[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Why the liberal/leftist discourse of the West Ignores Iran

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> General Discussion & Announcements
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Spenta



Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:16 am    Post subject: Why the liberal/leftist discourse of the West Ignores Iran Reply with quote

http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2005/August/Ganji/index.html

Left out
Why is the liberal/leftist discourse of the West incapable of including Iranian voices of freedom and democracy?


Naheed Rasa
August 8, 2005
iranian.com

An Iranian journalist, Akbar Ganji, is dying in Iran. Because of the articles he wrote in the early 1990s, and because he participated in a conference in Berlin where the Islamic regime of Iran was mildly criticized, he was sentenced to six years in prison. He has completed nearly all but six months of his sentence, but because of constant ill-treatment by officials of the judiciary he has gone on a hunger strike. This has lasted for more almost 60 days, and during this period the not-very-forceful condemnations by various international organizations have only met with a snide response from the Islamic judiciary.

A few days ago, my friends, a bunch of middle-aged expatriate Iranian-American intellectuals with various leftist background, and I were thinking about contacting some progressive organizations here in the US and initiating a strong protest in order to at least put our anger on record. But after many hours of discussion, we came to realize something that we had felt for a long time: It seems that there is no place for our voices in the American if not Western Leftist discourse.

For years -- since before the 1979 Revolution in Iran -- we considered ourselves part of an international progressive discourse whose defining elements included issues of democratic movements in countries such as Iran. However, we have had a growing sense that, in this new era of "New World Order", the international Liberal/Leftist discourse has left us out. And here is what I think is the underlying reason: this discourse is now defining itself simply as Anti-Conservative discourse, nothing more. And simplistic Anti-Conservatism is incapable of addressing real issues of democratic movements in Iran (and, I believe, many other countries in the region).

Let me give you some examples to clarify my point. I start with the current war in Iraq. We believe that the Bush Administration's justifications for war were quite baseless and shameless yet we believe it is ridiculous to deny that, for example, in Iraqi Kurdistan we are witnessing the formation of one of the best examples of democracy in the region. Indeed, this has been the reason behind questions such as the following: Can we use American power to promote democracy in the region? Nobody is suggesting that the answer is yes but dismissing that question out of hand is not going to work either.

For those of us whose friends and relations are dying in the prisons of the Islamic regime, this question is indicative of the desire to change their situation even if it means relying on such a conservative force and ideology as represented by the current American administration. But the reaction of the Liberal/Leftist discourse to this concern has simply been sneering and stock answers such as "You cannot impose democracy", "Force cannot bring freedom", and so on.

Let us think of another example. We believe that the arguments of the current American administration that Iran should not have access to nuclear technology are ridiculous because these arguments, 1) disregard the fact that according to the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), signatories are entitled to have access to such technologies and 2) represent a kind of double standard.

For example, the American administration does nothing about Israel's nuclear arsenal, but it insists on preventing Iran from developing even the technology. We understand this. But at the same time we believe those who think the current government of Iran is not pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons are total idiots.

So, here is the question: should we be concerned with the double standards of Conservatives, or should we think about the fact that no matter how you look at it, it is a terrible idea to let the current regime in Iran lay its hands on nuclear weapons? It seems that according to the current Leftist discourse, this is not the important question. They just keep trying to point out the inconsistencies in Conservatives' arguments. What will become of Iranians and many others in the region if the Islamic regime does end up possessing nuclear weapons is of no importance to them.

Let me give you the latest example. The recent presidential election in Iran was a joke. The position of the Conservative discourse was announced through the current US administration, which called this election undemocratic, rigged, ridiculous. Once again it is obvious that they were not necessarily concerned about democracy in Iran and had other ulterior, transparent reasons.

The Leftist discourse, thinking that American Conservatives might use this occasion to justify their possible aggression against Iran, reminded Conservatives that recent presidential elections in the US have not been problem-free either. And here lies the difficulty. We agree that there have been and are many problems with the elections in the US, but we also believe it is either ludicrous or disingenuous to compare them to Iranian elections.

I do not want to get into details of differences between the two, but suffice it to say that here in the US, the election to all public offices as a democratic phenomenon is supported through numerous social institutions, while in Iran this fundamental democratic requirement is undermined by undemocratic institutions such as the ruling Sharia laws which define the main source of legitimacy of the most important public offices as the religious authorities, not the people.

So once again here is our dilemma: We believe the Leftist discourse is correct in pointing out the inconsistencies of the Conservatives' position, but this does not help us at all because it does not address our main concern, namely the deterioration of the situation of Iranian people with regard to fundamental freedoms.

Now let me suggest an academic dimension to this discussion which could explain another important aspect of our voicelessness, and the irony that there are occasions when these two supposedly different discourses act in unison.

Postmodernism began with the claim that the era of grand narratives had come to an end and that consequently the time had come to pay attention to the uniqueness of different cultures and their multiple voices. For different reasons, which need another place to be discussed, the glad tidings of postmodernism did not lead to the allocation of energy and resources to these cultures and voices.

The same pre-postmodern clichés were repeated but this time the only effort made to legitimize them was to propagate respect for and/or tolerance of other cultures. By making no effort to recognize the real and legitimate voices of different cultures, the propaganda produced by officials of regimes such as the Islamic Republic, has come to be accepted as the legitimate voices of these cultures. And the funny thing is that scholars then try to theorize about and explain these cultural traits.

Take for example the issue of Hejab (Islamic covering for women) in Iran. Everybody knows that it was imposed on Iranian women after the 1979 Revolution. To this very day, the Islamic regime has to use force to persuade Iranian women to conform to their culture! Officials of the Islamic regime are never challenged when they refer to Hejab as a cultural phenomenon, and what is worse, scholars then try to theorize about this exotic phenomenon.

One of those culture-specialist scholars who had done "research" on this topic argues that Islamic Hejab gives women more power because they can see while they cannot be seen! I really wish these so-called scholars would go to Tehran in the summer and ask women who are forced to cover themselves head to toe out of doors in more than 100-degree heat about the balance between power and overheating! I understand that some people here need to publish in order to get their tenure, but do we not also need a minimum level of intellectual integrity?(1)

I should add that such "scholarly" works are not limited to non-Iranians. In fact a number of Iranian "scholars", having emphasized their Iranianness; by thus claiming a special knowledge of the culture, they have functioned as the native elements of these discourses in the hope of pursuing the easy path to academic success.

A consideration of this academic phenomenon suggests a rather comic situation: on the one hand the majority of scholars in academic institutions are trying to present a radical face; on the other hand, on many occasions they reinforce the most reactionary images of cultures of which they had intended to present self-sustaining definitions. Having taught in a few major institutions of higher learning for more than fifteen years, I have seen such examples many times.

Other than that, the idea that different cultures and their voices should be automatically respected or tolerated has had further terrible consequences. We all remember Salman Rushdie's case. The shameless fatwa by Khomeini should have provided sufficient cause for any Liberal/Radical/Leftist discourse to pressure the governments of every single democratic society to take the strongest position against the Islamic regime of Iran. But instead, this fatwa was simply criticized, condemned, and accepted, and at the same time discussions were held about the sensitive nature of faith issues!

Ironically enough, since Conservatives (specifically, the European ones) were protecting their capitalist constituents, they did not have any specific reason to advocate a strong position against the Islamic regime either. When translators of The Satanic Verses were attacked and killed, the same "tolerance" and "respect" continued. What was academic/Leftist discourse supposed to do, one might ask.

I believe they were supposed to stop hiding behind worn-out ideas and talking points such as "being tolerant towards different cultures", "respecting religious sensitivities of different faiths". . . and actually examine the textual-ideological roots of such acts of brutality. This did not happen in academic environments because frankly, the academic/Leftist discourse is so gutless that it has no desire to accept the consequences of facing stupid, self-serving 'postmodern' maxims (such as: "Faith-based ideologies should not be criticized because they represent different cultures") which were developed by academics to spare themselves any theoretical confrontation which might actually require a minimum of backbone.

Therefore what we see in these academic environments, even when faced with events such as the mass murders of 9/11 or the massacre of political prisoners in the summer of 1988 in Iran, is the sheepish repetition of clichés such as "this is not true Islam", "Islam is the religion of peace", ... Nobody gives enough of a damn to actually examine these statements. At least in Iran, every time Islam has been in power peace and freedom have disappeared and oppression has emerged.

The Rushdie's case is only one example which simultaneously demonstrated the tolerance of the Left for such inhumane treatment and the unwillingness of the Right to act decisively. When the translators of The Satanic Verses were attacked and even killed, the reaction was no stronger. When many instances of trampling on the most basic rights of Iranian people occurred, again the reaction was imperceptible.

After the killing of the Iranian-Canadian journalist, Zahra Kazemi, in the notorious Evin prison, not one single serious effort was made to force the Canadian government to rethink its relationship with Iran. And there are many, many similar examples of such atrocities which have been overlooked.

Even when they have been instigated in Western countries by agents of the Islamic regime, they have led to no meaningful reaction. One needs only think about the killing of the opposition figures especially in Germany (1992) (2) which led to a ruling by a German court that implicated a number of public officials in the Islamic regime. Yet today Germany is one of the main economic partners of Iran; only recently the leaders of the Green Party asked the Iranian ambassador to convey their message to Iranian officials concerning Akbar Ganji. This is the full and entire extent of their efforts!

I should add that, in my opinion, this "tolerance" has led to a belief among many Moslems that it is their right to attack and kill whatever and whoever they think acts against their sacred beliefs. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I am publishing this piece under a pen name because nobody knows what may happen if I argue that the main text of Islam, the Qoran, and its history and the teachings of its prophet need to be examined to see whether or not violence, injustice, inequality and intolerance are integral parts of this religion.

Some damned fool might issue a fatwa to kill me: another damned fool might be tempted to carry it out in order to end up in a garden filled with virgins, Paradise according to the Qoran. This might sound farfetched, but it is impossible not to think about the Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, who was foully murdered for daring to make a movie criticizing the way Islam treats women. (By the way, let us not forget that the strongest reactions to van Gogh's murder came from conservative discourses and not liberal or leftist ones.)

