[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 

Suggestion For Future Possible 3 New Petitions
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> Petitions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 2:15 pm    Post subject: Suggestion For Future Possible 3 New Petitions Reply with quote

Suggestion For Future 3 New Petitions Against Russia, China and UN....As Unity Of Vision ... WHY?

The Corrupt UN Chief Annan Who Has Not Done Anything For Human Rights Violations In Iran Urges U.S., EU to Talk With Taazi Islamofascists In Iran



We appreciate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Mr. Burns and Mr. Bolton for their hard work and best try to push UN in right direction, they have correct vision and strategy for Free Iran, Free Society, Secular Democracy and stop human rights violations in Iran. Greatness is not achieved by words but hard work, difficult choices and sacrifices. Now it is time for fellow Activists for actions to increase public awareness regarding UN. We reject any talks with Islamofacists Taazi by US, EU or others.

The U.N. Security Council and UN has zero credibility and in the current form should be considered as useless and "irrelevant" .



In order to create Unity of Vision and increase public awareness among freedom-loving people of world at grass root level our fellow Activist compatriots may consider to write 3 petitions, don't wait and expect for our governments to do the right thing:

1- Petition to Ask US, and EU Countries Stop Paying Membership Fee to UN and Create New UN with new members that must follow the rules of FREE Society, Secular Democracy and Human Rights.

2. Petition To Kick Out Russia From G8, the US and EU governments must stop trades with Russia unless they stop all trades with Taazi Mullahs and respect the rules of FREE Society, Secular Democracy and Human Rights.


3. Petition Against China to stop buying chinese products by the people, increasing custom on chinese products and the Iranian people must stop buying chinese products unless China stop all trades with Taazi Mullahs and respect the rules of FREE Society, Secular Democracy and Human Rights.




Quote:
Annan Urges U.S., EU to Stop Iran Rhetoric
Friday, May 12, 2006
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195230,00.html

VIENNA, Austria — U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Friday urged the United States to join with Europe to resume talks with Iran and to "lower the rhetoric" in the international standoff over Tehran's nuclear program.

"I have asked all sides to lower the rhetoric and intensify diplomatic efforts to find a solution," Annan told reporters in the margins of an EU-Latin America summit.

"Everyone, every important stakeholder should be at a table," Annan said. "I urge all parties to be open, Iran included, and come back to the table and find a solution."

Annan said proposed talks between the European Union countries of Britain, Germany France with Iran, would be more productive if they included the United States.

Washington however, has


Freedom-loving Iranian People Condemn Nuclear Adventures

Freedom-loving Iranian People Condemn Wasted 20 Billion Dollars Islamofascist Regime Childish Nuclear Adventures Is Fantasy Strategy Led by the Mad Mullahs, Revolutionary Guard Fools, Terror and Torture Masters in Iran


1) NUKE PLANTS IN A QUAKE ZONE- Building nuclear power stations, especially when designed by Russians and Chinese firms that are subject to no international scrutiny, on the world's most active earthquake zone might not be the best of ideas either for Iran or its neighbors. http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=27980#27980

2)No lesson learned by Mad Mullahs from the death toll of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster 20 years ago . Based on research by the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, the report said that of the 2 billion people globally affected by the Chernobyl fallout, 270,000 will develop cancers as a result, of which 93,000 will prove fatal.

3) Due to the fact that Iran has vast reserve of natural Gas for over 200 years and creating electric power from natural Gas is at least 20 times cheaper for Iran than Nuclear Power and it is one of the safest way to generate electricity therefore Iran does not need any nuclear power plant.
4) Spending over 20 billion dollars of Iranian People’s money for nuclear adventures while high percentage of Iranian people under poverty line without getting permission from Iranian people.

5) Lying to International community regarding Regime nuclear adventures.

6) Islamofascist Mad Mullahs and Revolutionary Guards Fools Wasted 20 Billion Dollars For Childish Nuclear Adventures Fantasy and Planning For Another Crisis to Survive ...... Creating another disaster for Iran



Conclusion and Freedom-loving Iranian People Demands For Support from International Community:


We have come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with this unelected and undemocratic regime is to deal with it strongly and with a comprehensive set of measures. The measures that we recommend and strongly advocate are as follows:

