- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Last week, thousands of angry demonstrators attacked the United Nations’ headquarters in Beirut in an outpouring of grief, anger and frustration at yet another Qana massacre.
Although not a demonstrator herself, refugee Sawsan Ali from Southern Lebanon said she wishes the U.N. would ”disappear because its presence is as useless as its nonpresence.”
“The U.N. never helped us. It always favors Israel with all its atrocities, and bows down in front of the U.S. and Israeli will. It is a U.N. for the strong nations, not small and peaceful countries like ours.”
Meanwhile, back at U.N. headquarters in N.Y., Bonkers John Bolton prevented the Security Council from condemning Israel for it atrocious actions, while strong-arming it into passing Resolution 1696 which –
- Acting under Article 40 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations –
- Calls upon Iran without further delay to take the steps required by the
IAEA Board of Governors in its resolution GOV/2006/14, which are essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear program and to resolve outstanding questions;
- Demands, in this context, that Iran shall suspend all enrichment-related
and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA.
What does that mean – acting under Article 40?
Well, in this case it means the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency has asked the Security Council to determine under Article 39 that Iran’s refusal to re-suspend certain IAEA safeguarded activities constitutes a ”threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”
Understandably, the Security Council has refused to make such a determination, and has, instead, invoked Article 40 –
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such pro-visional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
The Security Council went on to underline –
the necessity of the IAEA continuing its work to clarify all outstanding issues relating to Iran’s nuclear program, and calls upon Iran to act in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol and to implement without delay all transparency measures as the IAEA may request in support of its ongoing investigations.
In other words, the Security Council has once again refused to make the determination that Bonkers Bolton has been demanding.
So, once again, Bonkers repeated the false allegations he previously made about Iran’s IAEA safeguarded programs and repeated the false claim that the Security Council had actually made the determination he had been demanding.
Four months have passed since the Security Council called upon Iran to fully and verifiably suspend its nuclear programs, and nearly two months have passed since the EU3-plus-three made its generous offer inviting Iran to enter into negotiations and avoid further Security Council action.
Let us not forget that this diplomatic activity was preceded by more than three years of Iranian noncompliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and its IAEA Safeguards Agreement.
Sadly, Iran has consistently and brazenly defied the international community by continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the continued intransigence and defiance of the Iranian leadership demands a strong response from this Council.
The Resolution before us today does just that.
Mr. President, we are pleased the Council has taken clear and firm action in passing this Resolution. The pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran constitutes a direct threat to international peace and security and demands a clear statement from the Council in the form of a tough resolution.
What did the Iranians have to say about Bolton’s outrageous strong-arm tactics?
The sole reason for pushing the Council to take action, as highlighted in the proposed resolution, is that Iran decided, after over two years of negotiations, to resume the exercise of its inalienable right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, by partially reopening its fully safeguarded facilities and ending a voluntary suspension.
Today’s proposed action by this Council – which is the culmination of those efforts aimed at making the suspension of uranium enrichment mandatory – violates the fundamental principles of international law, the Non-Proliferation Treaty and IAEA Board resolutions. It also runs counter to the views of the majority of U.N. member states, which the Security Council is obliged to represent.