In any case, here once again is the situation. When we were thinking about contacting organizations or newspapers to do something for Akbar Ganji, of the two major discourses, we automatically thought about the Liberal/Leftist discourse. But very soon we realized that this discourse has been reduced to a tame criticism of the Conservative discourse.

We further realized that this so-called Leftist discourse has become totally enmeshed with an academic version of spinelessness that continues to regurgitate benign clichés whose sole purpose is to protect the undeserved perks of the members of academia. That is why this discourse is not even thinking about tackling taboos.

The result was clear. We expected the Liberal/Leftist discourse to provide our voice with a space, but it seems that they are busy organizing events about globalization, ozone layer, and similar matters. These are of course all very worthy causes, but it seems they are also carefully-selected issues which do not require any fundamental theoretical battle which could possibly break the shameful ceasefire between the Liberal/Leftist discourse and the worst forms of intolerance and despotism.

Conversely, and surprisingly, we came to realize that on several occasions the Conservative discourse is addressing some of our concerns, albeit for different reasons and not strategically. This is probably one of the main reasons which account for the recent popularity in Iran of US Middle East policies.

According to anecdotal statistics (3) many Iranians wouldn't mind if something similar to what happened in Iraq would happen in Iran. This should be a very loud wake-up call for the Liberal/Leftist discourse.

Let me make this threat even more clear and even more frightening: If the Left/Liberal discourse does not address the concerns of Iranian movements for justice, democracy and freedom, it is very likely that these movements will be attracted, at least for tactical purposes, towards policies offered by Conservatives. And this does not appear to be a temporary situation.

In fact, Akbar Ganji may well die one of these days, but even if he is saved, there will be others like him in the near future, and as long as our "natural allies" pay no attention to such events, we will witness the strengthening of the Conservative discourse in our midst.

About
The author is an associate professor at an institution of higher education in the U.S. Naheed Rasa is a pen name picked by iranian.com.

Notes
1) I can think of many other examples of statements made by the officials of the Islamic regime which are totally baseless and are never challenged. For example, when Iranian delegations travel to other countries, they do not shake hands with women, and they explain this as consistent with the position of women in Iranian culture. And of course no one attempts to challenge them and to remind them that it has only been under Islam that women have been forced into this position. Before Islam there were women who actually ran the whole empire but now they cannot even run for presidency.

2) In 1992 four Iranians who were among leaders of the opposition were killed at the Mykonos Restaurant in Germany. The German court concluded that the Iranian government was behind this act and thus engaging in state terrorism. The German government ceased to hold any dialogues with the Islamic regime for only one year; after that, relations between the two governments were resumed.

3) Those are the only kind of statistics we can find in Iran. The last scientific poll in Tehran showed that the majority of people want Iran to have a better relationship with the US. Soon after the results of the poll were published, the pollsters were arrested; they are still serving time in prison. One of them, Dr. Qazian, has recently written a long letter describing how he has been tortured during investigations. Since this event, the only polls one finds in Iran are those commissioned by the government and carried out by their agents.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rasker



Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 1455
Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is an excellent analysis and mirrors a lot of what Christopher Hitchens is saying from a left-liberal standpoint (that I've quoted in other threads in this forum).

It seems like many or most so-called progressives are now willing to embrace or at least strive to keep in power any brutalitarian megalomaniac (Saddam) or crew of 13th century child rapers (the IRI regime) purely on the basis that George W. Bush seeks to depose or reform those regimes. Forget freedom of speech, press, or religion, women's or minority rights, or democracy itself, all these basic progressive principles must take a back seat to Anti-Bushism, usually cloaked as "Pro-Peace" or"Anti-War". Also part of this syndrome is the deference to the council of the bribed and the tyrannical sometimes called the "United" Nations, where new revelations about Saddam's twisting of this process now seem to show up daily.

The progressives in this post 9/11 environment are looking much like the American isolationists before Pearl Harbor who opposed aid to China and Britain when those nations were fighting the fascists alone. But I've never seen an America-Firster quoted as publicly cheering on Hitler, as Ward Churchill and Michael Moore seem to root for and/or at the very least excuse the fascists posing as Islamists.

The question in American politics is whether any Democrat can gain the nomination while running against this fringe element that loves or excuses America's enemies, or whether that party is now permanently dominated by that tendency. In other words, are there any Tony Blairs waiting to emerge? And what will happen to the the activist Blair policies in Britain when he calls it quits? And, will the mullahs outlast Blair or his policies, and if so, what effect will that have on the forming anti-IRI coalition.

As the Chinese curse goes, "May you live in interesting times!"
_________________
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spenta



Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unfortunately it was the same with the Soviet Dissidents too. And Stalin who killed mroe people than Hitler, enjoyed the support of leftists in the west for a very long time. Its all about the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

There are individual liberal/progressives though who are pretty horrified by Islamism, the Mullah$ etc. its just that they have no means of expressing that. Articles like this though are very important to bring about the necessary changes in mindset.

I was happy to see Noam Chomsky's signature on the petition for Ganji, I'm not a fan of his, but I appreciated it because of its significance in bringing many leftists onboard with the cause. Ultimately the Iranian freedom movement is going to need the support of the right and left.

I myself am of course, no fan of George Bush, a feminist, a die hard liberal, and an environmentalist who absolutely believes in govt. regulation of business as everyone knows here, but on foreign policy I do agree with some of the Neocon ideas and disagree with others such as invasion of Iraq which was a waste of resources and a huge strategic blunder IMO.

But even I admit that on foreign policy, liberals have totally lost it. But frankly, I haven't seen anything out of George Bush that has impressed me either!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Spenta,

Never ceases to amaze me how much we have in common, here I am, a life-long Democrat voting for Bush this last time round, cause he earned my trust, and Kerry simply made me reach for a barf bag every time he opened his yap. a well known environmental activist in certain circles, pro-choice, and just as hard to please as you are my dear.


Plus we have this thing about sticking a fork right into the middle of an issue to get to the meat of it.

Parallel thinking is a curious thing....I just took Rasker's topic from a different perspective. Been thinking about these new-age isolationists for awhile, the ostrich syndrome..."bury thy head, and kiss thine ass goodby".

The no good, do nothing, do gooders have a special place reserved in hell, just down the hall of horrors from Michael Moore's fan club.

Knowing how hard you are to please, I thought you'd want to know this.

Those inclined to give a "realist" a healthy reality check may pass this little op-ed of mine on as the kiss of death to the illusions they so lovingly fondle.

(chuckle).


"In greater Freedom"

Anyone looking at a map can see the "bookended" nature of the strategic position Tehran is in at the moment, with two fledgling democracies and thousands of US/coalition troops on its borders.
The reports out of the Pentagon regarding shaped explosive charges originating and shipped from Iran (of revolutionary guard origin), are but a manifestation of a coordinated effort between the regime in Tehran, Hizbollah, and al-quaida to ferment civil war in Iraq.
Tehran has been at "war by proxy" with the US since the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit, and it may only be a matter of time before there is no other option left on the table except a military one to resolve the situation.
This prospect may terrify folks more than terrorism itself, but there's only one viable solution to effectively stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan permanently. It is quite simply, "regime change" in Tehran.

How an alternate "regime change" solution manifests is fully depedent on whether the international community has the guts to support a rather extensive opposition community inside and outside Iran as they have begged and pleaded with the international community to do for some time. Given that the other options; to do nothing or go to war ;are not quite as viable in solving the problem, nor the first options to contemplate, given the situation needs resolution and that war is the last option.

To this point, the only leader of free nations who's had that alternate vision of an Iran existing within the community of nations ..."in greater freedom", and had the guts to voice the option is President GW Bush...."..and to the Iranian people I say tonight, as you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you." The man presented possibilities to people in so doing, as a president will on occasion.

The Iranian Clock is ticking. While the EU3 has been messing about trading and negotiating with Tehran, two solid years have passed, allowing the IRI regime to secretly consolidate it's nuclear program, it's armed force structure, train and recruit martyr brigades for terrorist action, destabilizing the region by proxy and all of it directly flying in the face of UN resolutions, as a member and original 1948 signatory to the UN charter.

Its unelected president, coming to power in a soft-sell military coup de etat, is leading the crushing of any and all dissent, and you can see the recent State Dept taken question on the regime's actions regarding the Kurdish minority in the Northwest of Iran to illustrate this fact. A crime against humanity in its very beginning stages.

His visa application to address the UN in New York this September is under State Dept. review pending the outcome of an ongoing investigation into his role in the Iran hostage crisis, as well as targeted assassinations in Europe, and his self confessed putting the coup de grace bullet into many a tortured political prisoner.

Take the regime's abysmal human rights record, it's support for terrorism, its WMD ambitions, and its leadership, and what you have is the perfect "test case" for UN reform in every conceivable way, including the limits of "diplomatic immunity" and the US role as host nation to the UN in any possible prosecution should the investigation warrant.

Now, the words "regime change" may be the modern political bogyman in diplomatic circles in Europe and among Democrats, but they , and the American public as well as the UN should remember and reflect on Churchill's words as he put it, "Given the choice between war and dishonor, Chamberlain chose dishonor and got war."

We shall see if the UN honors the precepts of its founding Charter, whether the EU will continue to trade and negotiate with a terrorist regime, and whether America comes together in bipartisanship to honor the words of President Bush to the Iranian people.

Logic dictates that with or without referral by the IAEA, this unelected regime should not just be sanctioned by the UN Security Council, but booted out of the UN altogether for gross violation of the UN charter, which Iran is a signatory to, believing it to be criminally negligent for any nation to support the continuance and aspirations of the Islamic Republic of Iran one day longer, and remaning "seized of the matter."

The coordination of economic and military sanction, freezing of assets, closing of embassies, banishment from the UN General Assembly, and other non-violent measures as may be found worthy under international law will be overwhelming to the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing solid legitimate purpose and support among the people of Iran to effect change from within. In confidence that an interim government and UN monitiored referendum regarding a representive permanent government and constitution will be the result of the Iranian people's efforts.