* Stop, with immediate effect, all international trades with the undemocratic Islamic “Republic” of Iran.
*Stop the purchase of oil from Iran and refrain from signing any new contracts and renewal of any existing ones.
* Stop All Arms Sales NOW (Russia, China, EU .......)
* Blockade Iran’s ports in the Persian Gulf and possibly the Caspian Sea allowing passage of food and medicine.
*Stop all IRI satellite TV and Radio programming to the outside world.
* Cease all Mullahs personal assets outside Iran
* Freeze IRI assets outside of Iran and impose prohibition on investment, a travel ban, and asset freezes for government leaders and nuclear scientists.
* Worldwide announcement to all nations that any deals and contracts made with IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) by any entity is null and void. The IRI does not represent Iranians.
* Publicly identify known IRI agents, arrest and prosecute their agents abroad as promoters of international terrorism and abusers of human rights. Shut down all illegal unregistered agent organizations representing IRI interests, their lobbyist and apologists.
* Close or limit Islamic Republic’s embassies and its activities including travel limits on Iranian diplomats.
* Release the frozen assets of Iran to the IRI opposition to be spent on strike funds and promotion of democracy.
* Expel IRI representatives from UN since the IRI constitution is contrary to the UDHR (Universal Declarations of Human Rights).
* Support Freedom-loving Iranian People for regime change NOW.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2006 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

I sometimes wonder how far global civil rights would have progressed, had Dr. Martin Luther King lived.
I kind of suspect he would have taken the human rights stance he had, to the global level, eventually.

Perhaps the UN would not need as much reform as it does today.

On the bright side of things, the IRI's candicacy to sit on the new Human Rights board of the UN, was denied.

That the IRI sits on the UN's disarmament committee is a disgrace. By any rational thought process applied to the circumstance, leaves one scratching their head wondering; "What are they thinking!!???"

It's been said that "you go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had". In this sence, the UN as it is being what we have to work with today faces a fundemental test of its credibility to be sure, and has a long way to go to get there from here as a fact.

I would take reference to the League of Nations that dissolved due to conflict, in the sence that I don't think the nations of the world want to see a repeat performance.

If the question is of dissolution of the UN in total, as unfixable I think that is not the answer to the problem, nor feasable in actuality.

What then IS the UN? Is it not the sum of its member states by representation?

Can it be more than the sum of its parts? I think when it comes to aiding nations in distress from natural disaster or post war restoration of social infrastructure, then it does become so in manifestation.

The answer lies in the quality of representation and conduct of member states within this formal body of nations, gathered together by consent and under charter membership.

Charter Membership....

All the nations gathered together under the UN charter , signatory to it, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and various other agreements including dues and other participation, such as contributing peace-keeping forces, logistical support etc. must see fit to require of all member states without exception to honor the charter agreements required for membership in good standing.

Otherwise suspention, and/or revocation of membership must be the result. Including all priviliges afforded therein.

Reducing a nation from active participant to observer status would be fair incentive to toe the line of civilized behavior, and isolation as a tactic of non-violent persuasion is not much different from a very old practice of banishment, wherin the tribe would litterally turn its back on a member.

In the case of a different government coming into being, or on becoming complient in the adherance to the charter, re-affirmation of the charter must be required to join again in good standing.

Thing about America's role in the UN is that what IS America exactly? Is it too not made up of its own nations within nation? Native Americans have due sovreignity over tribal lands, under tribal laws that not at odds, yet different in principal to federal laws, by tradition.

A lot can be said in the history that human rights and democracy in America was an uphill battle all the way...and is still evolving.

MLK had the Constitution and Bill of Rights to draw from in his quest for equality of man, woman and child of all races and would have drawn on UN documents as well in reforming not just America, but the world if he'd had the chance.

If one is to understand current US foreign policy, I believe it is fundemental to delve into the history of MLK and the civil rights movement.

Growing up in the middle of it as the Secretary of State did, has by natural concequence, given her a unique perspective on global issues and this is reflected in policy as well.

The President's foreign policy.

Now giving peace a chance and diplomacy as well as giving the UN time to correct its malfunction is in order here I think, for what is the alternative? Global anarchy?

This is a bit different result I think than you wish for in disolving the UN " in total", and by cutting the dead wood out of the UN org, in committee and otherwise may prove to be ultimately successful in achieving lasting UN reform, which would save folks a lot of headaches.

On the other hand, it will cause a few headaches to achieve, as the current government of Iran represents a "test case" for UN reform, not just a test upon the international community or upon the UN Security Council.

If indeed they have "zero credibility" then the UN needs to get some right quick by action not talk and delay. Better off turning the UN headquarters building into a homeless shelter if the org is going to resemble the tower of babble.

I don't want to "lop off ten floors"...(chuckle)....that can house a lot of folks in need. But I certainly respect Ambassador Bolton's sentiments about the situation.

All the nice words and commitments to UN reform don't mean squat unless it is implemented in full compliment to the tennents of the UN charter and related documents, by all member states.

