as Brazil, India, Indonesia, and South Africa.

            Rajmah Hussein of Malaysia, the current NAM chairman, reiterated NAM's position that all countries have "a basic and inalienable right" to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes.

            NAM members note that while Western nations repeatedly ask why Iran is so insistent on building nuclear power plants when the country has vast reserves of oil and natural gas, they never pose the same question to the Russians, who have built a large number of nuclear power plants despite having the largest natural gas reserves in the world. In any event, according to a recent estimate by British Petroleum, oil consumption in Iran was rising so fast that the country would become a net oil importer by 2024.

            By design or accident, Iran has positioned itself as a champion of the third world, with the courage and conviction to stand up to the Western powers. This has won it quiet admiration from many NAM governors, who fear that the limitations imposed on Iran could eventually extend to them. The experience of the past few months has made it clear that any further pressure on Iran to relinquish its right to uranium enrichment at the forthcoming quarterly meeting of the IAEA Governors will likely cause an open fissure with the developing world. The double standard applied in implementing nonproliferation is coming home to roost.

National Day of Action: Saturday 23rd February 2008

Called by Hands Off Iraqi Oil and supported by the Stop the War Coalition.

STOP THE THEFT OF IRAQ'S FUTURE
TELL SHELL AND BP: HANDS OFF IRAQI OIL!
END THE OCCUPATION - MILITARY AND ECONOMIC

 

STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE IRAQI PEOPLE
For the Iraqi people, the ongoing war and occupation have led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, relentless insecurity and crippling poverty. But for foreign oil companies, the desperate situation in Iraq is an opportunity to make massive profits at the expense of the Iraqi people.

 

WHY NOW?
In February 2007 the Iraqi cabinet approved an oil law which, if passed into law, would allow the likes of Shell, BP and Exxon to take over control of most of Iraq's oil reserves, depriving ordinary Iraqis of scores of billions of dollars. Shell and BP, with the help of the UK Government have been actively pushing for this law and these contracts since 2003.

One year on, despite five US administration- and IMF- imposed deadlines, the law is still being contested at every level of Iraqi society. However, a 31January deadline for nternational oil companies to register to compete for tenders to help develop Iraq's oil (  http://tinyurl.com/2bzcuq) represents a first official foot in the door.

We need to keep the pressure up here in the UK and support the Iraqi people in their ongoing fight.

 

IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO STOP THEM
The Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions is at the forefront of grassroots campaigning against the privatisation of Iraq’s oil industry and has threatened strike action should the law go ahead. Oil experts, lawyers, academics, trade unionists, and students are rejecting the
occupation-imposed oil law and the economic occupation it serves.

Who should decide the future of Iraq’s economy and resources? The people of Iraq, or Shell and BP?

 

WHAT YOU CAN DO
Join the Hands Off Iraqi Oil national day of action on Saturday 23 February 2008:

* Invite a speaker to help build for your local action: contact 07749 421 576

* Hold a protest at your local Shell and BP garages (see below for resources), and let us know when you’re doing it so we can help publicise it:  handsoffiraqioil@gmail.com

* Stay informed: sign up for emails updates about the campaign via  handsoffiraqioil@gmail.com

* Find out more: check www.handsoffiraqioil.org for briefings, leaflets, posters, stickers and details of actions both here in the UK and internationally.

 

RESOURCES AVAILABLE
The following resources can be ordered or downloaded from www.handsoffiraqioil.org or by phoning Voices UK on 0845 458 2564:

 

* Hands Off Iraqi Oil poster (A2)
* Hands Off Iraqi Oil stickers (A7)
* Mythbusters factsheet: responses to some common myths about Iraq’s oil
* 'Iraqi Oil for Beginners' by Jon Sack, a new comic book history of Iraq’s oil. Price £3
* Shell leaflets and factsheets