"Regime change" Iranian style with a little help from their friends, will be "Quartet Music" to the future's ears, played in greater freedom.

8/9/05 Oppenheimer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spenta



Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whats with this I am so hard to please business Question

Anyways, I've been travelling and talking to many people, and it doesn't cease to amaze me how I can't find a single liberal anywhere that doesn't totally despise Islamists, Islamism and the Mullah$ in Iran. Unfortunately though the leadership, of the liberals that is, is yet to actually come up with something resembling a foreign policy stance, so much of this anger isn't being channelled properly. But then again last time I checked, the Bushies didn't really seem to have an Iran policy either.

The Mullah$ have been hitting the US hard in the last few months, and unfortunately they will continue to. The longer the US does nothing the worst things get, and the fewer the options. That seems to be the unfortunate pattern here. And at this point, I'm not quite sure what it will take to disolodge the Mullah$, the US/EU waiting game has gotten them a new lease on life, and now they're stronger and more secure than ever at home, and they have forged the right alliances with the rest of the Islamist scum everywhere. Now they really can blow things up everywhere ... and once they go nuclear, it will be even worst.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But even I admit that on foreign policy, liberals have totally lost it. But frankly, I haven't seen anything out of George Bush that has impressed me either!

-------------

Don't worry Spenta (chuckle)...I wasn't meaning to insult you by implying you were "hard to please"...in this dysfunctional world we live in, it's easy to want to yell..."get a grip!" in hopes that it does.

Yesterday would have been soon enough....and I think you and I both share that opinion...and why we may both be hard to please...(chuckle).




On Iran Policy:

(Excerpts)


Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
August 17, 2005

(2:00 p.m. EDT)

QUESTION: Iran. It feels as if we're sort of at a dead end, perhaps, in terms
of our efforts to deal with their nuclear program. It doesn't seem as if the
IAEA has the votes to refer the matter to the Security Council. Even if they
did, we probably would have a difficult sell there. So where do we go from
here?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, Phil, I'm not ready to come to that set of conclusions
yet.

QUESTION: Okay.

SECRETARY RICE: First of all, let's look at where we've been. We were in a
situation a number of years ago where I think we and maybe a couple of others
were the only people who believed that there was something to be suspicious
about, about the Iranian nuclear program and where the Iranians were claiming
that this was all just for peaceful civil nuclear uses. And over the last
period of time, we've been able to support the EU-3 negotiations to the point
of the EU-3 putting on the table a quite generous proposal to the Iranians
about how they might meet their civil nuclear needs and yet convince the
international community that they were going to live up to their obligations
not to use that for a nuclear weapons program. We've been able to support that
and where we and the Europeans are completely united on this matter.

The Russians, too, in the way that they constructed the Bushehr deal, suggests
that they also do not want to see the fuel cycle in Iran. And so there seems to
be very strong international consensus that an Iran that has behaved in the way
that it has over the last couple of years really should not have the fuel
cycle. So that's the beginning point.

The Iranians have chosen, to date, not to take the deal that was put on the
table. And I think we expect that the next step will be to work with others to
make certain that there are consequences for that behavior. And we believe that
the Security Council is a reasonable next step. Now, there's a lot of work to
do between now and the ElBaradei report. I don't think we want to put a
timetable on when we will stop doing the diplomacy to get an outcome that is
commensurate with what the Iranians have done, but there are an awful lot of
countries that are united around the view that the Iranians should not have the
fuel cycle. And I think we'll start from there and we'll work with people to
see where that leads.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, there are also an awful lot of countries, even on
the Board of the IAEA, who feel that Iran is entitled to a peaceful nuclear --
to be able to do its conversion and reprocessing under international
inspections. So isn't the fact that the IAEA wouldn't refer the issue this time
an indication of sentiment on the IAEA --

SECRETARY RICE: Nobody sought referral from the IAEA Board of Governors this
time. What we sought was the resolution that we got this time. So let's wait
and see what the diplomacy of the IAEA will turn out to be when -- within the
IAEA when ElBaradei does what he was asked to do, which was to submit a
comprehensive report.

But it was not -- the United States did not seek -- and I want that to be very
clearly understood -- we did not seek a referral to the Security Council at
this IAEA Board of Governors meeting that just transpired. We had agreed in
advance with the Europeans that we would seek a statement from the Board of
Governors that the Iranians should return to suspension and that we would seek
a report, comprehensive report from ElBaradei, to be delivered sometime in the
first part of September. That was what was sought and that's what we got.

QUESTION: By the way, President Bush's comments --

SECRETARY RICE: And by the way, I know because, you know, actually, I'm
Secretary of State. (Laughter.) So whoever -- if somebody's telling you we
sought something else, we didn't.

QUESTION: Well, I thought the Europeans -- not to beat this -- were saying that
if Iran proceeded with the conversion activities, this was a week or two ahead
of time, that the next step would be to refer it.

QUESTION: They issued a statement saying that.

SECRETARY RICE: Sometime before the Iranians actually resumed the conversion
process, or broke the seals and made that notification, we and the Europeans
agreed that this should be a two-stop process: that there would be a call for
the Iranians to come back, in part to build consensus within the Board of
Governors; and then there would be a report from ElBaradei and a referral. So,
in fact, that was the decision and that decision had been taken prior to the
Iranians actually breaking the conversion.

QUESTION: I see. Just a quick question. President Bush's comment the other day
to the Israeli broadcast media seemed at first to be kind of a repetition of a
standard formula, but it's being -- been taken as something more than that. Can
you tell us whether it was anything more than that, like a signal or a warning?

SECRETARY RICE: It was a clear restatement of what I think almost every
American President has said and should say, which is that the President of the
United States always retains all his options. And I think in most quarters it
was understood to be precisely that.


....................
SECRETARY RICE:

(excerpt)

Diplomacy does take time. Multilateral diplomacy, particularly, takes time. But
in both the case of Iran and the case of North Korea, we have moved from a
place in which it was the United States and Iran, or the North Koreans and
Iran, to the point that it is the international community and Iran or the six
-- the five parties, at least, and the North Koreans. And that's just a much
sounder place to be to try to get a resolution on these issues.

....................

QUESTION: Before we leave this topic, let me ask a question about the
nonproliferation regime. The international norms that have governed nuclear
energy and proliferation have been bent and obviously need to be revised. We
have a situation now -- and this is a kind of academic question maybe, but
maybe you'll believe that's a good thing to do.

SECRETARY RICE: Oh, hard. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I bet the world "academic" is not a --

SECRETARY RICE: It's not a pejorative to me, no. (Laughter).

QUESTION: But, look, we have a situation now where there don't seem to be any
norms anymore. It's just the United States and whatever allies it can find
making a judgment on who gets to live up to this norm that was established
maybe in the early days of the Cold War and who doesn't, who's a good guy and
who's not a good guy.

We say to Iran, "You can't have what you're entitled to under the NPT because
you've been a bad actor." Same thing to North Korea. Yet, to India, we say,
"You're a good actor so we'll make an exemption for you." Shouldn't we move
beyond a system where just the powerful countries of the world get to decide
who's good and who's naughty and who's nice?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the NPT was founded on an assumption that all states that
signed onto it would treat it with equal care and that they would live up to
the obligations that were within it. And what we've learned over time is that
that doesn't happen to be the case, that there are states that sign onto the
NPT and then violate it.

Now, you can continue to pretend that under those circumstances the norm holds
and whether you violate it or not doesn't matter, or you can live with the
implications and consequences of that and say, "Well, there are states that
therefore should forego certain of the benefits that might have been there."
And, again, you know, it is not the United States alone that has been concerned
about Iranian behavior. It's the IAEA. It's the way that the Russians have
dealt with Bushehr suggests that they've been concerned about it. Clearly the
way the EU-3 has dealt with the fuel cycle issue suggests they're concerned
about it.

In the case of North Korea, they've been, of course, more frontal in simply,
you know, using the benefits of the NPT and then withdrawing from it, kicking
out inspectors and so forth.

So I don't see how it helps an international regime to just ignore that and
say, "Well, you still therefore may pursue these things even though your
behavior has been really terrible in regards to the NPT."

The other point, Steve, is that there is also a loophole in the NPT that I
think people have recognized in later --

QUESTION: Yes.

SECRETARY RICE: -- which is the reprocessing and enrichment loophole. And the
President made some proposals, as you know, at NDU to try to deal with that
loophole. There is interest internationally in countries foregoing reprocessing
and enrichment and perhaps relying instead on assured fuel supply, maybe even
international assured fuel supply.

So, again, it's not the United States -- this is a problem, I think, that is
increasingly recognized by a large community of states, and people are trying
to deal with the fact that there was certain things that were perhaps not
envisioned by the NPT. The NPT still remains the cornerstone, still remains the
key, but that there has been erosion of it is clear and you have to deal with
that erosion.

Of course, there are a couple of things that are outside of even the NPT
framework. I don't think people envisioned the kind of A.Q. Khan problem, which
would be a non-state actor providing dangerous technologies, nor the
difficulties that would arise as a result of terrorism and potential
intersection of WMD and terrorism.

So the world changes and you can't sit and pretend that the world has not
changed because then the NPT or any other international regime will cease to
have meaning to the realities in which we are living. So I find the behavior of
the international community to actually be pretty responsible in trying to,
while keeping the NPT regime intact, deal with the fact that there are
violators and there are those of whom violation is -- the suspicion of
violation, and to try to deal with the kind of black market problem, the
terrorism problem. We're going to have to deal with all of those.

Something like the Proliferation Security Initiative, which, you know, 60-plus
countries have signed onto, suggests that something that people talked very
little about a few years ago, counterproliferation, is becoming more important
because there has to be an active intelligence and defensive response to
suspicious cargo and so using the international laws to do something like the
Proliferation Security Initiative is yet another response to the erosion of the
nonproliferation regime.