So those are my thoughts as relates to the following:


Quote:
Quote:
1- Petition to Ask US, and EU Countries Stop Paying Membership Fee to UN and Create New UN with new members that must follow the rules of FREE Society, Secular Democracy and Human Rights.



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

In regards to:

Quote:
Quote:
2. Petition To Kick Out Russia From G8, the US and EU governments must stop trades with Russia unless they stop all trades with Taazi Mullahs and respect the rules of FREE Society, Secular Democracy and Human Rights.



I believe it does not serve to exclude Russia from the G8, especially as it is host and holds the chair for the meeting. This is Russia's moment to step up to the plate, and be a constructive partner in the international community.

Whereas it concerns the peace of nations, Russia has a mighty big role to play in securing that. So it must have the chance to take the lead, and being the IRI's leading supplier of weapons , must cease and desist that relationship with the IRI in order not to present a conflict of interest to the peace and security of the international community. Without doubt the Russians must realize this at this point, as they've flat been told that is not in the best interests of peace and security.


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

In regards to:

Quote:
Quote:
3. Petition Against China to stop buying chinese products by the people, increasing custom on chinese products and the Iranian people must stop buying chinese products unless China stop all trades with Taazi Mullahs and respect the rules of FREE Society, Secular Democracy and Human Rights.



I think China understands that a message must be sent to the IRI as well, though with the amazing fact of having to litterally create 25 million jobs per year just to stay even in unemployment rates, you need a lot of lubrication to run an economy like that, and that means oil imports are of primary concern.

The thing is, one's investment is not best placed in a contract with an unstable (mentally as well) regime hell bent on creating instability in the region.

Far better for nations to realize and act on the realization that their long-term economic interest lies with the Iranian people. Invest in them now and suffer some short-term economic pain, while investing in a stable government of the future to trade with, or make short term morally questionable investment in the regime as has been the case with many nations, and suffer long-term loss of market and investment opportunity later down the post-regime road.

Koffe Annan is trying to be the sand-lot monitor and calm things down, when it only takes one to start a war. Can't say in his position that I blame him for trying, but even he must realize he's got a highly dangerous nut case on his hands, who has no ears to hear with, no eyes to see his self defeating policies, nor able to speak the truth while hanging himself with his own words.

"Aye, and I remember well the most humorous display of "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" using EU leaders as caricture. What now do you suppose might be wrought on Antar by photo-shop do you propose to guess?" , queried yon Shakepearian diplomat..."A chimp with its head stuffed so far up its arse that even the twist and yank method of removal would not suffice it to see the sun again?"(chuckle)...."No wonder some avoid to "engage" in conversation." he stated emphaticly.

"Alas, it is not pleasent to crawl around in the minds of madmen" the analyst proclaimed, "but someone has to do it, and deliver their findings to the sane."

Well to Mr. Putin all I can say is that if the "wolf" (US) is at the IRI's door, you need not wonder why it "doesn't listen" to you when it has its teeth into something solid.
"Take a bite out of crime" R US...at the world's service....Y'all feel free to pitch in and help anytime now, hear?

( Hope Vladimir gets the message in time. )

Best,

Oppie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ViaHHakimi



Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 142

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 9:19 pm    Post subject: Eric Shawn: UN Sabotaging US Dangerous Reply with quote

This is what we were saying since long, with no avail.
Thank god that some body had the guts to come out with the truth.
This UN-UNITED NATIONS should be altogether closed down.
Our world will be better off without it.
At least humanity is not fooled by a false pretensions & assumption.
Close the damn thing down. The sooner the better!

Hashem


Quote:


Eric Shawn: UN Sabotaging US Dangerous

From NewsMax.com
By Joan Swirsky


http://view.e.newsmax.com/?ffcb10-fe8e11717d61077477-fe2815797c610478731672-ff2c1d707

"The U.N. Exposed: How the United Nations Sabotages America's Security and Fails the World" by Eric Shawn. Penguin Press, 336 pages.

Eric Shawn's new book "The U.N. Exposed" is a blistering attack on the world body's corruption, hypocrisies, greed, ineptitude, scandals and crimes against humanity - and it delivers knockout punches on every page.

Shawn, a veteran Fox News Network anchor who has covered the United Nations for years, mourns the demise of the organization that, in his childhood and adolescence, stood for everything he stood for: "world peace, cooperation, compassion and goodness."

Editor's Note: Get Eric Shawn's explosive book about the United Nations with our FREE offer Go Here Now.

With clear regret, laced with the contempt and anger reserved for fallen icons, Shawn reports that today, "less than five miles from Ground Zero in Manhattan, sits an international hotbed of anti-Americanism" ... an organization led by "institutional narcissism" that has fallen from grace in a "decline of its own making."