-------------------end excerpts---------

note: Poted here what was relevent to Iran, minus all the questions on North Korea and China.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Europeans call off key nuclear talks with Iran

By Paul Carrel
Reuters
Tuesday, August 23, 2005; 9:48 AM

PARIS (Reuters) - European powers have called off August 31 talks with Iran over its nuclear program, France said on Tuesday, marking a breakdown in two years of negotiations with Tehran to halt its sensitive atomic work.

French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said talks on a formal European proposal made earlier this month would not now go ahead because Iran had resumed certain nuclear work in breach of a promise to freeze it while talks lasted.


Britain, France and Germany, acting on behalf of the European Union, put the proposal to Iran in an effort to persuade it to give up nuclear activities the West suspects may be preliminary steps toward making atomic weapons.

"There will, in fact, be no negotiations meeting on August 31 since the Iranians have decided to suspend application of the Paris Agreement," Mattei told a regular news briefing.

"So by common accord between the three Europeans it is clear that there will be no negotiations meeting ... as long as the Iranians remain outside the Paris Agreement."

Under the Paris Agreement, agreed in November 2004, Iran voluntarily suspended all work related to atomic fuel production while negotiating a permanent deal with the EU.

Earlier this month the EU trio offered a package of economic, technical and political measures in exchange for a permanent suspension of Iranian efforts to make nuclear fuel.

Iran rejected the proposals, which also envisaged the August 31 talks, and angered the EU and the United States by resuming uranium conversion at its Isfahan plant on August 8.

Despite calling off the August 31 talks, the European powers remained in contact with Iran, Mattei said.

"That does not mean there will be no contact with the Iranians," he said. "We have contact with the Iranians. The three European countries have embassies there."

Iranian officials have said they will never suspend work at the Isfahan plant again and Tehran now wants to discuss resuming the most sensitive part of the nuclear fuel cycle -- uranium enrichment -- at its facility in Natanz.

The EU and the United States suspect Iran of secretly trying to build nuclear weapons. Iran says it wants nuclear technology only to cope with booming electricity demand, not to make nuclear bombs.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, has called on Iran to halt sensitive atomic work. Its head Mohamed ElBaradei is due to report on Iran's activities on September 3.

If Iran continues to defy international pressure, Europe and the United States are likely to press the IAEA to refer Iran's case to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

In Tehran on Tuesday about 300 Iranian students, carrying banners that read "End the fruitless talks," protested in front of the embassies of France, Germany and Britain.

"We will call on the Iranian negotiators to withdraw from the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and cut the nuclear negotiations," a speaker told the demonstrators, who chanted: "Death to the three evil regimes -- France, Germany and Britain."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spenta



Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Despite calling off the August 31 talks, the European powers remained in contact with Iran, Mattei said.

"That does not mean there will be no contact with the Iranians," he said. "We have contact with the Iranians. The three European countries have embassies there."


Laughing Laughing Laughing

You gotta give it to them, sure they're breaking off talk, but it will continue to be Bu$ine$$ as usual!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In Tehran on Tuesday about 300 Iranian students, carrying banners that read "End the fruitless talks," protested in front of the embassies of France, Germany and Britain.

"We will call on the Iranian negotiators to withdraw from the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) and cut the nuclear negotiations," a speaker told the demonstrators, who chanted: "Death to the three evil regimes -- France, Germany and Britain."

--------------

Dear Spenta,

Considering the above, my guess is the EU3 are getting a lesson in Iranian diplomacy...and starting to come to the same realization the US has for years....it's not possible to have a sane relationship with someone who is chanting for your demise.

If America has tried to convince the EU3 the IRI was a bucketfull of trouble...the IRI is doing a real good job of backing up America's word.

Maybe now the EU3 is looking at reality in a new way...we won't have long to wait to see that manifest...at any rate....mid Sept is my guess.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spenta



Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You really think the EU 3 are going to give the US, especially the Bushies, the satisfction of 'we were wrong and you were right'. You think the European Electorate will cheer any acknowledgement of defeat by the E3 in their much ballyhooed 'diplomatic approach'. And you think public opinion in Europe will back a 'we were wrong and Bush was right' change of hear on the part of the E3 leadership? They may still find a way of saving face, as a matter of political survival.

And looks like the Mullah$ may help the E3 save face afterall:

---------------------------------------

Iran Set to Offer New Nuclear Proposals

August 24, 2005
The Associated Press
Ali Akbar Dareini

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran will soon offer new proposals for negotiations with Europe over its controversial nuclear program, the country's ultraconservative president said Wednesday. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he instructed the Supreme National Security Council to draw up a new set of proposals over Iran's uranium enrichment program.

``Iran will soon offer proposals about the cycle of nuclear fuel for peaceful use of nuclear energy,'' he said on state-run television.

``We want to continue talks with all. We will continue dialogue,'' he said, but he didn't elaborate if that included the United States. Iran has so far said it doesn't see any role for the United States to play as long as it continues to maintain its hostile approach toward Iran.

The comments by Ahmadinejad suggest he wants to launch a new process of dialogue in the hope of persuading Europe to recognize Iran's right to enrich uranium. Europe has been trying to persuade Iran in the talks to give up its uranium enrichment program in return for economic incentives, a proposal Iran has rejected.

Enrichment is one of the final stages in the nuclear fuel process. It can produce either the fuel needed for a power reactor or material used in creating a nuclear bomb. Iran says its program is entirely peaceful, aiming only to produce electricity. The United States accuses Tehran of secretly pursuing a weapons program.

Iran suspended enrichment activities and other parts of its nuclear program as a gesture in negotiations last year. But earlier this month, Iran ended the freeze on a preliminary part of the nuclear cycle, uranium reprocessing.

France's foreign minister said Wednesday that the European Union still believes negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program are possible, despite the EU's canceling an Aug. 31 meeting in response to the resumption of reprocessing.

``We think it is still possible to talk to them,'' Philippe Douste-Blazy said on France Inter radio. ``We want to write a new page in relations between the European Union and Iran.''

Iran claimed victory Tuesday after the U.N. nuclear agency tests concluded that traces of highly enriched uranium found on centrifuge parts at two sites in Iran were from imported equipment - rather than any enrichment activities by Iran.

The findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency support Iran's claims that the material entered the country together with centrifuge parts provided by Pakistan.

The discovery of the traces was touted by the United States as evidence Iran was experimenting with producing highly enriched uranium, which is used only in nuclear weapons.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Spenta,

It's not really a matter of whether the US was right, or the EU3 is losing face to America...The EU3 has been supported by the US in its negotiations...The mullahs have simply said, " Paris agreement? Oh that was voluntary"...and remember...IAEA was about to refer Iran to the Sec. Council prior to that agreement with the negotiations conditional on the tenents of that agreement to halt and freeze ALL nuclear activity while negotiations took place.

The mullahs have broken that agreement, The EU3 must honor it's word....sure the selected president of Iran wants to talk...but it won't fly, in my opinion because.... As a state sponsor of terrorism...the right to persue a nuclear program is null and void.

This upcoming UN summit is going to be a very interesting watershed moment for the future of the Iranian people....call it "gut instinct", but it's a bit more than that.


A couple things from State Dept briefings over the last couple days:

Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
August 23, 2005

(excerpt)

QUESTION: Can you tell us about the conclusion that Iran did not -- that some
of the material that had been detected before in Iran actually came from
Pakistani equipment and also in reaction to France's announcement that the EU-3
has decided to cancel scheduled talks with Iran for August 31st?

MR. MCCORMACK: First of all, this story in The Washington Post references an
IAEA report. And as I understand it, the International Atomic Energy Agency is
now working on an interim report, which was called for during the last Board of
Governors meeting. This report is to look at where the IAEA's investigation of
Iran's nuclear weapons program stands.

And I'll get to the issue of this -- you know, this issue of the contamination
of the P1-P2 centrifuges that Iran possessed. But I think we need to back up
first and take a look at Iranian behavior as well. This is just one small issue
in the litany of questions that remain unanswered about Iran's nuclear program.
You know, I would add a nuclear program in a country that certainly has
well-known energy reserves in the form of oil and gas.

So I think the first question you have to ask yourself is why the need for a
civilian nuclear program in a country that is very rich in oil and gas
reserves. For years, Iran denied the very existence of an enrichment program
and it was only until confronted with proof to the contrary that it did admit
to the IAEA that it developed its enrichment program without any external help
until the -- once again, the IAEA confronted Iran with proof that they did
receive external help in developing an enrichment program.

It is -- so, you know, the beginning of this story was that they said -- first
of all, we don't have an enrichment program. And then well, yeah, we do have an
enrichment program, but we didn't have any external help. So the very issue of
contamination from a foreign source on the centrifuges, again, is I think,
evidence of the fact that they are trying to mislead the IAEA and mislead the
rest of the world with respect to their nuclear program. Iran also claimed that
it never undertook actual tests of enrichment, using nuclear material. And
guess what, same story. Once again, when confronted with proof by the IAEA,
that they had, in fact, conducted such tests, they said, yeah, we did.

So you know, we have here a series of events that have demonstrated the fact
that Iran has, you know, intentionally misled the IAEA and the rest of the
world about the nature of their nuclear program. I mean, we still have a number
of questions. You raised the question about the contamination of the
centrifuges. And again, we're going to wait for the IAEA report -- the whole
IAEA report -- to come out before we offer any sort of comments on it.

QUESTION: But weren't U.S. scientists involved in the assessment, as well?

MR. MCCORMACK: It is an IAEA report and. I would expect that as with any member
of the IAEA, there is interest in getting to the bottom of what Iran is really
up to in its nuclear program. And again, we think that they -- and we believe
that they are developing -- they are pursing a nuclear weapon that, of course,
you know, we would cooperate with the IAEA in their work and we would expect
any other country to do so. So -- and I mention some of the other unresolved
concerns, you know, outside of this issue of contamination and the centrifuges
and there are a number of them.

There's still open questions about the history and scope of Iran's P1 and P2
centrifuge program and the extent of Iran's dealings with the clandestine
nuclear procurement networks. There are still questions separately about their
pursuit of a plutonium route to a nuclear weapon, separate from the highly
enriched uranium route. There are questions about Iran's formerly secret
uranium mine at (inaudible).