The United Nations, Shawn writes, "only exists in the imaginations of the people who work there" but where tour guides sell "the U.N. fantasy in 13 different languages."

In chapter after chapter, many with self-explanatory titles - including "The U.N. Press Corps Cover-Up," "How the U.N. Funds Terrorism" and "The International Anthem - Blame America!" - Shawn details how the U.N. has steadily violated its original mission to prevent future wars by maintaining member nations' forces as "peacekeepers."

Instead, Shawn writes, many of the self-important ambassadors of the U.N.'s 191 member nations, even those from third-world countries, live in lavish residences, are protected by diplomatic immunity - which includes exemption from paying $19 million in New York City parking tickets - are chauffered around in limousines, dine in fine restaurants and generally live a lifestyle that "no American not on the Forbes Richest 500 list will ever see."

China's ambassador, for instance, lives in Trump World Tower, "where his neighbors pay as much as $14 million" for similar digs, and Yemen's ambassador, although from the 14th poorest nation on earth with an average gross annual income of $465, lives in an Upper East Side townhouse valued at $6.8 million.

"But we still chip in for it," Shawn reports, explaining that for the honor of hosting America's adversaries and fair-weather "allies," the United States pays a whopping 22 percent of the U.N.'s bloated $1.3 billion annual budget - quite a far cry from Germany (9.82 percent), France (6.5), the United Kingdom (5.57), or Canada (2.57).

Shawn's sweeping exposé includes much more than interesting - and infuriating - factoids. In detailed but highly readable commentary, he discusses the ways in which the United Nations has consistently violated its once-noble raison-d'étre. Among those violations:

Failing to investigate the Oil-for-Food program intended to allow Saddam Hussein to sell oil to buy food and medicine for Iraq's starving and sick population. Instead Saddam used the money to enrich himself and buy weapons while France, Russia and China participated in the cover-up, along with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's son, Kojo.
Failing to sanction Saddam when he "rewarded" Palestinian homicide bombers for murdering Israelis.
Failing to conduct internal investigations to uproot corruption and balking at outside monitoring, as it did when former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker's commission - which found "grave" conflicts of interest in the Oil-for-Food program - was unable to subpoena documents or force anyone to testify.
Failing consistently to condemn terrorist acts.
Supporting some of the world's most oppressive governments.
Diverting U.N.-supervised funds into weapons used against American troops.
Allowing terrorists and rogue states seeking nuclear weapons to flout U.N. resolutions.
Trafficking in kickbacks and bribes.
Turning a blind eye to the widespread sexual abuse and exploitation by U.N. "peacekeepers" of girls as young as 12 in Bosnia, Congo, Haiti, Liberia, et al.
Electing international thugs like Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the U.N. Disarmament Commission - the day after Iran announced its advanced enrichment of uranium.
Electing brutal human-rights violators like Sudan and Libya to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights - with Libya chairing the commission!
Failing to prevent the 1994 Rwandan genocide of nearly 1 million people.
Failing to intervene effectively or carry out humanitarian aid during the second Congo war that claimed nearly 5 million lives (1998-2002).
Failing to intervene in the 1995 Srebrebica massacre.
Failing to deliver food to starving people in Somalia.
Failing to reveal that a senior official in the U.N. Development Program, Justin Leites, worked for the Kerry presidential campaign while on the U.N. payroll.
Being unremittingly racist and anti-Semitic in its dealings with member state Israel.
Shawn's book reinforces what a growing number of ordinary citizens as well as political commentators have come to agree on. As journalist and author David Frum insists, "It's time to wake up to reality: The U.N. scandals are not unfortunate accidents. They are not incidental blots on the reputation of an otherwise idealistic organization. The scandals are inherent in the very structure of the U.N. It could be said that the U.N. itself is the scandal."

Shawn, in what appears to be a last-ditch effort to find redemption in the corrupt world body, refers to a painting hanging over the Security Council chamber that depicts a phoenix rising from the ashes of the world war that created the U.N. in 1945, saying that he hoped the bird meant to symbolize the birth of a new world will "stand now for the birth of a new U.N."

But if this is not possible, he warns, "and if the U.N. continues to be little more than a façade, then whenever America stakes out a position and our diplomats settle in behind the Formica sign that reads `THE UNITED STATES,' our security will be threatened, the world will be failed again, and real answers to the day's biggest problems will have to be sought elsewhere."

Editor's Note: Get Eric Shawn's explosive book about the United Nations with our FREE offer Go Here Now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2006 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Hashem,

Even the writer wants the UN to get serious about reform, he lists the faults to put a big spotlight on the need for reform.

Both the writer and myself know that if it cannot, the headaches will continue....and as I said, far better to turn the place into a homeless shelter if it simply resembles the tower of babble.

OK so you want to do away with the UN...fine...what do you propose to do as a viable alternative for nations to work out the problems of the world with each other?.....maybe you should read my post prior to your's again if you haven't done so.

In it there is a viable method to see the UN turned into a decent and respectable institution, which is worth trying before taking those extreme measures such as you suggest.

Then if you disagree, tell me why my method won't work... in detail.

Regards,

Oppie


Last edited by Oppenheimer on Tue May 16, 2006 9:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 5:34 pm    Post subject: Ambassador Hashem Hakimi Response Reply with quote

Ambassador Hashem Hakimi Response

Ambassador Hashem Hakimi wrote:

Dear Cyrus,

This is in response to Oppie.

If we go back to the history of United Nation making, the first one (LEAGUE OF NATIONS) was created by England & France alone. Since U.S.A. became frustrated & had pooled out of it.

These two powers divided the then world among them selves with apparent catastrophic results. With the League of Nations doing nothing!

Almost 60 years ago, again the same powers, but this time plus USA & U.S.S.R. mad the United Nations according to their own interest & greed. U.S.S.R. swallowed half of Europe!!!

The participant nations at the day in London in 1946, were some where around 46 sovereign nations.

But most of this so-called sovereign nation had no impact upon the three main powers. Russia was side stepped by throwing her Eastern Europe & china was yet to finish its internal upheaval therefore was not in a position to exert any influence.

The result is, what we have today is the handy work of that old big mischief maker Britain, self grandiose French & a novice U.S.A.

Then came all the problems with new up coming nations in Africa, Asia, and all the South East Asia Archipelagos, who were far away from being totally independent.

All of them with very little exception (India), were under the influence of long established big powers, which were their masters, before so called independence. With the result that they had no opportunity to stand to the challenge of the established big powers. Therefore they all became pawns in the hands of the established big powers. That ruined the essence of United Nations. It became, as I always say “UN-UNTED NATIONS”.

If any statistics is taken from the employees of the United Nations, one can see that the majority of bread & butter jobs has gone to the Brits, in first place & the French in second place, then comes USA & Russia? With the result that the Brits can pull all the strings the way it suits them. Even against the interest of U.S.A. & get away with it!?

As long as the Brits are in position to pull all the strings, as they are doing now, the UN-UNITED NATIONS is a pawn in the hand of the big mischief maker, the Brits. The Brits do not want any change. You do not read or hear any criticism of U.N. by the Brits? They are happy with it! Why? Because they make the best out of it! The Brits have the guts to criticize the entire world, but why not U.N.?

I do not see how this house of cards which its structure is eaten away by the white ant could possibly be reformed or corrected. As if IRI could be reformed or corrected!?

Save few years in the beginning that some European independent nationals, were elected as U.N. Secretary General, Such as the Norwegian Trigveli, & then Swedish, Dag Hamershould, who could stand up to the excesses of the big powers, the rest are from Asia or Africa who could be easily manipulated. Who remembers U Tant, Boutros Ghali, & the worst of them all, this useless corrupt, the present one?

All this monkey business is done under the flag or pretext of DEMOCROCY or to pretend to have given a chance to some third world countries, which is all sham.

I am not a lawyer or expert in International Organization Making, therefore I can not put forward what & how a sort of World Assembly should be envisaged and put together. What I, & so many others know is that, the present UN-UNTED NATION is not going to work, it could not be reformed nor could be corrected, therefore, the sooner is replaced or even closed the better.

Also Russia should be kept in G8 but under constant hammer. They are like elephants they need constant hammering to behave!?

Regards,

Hashem



Oppenheimer wrote:
Dear Hashem,

Even the writer wants the UN to get serious about reform, he lists the faults to put a big spotlight on the need for reform.

Both the write and myself know that if it cannot, the headaches will continue....and as I said, far better to turn the place into a homeless shelter if it simply resembles the tower of babble.

OK so you want to do away with the UN...fine...what do you propose to do as a viable alternative for nations to work out the problems of the world with each other?.....maybe you should read my post prior to your's again if you haven't done so.

In it there is a viable method to see the UN turned into a decent and respectable institution, which is worth trying before taking those extreme measures such as you suggest.

Then if you disagree, tell me why my method won't work... in detail.

Regards,

Oppie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Hashem,

With all due respect for your former position and title, honorable as it is, misconceptions know no respect for position or status in life, and this is true in general, across the board...on any subject.