There are questions about whether Iran is still refusing to allow the IAEA
further access to investigate suspicions about high explosives at the Parchin
facility. Whether Iran is still refusing access to allow the IAEA to
investigate several Iranian officials whom the IAEA believes may be involved in
suspicious nuclear-related procurement. Whether Iran is addressing the IAEA's
concerns about why Iran bulldozed the Lavizan facility to the ground before
allowing the IAEA to visit the site. Whether Iran has provided satisfactory
answers regarding its procurement interest in hot cells for the Arak heavy
water reactor that would be well-suited for plutonium separation. Again, a
separate track to a nuclear weapon. And whether Iran has answered the IAEA
concerns about the extent of the Iranian military's role in Iran's nuclear
question -- nuclear program.

These are all big questions that are still unresolved. And certainly the
contamination -- we have the contamination issue. It's one part of this overall
set of questions that not just the United States has, but the rest of the world
has about Iran's nuclear program.

QUESTION: And what about the cancellation of talks?

MR. MCCORMACK: About the French? Again, we fully support, you know, our EU-3
partners in their efforts and we believe that Iran should abide by its Paris
commitment. It has broken those commitments and we are in contact with the EU-3
on this matter.

QUESTION: So you think it's time to stop the negotiations?

MR. MCCORMACK: I didn't say that. Again, that is a decision --

QUESTION: You support them canceling --

MR. MCCORMACK: That is a decision for the EU-3. I don't think we've heard that
from the EU-3. We support them in their diplomatic efforts and we're in contact
with them.

QUESTION: A follow-up, please?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible), do you feel that -- do you think that the United States
should tell the EU that it doesn't make sense to have talks with Iran, based on
what you said?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, what we're trying to do is we're working in the -- both
with the EU-3 and in the multilateral setting of the IAEA. All we're trying to
do is get to the truth about the Iranian nuclear weapons program. And at every
turn, the Iranians obfuscate, they try to change the subject. But the focus
should be on Iran's behavior. That's why we're having this discussion, not
about what the EU-3 is doing or the United States is doing. It's about Iranian
behavior. That's where the focus should be and it is up to Iran to answer these
questions.

QUESTION: (Inaudible), which countries in your opinion are entitled to have
nuclear weapons?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, there are NPT obligations and Iran under the NPT said
that it would not seek nuclear weapons under cover of civilian program, which
is exactly what they're trying to do.

Yes.

QUESTION: Sean, throughout the -- you mentioned the EU with their negotiations
with the Iranians. But the Russians are, whether overtly or covertly, began
building and helping the Iranians build on these nuclear reactors, as well as
there have been reports of ancillary type of weapons such as submarines and
other type of infrastructure that's been sold or given to Iran. Are you in any
way talking to the Russians and also possibly prodding the EU-3 to also talk
with the Russians regarding this?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think we have over the course of the years, been in
contact with the Russians concerning the Bushehr reactor. And I think, in part,
because of their own concerns and I think in part because of the discussions
with us, as well as others, under their agreement with the Iranians concerning
Bushehr that there is actually a fuel return provision in that agreement. So
any fuel that is provided for the Bushehr reactor once it is completed is then
returned to Russia. So the Iranians cannot use it as part of a fuel cycle
enrichment.

QUESTION: But that's still one facility. Is there any talk to the Russians
concerning maybe their involvement, whether overtly or covertly, in any other
facilities as well?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have anything for you on that.

Yes.

QUESTION: On another subject. I have a question on the negotiations over this
proposed declaration for the UN summit leaders next month in New York. What's
the U.S. position on the provision that calls for the international community
to recognize a responsibility to protect civilians against war crimes like
genocide, ethnic cleansing and so forth, if their own country is not willing or
able to do something about it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, as you said, we are currently in discussions with a number
of different parties, both bilaterally and up at the UN, concerning what the
final document will be from this high-level event. At this point, I'm not going
to get into any particular diplomatic back and forth and where we stand on any
particular issues. I would just say stay tuned and we will see what the final
document says.

QUESTION: Yeah. But the negotiations are going on right now. I mean, we know
that what happens in Septembers is being decided right now. So --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. And those are negotiations that are going on in
diplomatic channels not in the press.

-------------------

Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
August 24, 2005

QUESTION: About Iran, if it's possible? It was (inaudible) question. The
President, the Iranian President says he wants to keep negotiating with the
EU-3 and he's going to give a lot of innovations. Do you have any comment on
that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think the EU-3 has an offer on the table. They have, I
think, showed great dedication and perseverance in their efforts to resolve
this issue through diplomatic means and we support them in that. We would
encourage the Iranian Government to engage with the EU-3 negotiators in a
serious and constructive way and we would encourage them to take the offer that
is on the table. I think that the EU-3 offer is comprehensive, it's
constructive and it addresses the issue, so we would encourage them to take the
deal that's on the table.

QUESTION: But would you accept them to keep negotiating after the third of
September?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, you know, certainly we think that the EU-3 diplomatic
process has legs in it -- well, it still has legs. And we look forward to
resolving this -- we look forward to supporting the EU-3 in this effort and
resolving the differences that Iran has with the world regarding its nuclear
program, resolving those differences through diplomatic means.

QUESTION: Is the UN General Assembly and the expected attendance by the new
Iranian President an opportunity for the U.S. to get and a little more directly
into this subject? Are you going to be talking on any level with the Iranians?
And just a logistical question: Has -- David Welch just said he didn't think
so, but he'll check it out with you -- has the visa or whatever is required, is
that taken care of or is it a cinch or what?

MR. MCCORMACK: There has been a request made and we're looking at the request
now. I think that President Bush has talked a little bit about this issue as
well. And I think that he said that we have -- obligations under our agreement
with the UN to allow people to come and meet and he said that -- President Bush
said, I suspect he'll be there.

As for the issue of Iran's nuclear program and where that issue needs to be
resolved, we talked about that a lot yesterday. And right now we're working
with the EU-3 and their negotiations. But there are still many, many questions
left unanswered concerning Iran's nuclear program where Dr. ElBaradei has a
team that's looking at some of those issues.

They are putting together a report and I think they're going to produce that
report towards the beginning of September. And we look forward to hearing from
the IAEA on what they have found and what they have to say, concerning Iran's
cooperation in terms of resolving these issues and we'll also have discussions
at the next IAEA Board of Governors meeting, which is at the beginning of
September. So I think that's what's on our horizon right now, Barry. As for
UNGA or anything else, you know, I couldn't speak to that. But I think that the
next step in this process is looking at what the IAEA has to say and then
talking about the issues at the Board of Governors meeting.

QUESTION: Are they (inaudible) -- And one quick one, I mean, there are ways to
talk to the Iranians and, in fact, the UN format has served as a basis for
being at the same meeting and, you know, exchanging some views of that issue or
any other issue.

MR. MCCORMACK: Not aware of any plans.

QUESTION: That's the question and thank you. Thank you.

QUESTION: Any update on the Administration's conclusions on Ahmedinejad's
involvement in the hostage taking --

MR. MCCORMACK: Nothing new to share with you at this point.

QUESTION: Is the investigation ongoing?

MR. MCCORMACK: We're -- it's still an issue that we're looking at.

QUESTION: Do you expect to come to a conclusion before UNGA?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll try to keep you updated on any conclusions that we can
share with you.

--------------------end---------------

Spenta,

Given the nature of the questions above, and leaks of late to the press....I can't reveal who this went to, and it has been edited to avoid any reference of the recipients....and is posted here to give you a fair guess as to what may be in the wind....mine is but one small voice, but the letters were confirmed opened by read receipt on the 21st, and on the morning of the 23rd.

It's gone a few key places......but out of respect for the recipients, and the fact that these issues are obviously still in discussion, it would not be helpful to reveal who read this....at some point perhaps...

(excerpt)

Please keep these two things in mind about me personally as you read further:
1. My grandfather was division head of the center for Chemical and Metallurgical Research-LANL, under Oppenhiemer at the time of the Manhattan project.
2. I have been considering issues surrounding nuclear weapons all my adult life. On the flyleaf of my grandmother's book about Los Alamos that I gave to Bill Clinton the day he was first elected President I wrote, "This is a slice of times past, to give perspective on the present, so that in the future we can eliminate the threat of nuclear war. The greatest threat we face today is that terrorists will obtain nuclear weapons." Not to be partisan, this is just fact.

If there is one thing about people that's a given, it's that they can only change themselves. You can try to understand them, change their circumstances, try to point the roads to peace, but in the end, they must want it for themselves, knowing what the alternatives are.

There is a situation soon to be pressed regarding Iran, over multiple issues outstanding, both acute and systemic, with far reaching ramifications for non-proliferation, counter-terrorism, human rights, and the general stability of the Mideast.

A situation where truly only the values of cooperation and compassion may effect a just and equitable solution not just for the Iranian people's freedom and security, but of all people of the region, as well.

I hope this adds a little perspective to the mix.

Regarding the NIE that was leaked to the Washington Post, I know they cherry-picked from it to "spin" it. But in any case, 10 years is a dangerously optimistic estimate for the IRI producing a bomb on their own. Intent is not only clear, but where there's a will on the part of the IRI, there's a way. 2 or 3 years is equally dangerous and optimistic. There's something in general to consider in the following that should wake folks up quicker than a strong cup of coffee in the morning.

So please allow me to put a citizen's NIE in your hands, as well as a possible political solution folks may consider:

Anyone looking at a map can see the "bookended" nature of the strategic position Tehran is in at the moment, with two fledgling democracies and thousands of US/coalition troops on its borders.
The reports out of the Pentagon regarding shaped explosive charges originating and shipped from Iran (of Revolutionary Guard origin), are but a manifestation of a coordinated effort between the regime in Tehran, Hizbollah, and al-quaida to ferment civil war in Iraq.
Tehran has been at "war by proxy" with the US since the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, and it may only be a matter of time before there is no other option left on the table except a military one to resolve the situation.
This prospect may terrify folks more than terrorism itself, but there's only one viable solution to effectively stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan permanently. It is quite simply, "regime change" in Tehran.
How an alternate "regime change" solution manifests is fully dependent on whether the international community has the guts to support a rather extensive opposition community inside and outside Iran as they have begged and pleaded with the international community to do for some time. Given that the other options; to do nothing or go to war ;are not quite as viable in solving the problem, nor the first options to contemplate, given the situation needs resolution and that war is the last option.