One might say that language is the worst form of communication ever invented, but until evolution decides otherwise, we're stuck with it.

So it is my understanding from many of your postings that you believe Great Britan to be the root of all diplomatic dysfunctionality in the world, past and present. As I understand your take on things, generally speaking.
Please correct me if I've been off in my interpretation of your viewpoint.

However, it is clear that you underestimate America's role in the world, and in these instances specificly.

As we carry on a public discussion, I believe it is critical with stakes for the future being as high as they are, to be factually correct in one's evaluation of history for one, and secondly, to arrive at a comprehensive and workable solution.

To do away with the UN is to do away with the construct of global diplomacy as it is implemented today, leaving bi-lateral relations and regional groupings like the EU, Arab League, African Union, OAS, etc. to take up the vacume created.

In theory anyway.

But global issues require global participation, and global consensus on ways forward and solutions to global crisis. AIDS, poverty, hunger, human traficking, cross border smuggling of all types, terrorism response in all aspects, human rights, global warming....to name a few.

The basic requirement of a working UN is discipline among member states, and enforcement of its charter on all. As well as Security Council resolutions, binding on nations as they may be, issues and facts having been duly debated and acted upon by all.

Enforced by all upon one, if need be.

The reforms conceptualized and implemented by consent of nations last fall is slowly grinding its way through the beaurocratic system of the UN, and house cleaning has begun, but at snail's pace.

When you think about it, you have almost 200 nations, many with different languages, all needing to be interpreted in real-time, many cultural interpretations, and other factors play into creating that "tower of babble" I spoke of, not just the dysfunctionality of nations themselves in the way they interpret the charter.

However, with a spirit of concious cohesion in common purpose, those technical obstacles can be overcome, and are in fact, improving with technological advance.

Back in the day as it were, communications were much slower, and things happening at a local or regional level were not able to be debated in virtual real-time video conferencing.

Meaning of course it is now possible to respond to crisis in short order to contain conflict, and other crisis. If the talking monkey, (and that is Humanity itself) cannot find common ground with survival of the species as a goal oriented intent, then all bets are off, my friend.

Globalization=global awareness

When a single question changes global mindset, then humanity will have the answer to the following:

"When Battleships give way to Sailboats, how does the world realize its true-self?"

It's not a trick question, but a matter of survival.

And all one has is words to deliver the concept.

But a global debate must ensue for resolution, that requires a place to meet on nuetral territory.

I once in visiting NYC for the first time ran into a Hasidic Jew and a Palestinian having an animated conversation outside the UN, at one of those famous cultural landmarks, the sidewalk hotdog stand. Both dressed in traditional garb, they seemed to be attached to the UN in some way, and as the conversation being of political yet politely heated debate, I dared to do what only a tourist might, I walked up and asked them a question...

" How is it that the two of you can have such a civil dialogue in my country, but you folks can't find the path to peace in your homelands?"

They looked at one another, "Would you like to answer that?" the Palistinian asked... The Israeli representitive said to me, "This is possible because we are on neutral territory here."

I chuckled and said, "Aha, I see your point, but for how long will my country remain nuetral territory while your conflict lasts?"

This shook them up a bit, and with no answer forthcoming I wished them good luck on the path of peace and ordered a hotdog.

Their conversation resumed, but I could tell the question stood in mind as their tone of debate had become less combative and more searching for common understanding.

The events described happened exactly 12 years prior to 9/11, and four years prior to the first World Trade Center bombing.

Changing a couple mindsets is all I was capable of at that moment, as an individual, and even so their conflict had built its own momentum, as they forgot the question asked eventually, or didn't pass it on to others.

One could think in terms of battleship diplomacy and sailboat diplomacy, and wonder what the world might look like if all practiced sailboat diplomacy, and that might be a valid interpretation of the question above, yet it is more than that, it is a question of process....of movement toward....not away from....as ships have momentum...going forward.

Change in other words...nothing is static....including misconceptions in the now.

That's why I do my research.

Regards,

Oppie

**********


Diplomatic History
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/
---------------

Historical Background Paper: The United States and the Founding of the United Nations, August 1941-October 1945, prepared for United Nations Day, October 24, 2005, the 60th anniversary of the date the United Nations came into existence.


http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/55407.htm


Historical Background
Office of the Historian
Bureau of Public Affairs


The United States and the Founding of the United Nations, August 1941 – October 1945





The impetus to establish the United Nations stemmed in large part from the inability of its predecessor, the League of Nations, to prevent the outbreak of the Second World War. Despite Germany’s occupation of a number of European states, and the League’s failure to stop other serious international transgressions in the 1930s, such as Japan’s invasion of Manchuria, many international leaders remained committed to the League’s ideals. Once World War II began, President Franklin D. Roosevelt determined that U.S. leadership was essential for the creation of another international organization aimed at preserving peace, and his administration engaged in international diplomacy in pursuit of that goal. He also worked to build domestic support for the concept of the United Nations. After Roosevelt’s death, President Harry S Truman also assumed the important task of maintaining support for the United Nations and worked through complicated international problems, particularly with the Soviet Union, to make the founding of the new organization possible. After nearly four years of planning, the international community finally established the United Nations in the spring of 1945.



Origins of the United Nations



The concept of creating a global organization of member states dedicated to preserving international peace through collective security increased in popularity during World War I. The bloodshed of the “Great War” persuaded President Woodrow Wilson, and a number of other American and international leaders, to seek the creation of an international forum in which conflicts could be resolved peacefully. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I, which Wilson negotiated on behalf of the United States, contained a framework for a League of Nations, intended to maintain peace and stability. However, despite Wilson’s efforts to gain the domestic support of political leaders and the American public, he was unable to convince the United States Senate to approve U.S. membership in the League. This was due to strong isolationist sentiment and partisan conflicts, stemming in part from his failure to include any prominent Republicans in the peace negotiations. The League’s opponents criticized it as a threat to American sovereignty and security, and objected most stridently to Article Ten of the League Charter, which committed member states to protect the territorial integrity of all other member states against external aggression. Many American lawmakers argued that Article Ten might obligate the United States to take part in wars in defense of dubious, often contested, colonial boundaries. After considering membership in the League with reservations, the Senate ultimately prevented the United States from joining the League. The absence of the United States weakened the League, which was also hindered in its efforts to resolve disputes by the widespread economic crises of the 1930s, its inability to compel states to abide by its decisions, and its requirement that many decisions--including those involving a response to aggression--be decided unanimously. The fact that member states involved in a dispute were granted a seat on the League’s Council, thereby allowing them to prevent unanimous action, meant that the League eventually resorted to expelling aggressor states such as Japan and Italy, with little effect.



Proposing the United Nations Concept



President Roosevelt recognized the inherent weaknesses of the League of Nations, but faced with the reality of another world war, also saw the value of planning for the creation of an international organization to maintain peace in the post-World War II era. He felt that this time, the United States needed to play a leading role both in the creation of the organization, and in the organization itself. Moreover, in contrast to the League, the new organization needed the power to enforce key decisions. The first wartime meeting between British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Roosevelt, the Atlantic Conference held off the coast of Newfoundland in August 1941, took place before the United States had formally entered the war as a combatant. Despite its official position of neutrality, the United States joined Britain in issuing a joint declaration that became known as the Atlantic Charter. This pronouncement outlined a vision for a postwar order supported, in part, by an effective international organization that would replace the struggling League of Nations. During this meeting, Roosevelt privately suggested to Churchill the name of the future organization: the United Nations.



The governments of the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and China formalized the Atlantic Charter proposals in January 1942, shortly after the United States entered the war. In the Declaration of the United Nations, these major Allied nations, along with 22 other states, agreed to work together against the Axis powers (Germany, Japan, and Italy), and committed in principle to the establishment of the United Nations after the war.



Learning from Woodrow Wilson’s failure to gain Congressional support for the League of Nations, the Roosevelt Administration aimed to include a wide range of administration and elected officials in its effort to establish the proposed United Nations. The State Department played a significant role in this process, and created a Special Subcommittee on International Organization in the Advisory Committee on Postwar Planning to advise Congress. The subcommittee reviewed past efforts at international cooperation, and by March 1943 had drafted a formal proposal to establish a new, more effective international organization. Secretary of State Cordell Hull took the proposal to members of Congress in an effort to build bipartisan support for the proposed postwar organization. Consultations between Congress and the Department of State continued into the summer of 1943, and by August, produced a draft United Nations Charter. Congress repeatedly passed resolutions declaring its support for the establishment of an international organization--and for United States membership in that organization.



The major Allied Powers--the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and China--reiterated their commitment to forming an international organization in the Moscow Declaration of October 30, 1943, and more concrete international planning for the structure of the new organization commenced. Representatives from these four countries met at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, DC, from August 21 through October 7, 1944, and the four Allied powers issued a statement of Proposals for the Establishment of a General International Organization, largely based on the draft charter formulated by the State Department’s Subcommittee on International Organization, in consultation with the U.S. Congress.