To this point, the only leader of free nations who's had that alternate vision of an Iran existing within the community of nations ..."in larger freedom", and had the guts to voice the option is President GW Bush...."..and to the Iranian people I say tonight, as you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you." The man presented possibilities to people in so doing, as a president will on occasion.

The IRI is fast pushing the free world to another alternative that could be far worse, if the IRI does produce a nuclear weapon before the people decide their own fate, and remove the threat both to them and the international community.

Now I hear a fair amount of talk that the US is just using this as an excuse to promote "regime change". But the reality is if the regime isn't changed soon, the mullahs who are willing to martyr 10 million recruits (as noted in IRI statements), and is on record of having an agenda of obliterating Israel off the map, would certainly be willing to use such a weapon on their own people to make it look for all intents and purposes as if the Israeli's or the US had just attacked them, thereby creating the needed justification for holy war. "Regime change" in Iran is really not up to us per se, and it seems a rather moot point as the Iranian people have spoken....it is in process, whether the international community supports it or not. But whether this popular movement is successful, or crushed, depends now upon free nation's support for the aspirations of liberty.


On February 14, 2005 A leading member of Iran’s Hizbollah, Hojjat-ol-Islam Baqer Kharrazi after years of silence delivered a harsh speech against the reformists and the administration in Iran, Iran Emrooz reported.

“I kept silent over the past 14 years, because Hizbollah needed to be restructured and I was busy with training the forces. Although no Iranian media reflected Hizbollah leaders’ recent meeting with head of Iran’s State Expediency Council, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, I should say we elaborated on Hezbollah’s activities for Rafsanjani in detail and the former president was amazed with our progress.” Kharrazi claimed.

“We don’t need any guardian. And if necessary we will select our own president, ministers and parliament members. For without the Hizbollah forces the Islamic Revolution will collapse from within.” the hardliner added.

Referring to the Sunni population in Iran’s western, eastern and southern borders, Kharrazi said: “Presently the country’s borders are controlled by Sunnis. We have to counter their growth in the country.”

On Iran’s nuclear issue, Kharrazi noted: “We have oil, gas and all other natural resources and thus we don’t need interaction with other countries. We are able to produce atomic bombs and we will do that. We shouldn’t be afraid of anyone. The US is no more than a barking dog”


(dedacted),

It took America just 3.5 years, from 1942-45 to build an industry from scratch, based on designs from scratch, building a city from scratch to build a bomb from scratch , with only theories to go on, in the middle of the largest and most costly war in history. Yet we did this and ended that war that had cost 50 million lives up to that point with the weapon that no one knew would even work at the time it was being produced. Just 3.5 years, from theory to reality.( 3.5 years from the time FDR read a letter signed by Einstein till the Trinity test..).

Now Iran has had at least 18 years, lots of help from other nations, black market smugglers, and their scientists have had proven designs to work with. It's not because their scientists aren't as smart as America's, or that they lack the raw materials, the technological capability or the will to build it, that prevented them from doing so. Fact is, the only reason I can think of is that containment by western nations has been up to this point fairly successful even with the smuggling, and outside help they've had. But it has it's limits, and the limit has been reached.

The Iranian Clock is ticking. While the EU3 has been messing about trading and negotiating with Tehran, two solid years have passed, allowing the IRI regime to secretly consolidate it's nuclear program, it's armed force structure, train and recruit martyr brigades for terrorist action (*), destabilizing the region by proxy and all of it directly flying in the face of UN resolutions, as a member and original 1948 signatory to the UN charter.

Its unelected president, coming to power in a soft-sell military coup de etat, is leading the crushing of any and all dissent, and you can see the recent State Dept taken question on the regime's actions regarding the Kurdish minority in the Northwest of Iran to illustrate this fact. A crime against humanity in its very beginning stages. Among many crimes against humanity committed by this regime over the years.

His visa application to address the UN in New York this September is under State Dept. review pending the outcome of an ongoing investigation into his role in the Iran hostage crisis, as well as targeted assassinations in Europe, and his self confessed putting the coup de grace bullet into many a tortured political prisoner. Under normal circumstances a foreign leader would be granted visa, but this is not a normal situation, even as the president "expects" that the unelected leader of Iran will be granted visa to attend the September UN Summit, it will just as well be an appropriate time to serve notice on the IRI and its leadership directly, face to face in the forum of nations. Koffe Annan has alluded to this directly if the enrichment is not halted.

Take the regime's abysmal human rights record, it's support for terrorism, its WMD ambitions, and its leadership, and what you have is the perfect "test case" for UN reform in every conceivable way, including the limits of "diplomatic immunity" and the US role as host nation to the UN in any possible prosecution should the investigation warrant.

Now, the words "regime change" may be the modern political bogyman in diplomatic circles in Europe and among Democrats, but they , and the American public as well as the UN should remember and reflect on Churchill's words as he put it, "Given the choice between war and dishonor, Chamberlain chose dishonor and got war."

We shall see if the UN honors the precepts of its founding Charter, whether the EU will continue to trade and negotiate with a terrorist regime, and whether America comes together in bipartisanship to honor the words of President Bush to the Iranian people.

Logic dictates that with or without referral by the IAEA, this unelected regime should not just be sanctioned by the UN Security Council, but booted out of the UN altogether for gross violation of the UN charter, which Iran is a signatory to, believing it to be criminally negligent for any nation to support the continuance and aspirations of the Islamic Republic of Iran one day longer, and remaining "seized of the matter."

The coordination of economic and military sanction, freezing of assets, closing of embassies, banishment from the UN General Assembly, and other non-violent measures as may be found worthy under international law will be overwhelming to the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing solid legitimate purpose and support among the people of Iran to effect change from within. In confidence that an interim government and UN monitored referendum regarding a representative permanent government and constitution will be the result of the Iranian people's efforts.

"Regime change" Iranian style with a little help from their friends will be "Quartet Music" to the future's ears, played in greater freedom.

Folks have suggested that the Iranian opposition's info on the regime is politically motivated and therefore "biased". Well so it is...biased in favor of their freedom and security, just like you and me and the President, the UN and a whole lot of other folks trying their best to find equitable solutions and justice. They well know their credibility is on the line, I doubt if they would cook the info for political purposes...as that would be self-defeating.

What motivates me personally? Aside from being a loyal and concerned US citizen...

Until I take my last dying breath on this planet, I'll do what I can at whatever personal risk, to see that not one more A-bomb is detonated by anyone, ever again. These are my personal reasons for standing solidly behind the president, as well as in supporting the legitimate aspirations of the Iranian people. It's also a "dad thing" for the sake of my children and their children's children.

I hope folks find this to be simple common sense in bipartisan and global common cause. Thanks for reviewing it.

Sincerely,


(Oppenheimer)


(*) Sources and contact info:


Iran Focus
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2944

Tehran, Iran, Jul. 22 – A military garrison has been opened in Iran to recruit and train volunteers for “martyrdom-seeking operations”, according to the garrison’s commander, Mohammad-Reza Jaafari.

The full text of the original interview in Persian can be seen on the weekly’s website at www.partosokhan.ir/283/page08.pdf .

The weekly is published in the Shiite holy city of Qom by the Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute. The institute’s chairman, hard-line cleric Ayatollah Mohammad-Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, is regarded as the ideological mentor of President-elect Ahmadinejad.

Sat. 23 Jul 2005

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2948

Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Jul. 23 – The following is the translation of the text of an advertisement that appears regularly in the hard-line weekly Parto Sokhan as part of a recruitment drive for suicide operation volunteers.

(The above "as copied" , below is text in which Senator Brownback is mentioned Re; his support for Iranian opposition groups. This if the US Gov is not already aware of, should be. I believe there is intent expressed to harm the Senator.)


http://www.sosiran.com/Documents/Abbasi-transaltion2-English.pdf

http://www.sosiran.com/Documents/MrAbbassitape3.pdf

www.sosiran.com
contact:
Tel.: 818-986-0200,
Fax: 818-474-7229
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

P.S. We haven't heard a peep out of Kerry on Iranian issues since he lost the election, have we?

Guess he's hoping folk will forget he suggested the US give the mullah's nuclear fuel, and "test them"......(Chuckle)...

Next to Pat Robertons' latest diplomatic "idea", it could be considered to be just plain stupid, if not equally insane. (lool!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Spenta



Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Posts: 1829

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We will see what happens with the E3, Farnce may just ruin everything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Spenta,

Yeah, we will see what the future brings, in the meantime...have hope.

I've included the fact sheet to give you an idea why what I suggested in this letter was totally valid and based on legal premis...as for the EU3...saving face means hanging together and staying tough, not budging an inch, while the IRI tries to do workarounds, and change the subject at issue. As you may know, part of the deal offered, in respect to regional security issues was IRI's involvement with terrorism, and broader trade was tied to human rights reforms..labor reforms etc....mandated by WTO rules of assention.

IRI is between a rock and a hard place....130 billion in debt...most of that in foreign debt (as reported by the new finance minister in assembly)



Thursday, August 25, 2005 -- GLOBAL SECURITY NEWSWIRE
Today’s Global Security Newswire is now available: http://www.nti.org

QUOTE OF THE DAY
================
I assume this issue is going to New York by the end of [September]. I
don't see any room for delay, and the Iranians are not showing any signs that they are going to back down. -- -- London-based nonproliferation expert Gary Samore, on the probability that Iran's nuclear efforts will be referred to the U.N. Security Council for review and possible economic sanctions.


IAEA Planning to Revisit Iranian Military Complex
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_8_25.html#4DA2A066



U.S. Wants Last-Minute Changes to U.N. Reform Plan
http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_8_25.html#6B325F25




Fact Sheet
Bureau of International Organization Affairs
Washington, DC
August 24, 2005


United Nations



Profile of the United Nations: Beginnings, Purpose, and Structure

In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt, flanked by the leaders of 26 Allied countries, first coined the term "United Nations" to describe the continued fight against the Axis Powers. Following World War II, the allies adopted the term to define a worldwide body of nations. On June 26, 1945, fifty nations signed the United Nations Charter in San Francisco, California. The United States Senate ratified the UN Charter on July 28, 1945. The United Nations came into effect on October 24, 1945. October 24 is now celebrated around the globe as UN Day.

The United Nations’ aims are set out in the preamble to the UN Charter: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to achieve international cooperation in solving economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these common ends.

The principal organs of the United Nations include the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat. (The Trusteeship Council, an original principal organ, suspended operations in 1994 when it fulfilled its function by overseeing the independence of the UN’s last remaining trust territory.)

In addition to its principal organs, the United Nations system is made up of a complex mix of commissions and funds created by the General Assembly, such as UNICEF (UN Children's Fund) and the World Food Program; specialized agencies, such as the World Health Organization and the International Monetary Fund; and other UN entities, such as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the peacekeeping missions established by the Security Council.

The headquarters of the United Nations is located in New York City. The General Assembly building and the Secretariat were built in 1949 and 1950 on land donated by the Rockefeller family. The property is now considered international territory. Under special agreement with the United States, certain diplomatic privileges and immunities have been granted, but generally the laws of New York City, New York State, and the United States apply.

The regular biennial budget of the UN in 2004-05, as revised, was $3.608 billion. For the calendar year 2003, the United States’ assessed contribution to the UN regular budget was $362 million. In addition, the United States’ assessed contribution to UN specialized agencies amounted to well over $400 million. The United States also contributed $1.1 billion in assessments to the peacekeeping budget in calendar year 2004; $72 million for the support of the international war crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia; and, nearly $5 million for preparatory work relating to the UN Capital Master Plan. Moreover, each year the United States provides a significant amount in voluntary contributions to the UN and UN-affiliated organizations and activities (largely for humanitarian and development programs). In sum, U.S. contributions (both cash and in kind) to the UN system in 2003 were well over $3 billion.

The United Nations currently has 191 member states. The official languages of the United Nations are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish. More information about the UN is available on its web site at www.un.org.

Principal Organs

Security Council – New York

The Security Council has five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the U.S. – informally known as the P-5), each with the right to veto, and 10 non-permanent members elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. Five non-permanent members are elected from Africa and Asia combined. One non-permanent member comes from Eastern Europe, two from Latin America, and two from Western Europe and other areas. The 2004 non-permanent members are: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Brazil, Chile, Germany, Pakistan, the Philippines, Romania, and Spain. The president (or chair) of the Council rotates monthly in English alphabetical order of the members.

Under the UN Charter, the Security Council has "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security," and all UN members "agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." Other organs of the UN make recommendations to member governments. The Security Council, however, has the power under the Charter to make decisions that member states must carry out. Unlike other representative bodies, the Security Council is always in session. A representative of each Council member must always be available so that the Council can meet at any time.

Decisions in the 15-member Security Council on all substantive matters require the affirmative votes of nine members, including the support of all five permanent members. A negative vote by a permanent member (also known as a veto) prevents adoption of a proposal that has received the required number of affirmative votes. Abstention is not regarded as a veto.

Under Chapter VI of the Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes," the Security Council "may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute." The Council may "recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment" if it determines that the situation might endanger international peace and security. These recommendations are not binding on UN members.

Under Chapter VII, the Council has broader power to decide what measures are to be taken in situations involving "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression." In such situations, the Council is not limited to recommendations but may take action, including the use of armed force "to maintain or restore international peace and security." Decisions taken under Chapter VII, both with regard to military action and to economic sanctions, are binding on all UN member states.

Starting with the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) in 1948, the Security Council has dispatched peacekeeping missions to the world’s conflicts. These missions have helped prevent or limit many outbreaks of international violence from growing into wider conflicts.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, adopted Resolution 1373, which obliges all member states to take action against international terrorism. The resolution also established the Counter Terrorism Committee within the Council to monitor progress in the war against terrorism and implementation of the resolution. The international community has adopted 13 UN counterterrorism conventions, 12 of which have entered into force. These conventions create a legal framework that the United States believes will combat international terrorism. The United States has signed and ratified the 12 resolutions that have entered into force. The 13th will open for signature on September 14, 2005.

General Assembly – New York

All UN member states are members of the General Assembly. The Assembly has six main committees: Disarmament and International Security; Economic and Financial; Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural; Special Political and Decolonization; Administrative and Budgetary; and Legal. Other committees address UN procedures, membership, and specific issues, including peacekeeping, outer space, and UN Charter reform.

The General Assembly meets in regular session once a year under a president elected from among the representatives. The regular session usually begins in mid-September and ends in mid-December. Special sessions can be convened at the request of the Security Council, a majority of UN members, or, if the majority concurs, a single member. A special session was held in October 1995 at the head of government level to commemorate the UN's 50th anniversary.

Voting in the General Assembly on important questions is by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. Voting questions may include recommendations on peace and security; election of members to organs; admission, suspension, and expulsion of members; and budgetary matters. Other questions are decided by majority vote. Each member state has one vote. Apart from the approval of budgetary matters, including the adoption of a scale of assessment, General Assembly resolutions are not binding on the members. The Assembly may make recommendations on any matter within the scope of the UN, except on matters of peace and security under Security Council consideration. Since the late 1980s, virtually all budgetary decisions at the UN have been taken by consensus.

As the only UN organ in which all members are represented, the Assembly serves as a forum for members to launch initiatives on international questions of peace, economic progress, and human rights. It can initiate studies; make recommendations; develop and codify international law; promote human rights; and advance international economic, social, cultural, and educational programs.

The Assembly may take action on maintaining international peace if the Security Council is unable to exercise its primary responsibility, usually due to disagreement among the permanent members. The "Uniting for Peace" resolutions, adopted in 1950, empower the Assembly to convene in emergency special sessions to recommend collective measures -- including the use of armed force -- in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression. Two-thirds of the members must approve any such recommendation. Emergency special sessions under this procedure have been held on ten occasions, most recently in 1997.

Developing countries constitute a majority among the UN’s 191 members. Because of their numbers, developing countries are often able to determine the agenda of the Assembly, the character of its debates, and the nature of its decisions. For many developing countries, the UN General Assembly is the source of much of their diplomatic influence and the principal forum for their foreign relations initiatives.

When an issue is considered particularly important, the General Assembly may convene an international conference to focus global attention and build a consensus for consolidated action. High-level U.S. delegations use these opportunities to promote U.S. policy viewpoints and develop international agreements on future activities.

The General Assembly has also been active in the fight against terrorism. On September 12, 2001, it adopted a resolution condemning the terrorist attacks against the United States. In its 56th and 57th Sessions, the General Assembly also passed resolutions calling on all states to prevent terrorism and to strengthen international cooperation in fighting terrorism. On April 13, 2005, the General Assembly unanimously adopted the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.
Economic and Social Council – New York

The General Assembly elects the 54 members of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Eighteen are elected each year for three-year terms. The U.S. has always been a member.

Under the UN Charter, ECOSOC is responsible for identifying solutions to international economic, social, and health problems, as well as facilitating international cultural and education cooperation and encouraging respect for human rights. ECOSOC meets for one annual four-week session and for shorter ad hoc, procedural, or special meetings. Voting is by simple majority.

ECOSOC coordinates the work of fourteen specialized UN agencies, ten functional commissions, and five regional commissions. Through much of its history, ECOSOC had served primarily as a discussion vehicle. ECOSOC had little authority to force action, which a number of member states felt marginalized the agency’s utility. However, beginning in 1992, the U.S. and other nations began an effort to make ECOSOC more relevant by strengthening its policy responsibilities in economic, social, and related fields, particularly in the area of development.

The resulting reform made ECOSOC the oversight and policy-setting body for UN operational development activities and established smaller executive boards for the UN Development Program (UNDP), UN Population Fund (UNFPA), and UN Children's Fund (UNICEF). The creation of an oversight body and smaller executive boards provides those agencies with operating guidance and promotes more effective management. The reform also gave ECOSOC a strong hand in ensuring that UN agencies coordinated their work on issues of common interest, such as narcotics control, human rights, the alleviation of poverty, and the prevention of HIV/AIDS.

One positive impact of this reform was the manner in which the UN development system began to respond more coherently and efficiently to humanitarian crises around the world. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's recent reform initiatives have attached considerable importance to further strengthening coordination among relief agencies.

Another positive reform outcome was the ECOSOC decision in 1994 to authorize the creation of the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). This Program acts as the main advocate for worldwide action against HIV/AIDS and has brought together into one consolidated global program the AIDS-related resources and expertise of UNICEF, UNDP, UNFPA, UNESCO, the UN International Drug Control Program, the World Health Organization, the International Labor Organization, and the World Bank. UNAIDS has been instrumental in the expanded global response to HIV/AIDS, eliminating duplication among agencies and enhancing the ability of member states to respond effectively to the AIDS pandemic. UNAIDS began operating in January 1996.

International Court of Justice - The Hague, Netherlands

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the UN. Established in 1946, its main functions are to decide cases submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by the General Assembly or Security Council, or by such specialized agencies authorized to do so by the General Assembly in accordance with the UN Charter.

The Court is composed of 15 judges elected by the General Assembly and the Security Council from a list of persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Judges serve for nine years and may be re-elected. No two may be nationals of the same country. One-third of the Court is elected every three years. A U.S. citizen has always been a member of the Court. Questions before the Court are decided by a majority of judges present.

Only states may be parties in cases before the International Court of Justice. This requirement does not preclude private interests from being the subject of proceedings if one state brings a case against another. Jurisdiction of the Court is based on the consent of each UN member state to comply with an ICJ decision in a case to which it is a party. Any judgments reached are binding. If a party fails to perform its obligations under an ICJ decision, the other party may seek recourse in the Security Council.

State parties to the Court’s statute may declare their recognition of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court for a wide range of international disputes. The U.S. accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction in 1946, but withdrew its acceptance following the Court's decision in a 1986 case involving activities in Nicaragua. Examples of cases include:

a complaint by the U.S. in 1980 that Iran was detaining American diplomats in Tehran in violation of international law;
a complaint filed by Iran in 1992 alleging that the United States violated a treaty obligation by attacking three Iranian oil platforms. The U.S. filed a counter-claim with respect to Iranian attacks on U.S. shipping interests in the Persian Gulf;
a dispute over the course of the maritime boundary dividing the U.S. and Canada in the Gulf of Maine area, filed in 1981, judgment in 1984; and
a complaint filed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DROC) in 1999 against Rwanda alleging violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed on DROC territory.
Secretariat – New York
The Secretariat is composed of international civil servants who carry out the daily tasks of the United Nations. It provides studies, information, and facilities needed by UN bodies for their meetings. It also carries out tasks as directed by the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and other UN bodies. The Charter provides that the staff be chosen by application of the "highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity," with due regard for the importance of recruiting on a wide geographical basis.

The Charter provides that the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any authority other than the UN. Each UN member is obligated to respect the international character of the Secretariat and not seek to influence its staff.

Under the UN Charter, the chief administrative officer of the UN and the head of the Secretariat is the Secretary-General of the United Nations, appointed to a five-year term by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council. Kofi Annan, the first Secretary-General from sub-Saharan Africa, began his first term on January 1, 1997. He was reappointed to a second term beginning January 1, 2002.

The Secretary-General's duties include helping resolve international disputes, administering peacekeeping operations, organizing international conferences, gathering information on the implementation of Security Council decisions, and consulting with member governments regarding various initiatives. The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter that, in his or her opinion, may threaten international peace and security. In 1997, the General Assembly established a position of Deputy Secretary-General. Since 1998, Louise Frechette of Canada has held this position. Other senior UN officials, such as the Under-Secretaries-General for Political Affairs and Peacekeeping, also advise the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General also appoints Special Representatives and Envoys to mediate conflict in the world’s trouble spots.

The UN Family

In addition to the principal UN organs, the UN family includes over 60 programs or specialized agencies, often headquartered in one of the UN offices around the world. Some agencies existed prior to UN creation and are related to it by agreement. Others were established by the General Assembly. Each provides expertise in a specific area. Some of those programs and agencies (with the location of their headquarters) are described below. A diagram of the entire UN system can be found at www.un.org/aboutun/chart. A map showing principal UN offices around the world can be found at http://www.un.org/aroundworld/map/.

FUNDS AND PROGRAMS

UN Children's Fund (UNICEF). New York City. UNICEF provides long-term humanitarian and developmental assistance to children and mothers in developing countries. UNICEF relies on contributions from governments and private donors. Its programs emphasize developing community-level services to promote the health and well being of children. UNICEF was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1965.

UN Development Program (UNDP). New York City. UNDP is the largest multilateral source of grant technical assistance in the world. Voluntarily funded, it provides expert advice, training, and limited equipment to developing countries, with increasing emphasis on assistance to the poorest countries. It focuses on six areas of assistance: democratic governance, poverty reduction, crisis prevention and recovery, energy and the environment, information technology, and HIV/AIDS.

UN Environment Program (UNEP). Nairobi, Kenya. UNEP coordinates UN environmental activities, assisting developing countries in implementing environmentally sound policies. UNEP has developed guidelines and treaties on issues such as the international transport of potentially harmful chemicals, transboundary air pollution, and the contamination of international waterways.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Geneva, Switzerland. UNHCR protects and supports refugees at the request of a government or the UN and assists in their return or resettlement. UNHCR was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1954 and 1982.

World Food Program (WFP). Rome, Italy. The WFP distributes food commodities to long-term refugees and displaced persons, and provides emergency food assistance during natural and man-made disasters. In 2004, the WFP fed 113 million people in 80 countries, including most of the world’s refugees and internally displaced people.

SPECIALIZED AGENCIES

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Rome, Italy. FAO programs seek to raise levels of nutrition and standards of living; to improve agricultural productivity, to promote rural development; and, by these means, to provide access of all people at all times to the food they need for an active and healthy life.

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Montreal, Canada. ICAO develops the principles and techniques of international air navigation and fosters the planning and development of international air transport to ensure safe and orderly growth. The ICAO Council adopts standards and makes recommendations concerning air navigation, the prevention of unlawful interference, and the facilitation of border-crossing procedures for international civil aviation.

International Labor Organization (ILO). Geneva, Switzerland. The ILO seeks to strengthen worker rights, improve working and living conditions, create employment, and provide information and training opportunities. ILO programs include the occupational safety and health hazard alert system and the labor standards and human rights programs.

International Maritime Organization (IMO). London, England. The IMO’s main objective is to facilitate cooperation among governments on technical matters affecting international shipping to achieve the highest possible degree of maritime safety and navigational efficiency. It also attempts to improve the marine environment through the prevention of pollution caused by ships and other craft and deals with legal matters connected with international shipping.

International Monetary Fund (IMF). Washington, DC. The purposes of the IMF are to promote international monetary cooperation through consultation and collaboration, to promote exchange stability and orderly exchange arrangements, and to assist in the establishment of a multilateral system of payments and the elimination of foreign exchange restrictions.

International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Geneva, Switzerland. The ITU brings together governments to coordinate the establishment and operation of global communication networks and services, including telegraph, telephone, radio communications, Internet, and the information society. It fosters cooperation and partnership among its members and offers technical assistance in this area.

UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Paris, France. UNESCO’s purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting cooperation among nations through education, science, culture, and communication to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, human rights, and fundamental freedoms without distinction of race, sex, language, or religion.

Universal Postal Union (UPU). Bern, Switzerland. The UPU attempts to secure the organization and improvement of the postal services, to promote international collaboration, and provide technical assistance in this area. The member countries constitute a single postal territory.

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Geneva, Switzerland. The purpose of WIPO is to promote international cooperation in the field of intellectual property rights. It works in the areas of both industrial and literary-artistic property.

World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Geneva, Switzerland. WMO coordinates global scientific activity to allow increasingly prompt and accurate weather prediction and other services for public, private, and commercial use.

World Health Organization (WHO). Geneva, Switzerland. WHO acts as a coordinating authority on pressing global public health issues. WHO’s objective, as set out in its Constitution, is the attainment of all peoples of the highest possible level of health.

OTHER RELATED BODIES

World Bank. Washington, DC. The World Bank is one of the world’s main sources of development assistance. It focuses on the poorest people in the poorest countries.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Vienna, Austria. The role of IAEA is to promote the contribution of atomic energy for peace, health, and prosperity throughout the world and to enhance the safety and security of radioactive materials and nuclear facilities worldwide. It has the responsibility of creating and implementing the safeguard provisions of various nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear free zone treaties.

Reform of the United Nations

The United Nations is currently engaged in one of the most important debates in its history: how to reform itself, strengthen itself as an institution, and ensure that it addresses effectively the threats and challenges of the 21st century. The United States is leading the effort to strengthen and reform the UN. Priorities for the U.S. are:

Budget, Management, and Administrative Reform: The U.S. seeks to ensure the highest standards of integrity and promote efficiency within the UN system, so that member states receive the greatest benefit from resources invested in the institution. Meaningful institutional reform must include measures to improve internal oversight and accountability, to identify cost savings, and to allocate resources to high priority programs and offices.

Peace Building Commission: The U.S. strongly supports the Secretary-General's idea of a Peace Building Commission that would allow the UN to be more effective in galvanizing the work of the international community to help countries after the fighting has stopped. Such a Commission would play an important role in helping countries in post-conflict situations. It could provide reconstruction and humanitarian support and set the stage for long-term development.

Human Rights Council: The U.S. supports the Secretary-General's initiative to replace the Commission on Human Rights with a smaller, action-oriented Human Rights Council, whose membership should not include states with a record of abuse. The problems with the current Commission, where human-rights abusers sit in judgment of democratic countries, are well known. The Council's mandate would be to address the most egregious human rights abuses, provide technical assistance, and promote human rights as a global priority.

Democracy Initiatives and the UN Democracy Fund: President Bush in his September 2004 UN General Assembly speech put this proposal on the table, as democracy promotion is one of our core aims. The goal is to create a mechanism for supporting new and emerging democracies, providing assistance that would help develop civil society and democratic institutions.

Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism: The U.S. strongly supports the adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism (CCIT), a subject of longstanding debate. This would be an important symbolic achievement in the UN's global effort to counter terrorism.

Development: The United States plays a leading, active, and positive role in development. The U.S. has a commitment to building healthy institutions and strong economies, through trade, foreign investment, and aid. As agreed in the Monterrey Consensus, the focus should be on supporting good governance and sound economic policies.

U.S. Representation

The U.S. Permanent Mission to the UN in New York is headed by the U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN, with the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. Ambassador John R. Bolton has served in that position since August 1, 2005. The mission acts as the channel of communication for the U.S. Government with the UN organs, agencies, and commissions at the UN headquarters and with the other permanent missions accredited to the UN and the non-member observer missions. The U.S. mission has a professional staff made up largely of career Foreign Service officers, including specialists in political, economic, social, financial, legal, and military issues.

The United States also maintains missions to international organizations in Geneva, Rome, Vienna, Nairobi, Montreal, and Paris. These missions report to the Department of State and receive guidance on questions of policy from the President, through the Secretary of State. The Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs coordinates relations with the UN and its family of agencies.

The U.S. Mission to the United Nations is located at 140 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 (tel. 212-415-4000). More information about the U.S. Mission to the UN is available on the mission’s web site at www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov.

Released August 24, 2005
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.un.org/largerfreedom/contents.htm


In Larger Freedom:
Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, March 2005


-------------------

Posted this link, as it's worth taking a look at by all those seeking freedom.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> General Discussion & Announcements All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group