The Department of State undertook a public relations campaign to build support for the United Nations. As part of that effort, the Department printed over 200,000 copies of the Dumbarton Oaks proposal and an informative, eight-page guide to the draft United Nations Charter. The Department worked in concert with interested groups to inform the public about the United Nations and even dispatched officials around the country to answer questions on the proposed organization. By the end of the effort, the Department of State had coordinated almost 500 such meetings.



Creation of the United Nations



The basic framework for the proposed United Nations rested on President Roosevelt’s vision that the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and China would provide leadership in the postwar international system. It was these four states, with the addition of France, that would assume permanent seats in the otherwise rotating membership of the United Nations Security Council. At the Anglo-American Malta Conference in early 1945, the two sides proposed that the permanent members of the Security Council would have a veto. Immediately thereafter, at the Yalta Conference, the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom agreed on veto power for the permanent members of the Security Council. This crucial decision essentially required unanimity between the five permanent members on the pressing international decisions related to international security and use of force that would be brought before the Security Council.



Churchill and Roosevelt also made an important concession to Soviet leader Josef Stalin’s request that the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic be seated in the United Nations General Assembly, thus increasing the Soviet Union’s seats in that body to three. Stalin had originally requested seats for all sixteen Soviet Socialist Republics, but at Yalta this request was turned down, and the compromise was to allow Ukraine and Byelorussia into the United Nations. The United States originally had countered Stalin’s proposal with the request to allow all fifty American states into the United Nations, a suggestion that encouraged Stalin to agree to the compromise. At Yalta, the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom also drafted invitations to a conference beginning in April 1945 in San Francisco that would formally establish the United Nations.



After Roosevelt’s death on April 12, 1945, days before the scheduled San Francisco Conference, Vice President Harry S Truman took the oath of office and immediately announced that the Conference should go forward as planned. Moved by Roosevelt’s death, Stalin, who had initially planned to send Ambassador Andrei Gromyko as the Soviet representative to the San Francisco conference, announced that he would send Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov as well. This news heartened American officials, who had been concerned about maintaining Soviet interest and participation in the United Nations after a number of disagreements over the extent of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe and the fate of Germany in the postwar period. In an address to Congress shortly thereafter, Truman called upon Americans “regardless of party, race, creed or color, to support our efforts to build a strong and lasting United Nations organization.”



The San Francisco Conference, formally known as the United Nations Conference on International Organization, opened on April 25, 1945, with delegations from fifty countries present. The U.S. delegation to San Francisco included Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., former Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and Senators Tom Connally (D-Texas) and Arthur Vandenberg (R-Michigan), as well as other Congressional and public representatives. Among the most controversial issues at the San Francisco Conference was the seating of certain countries, in particular, Argentina, the Ukrainian and Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republics, and Poland. The vote to seat Argentina was particularly contentious because the Soviet Union strongly opposed Argentine membership arguing that Argentina had supported the Axis during the war. However, the other Latin American states refused to support the Ukrainian and Byelorussian candidacies if Argentina were blocked. The United States supported Argentina’s membership, but also defended the Ukrainian and Byelorussian seats in order to maintain the Soviet Union’s participation in the United Nations. The makeup of the Polish government was a continuing source of tension between the wartime allies, and thus a Polish delegation was not seated until after the conference.



At San Francisco, the delegates reviewed and often rewrote the text agreed to at Dumbarton Oaks. The delegations negotiated a role for regional organizations under the United Nations umbrella and outlined the powers of the office of Secretary General, including the authority to refer conflicts to the Security Council. Conference participants also considered a proposal for compulsory jurisdiction for a World Court, but Stettinius recognized such an outcome could imperil Senate ratification. The delegates then agreed that each state should make its own determination about World Court membership. The conference did approve the creation of an Economic and Social Council and a Trusteeship Council to assist in the process of decolonization, and agreed that these councils would have rotating geographic representation. The United Nations Charter also gave the United Nations broader jurisdiction over issues that were “essentially within” the domestic jurisdiction of states, such as human rights, than the League of Nations had, and broadened its scope on economic and technological issues.



Determining the extent of the veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council proved a more serious potential obstacle to agreement on a United Nations charter. The Soviet Union advocated broad use of the veto, viewing it as a possible tool to curb discussion on conflicts involving a permanent member. Such an interpretation worried the smaller states, which were already hesitant about the permanent veto. In order to gain Soviet agreement to modify such an expansive interpretation of the veto, Truman directed Harry Hopkins, who had many wartime discussions with Stalin, to travel to Moscow and negotiate with the Soviet leader on the issue. After bilateral Soviet-American negotiations in Moscow, the Soviet Union eventually agreed to a less extensive veto power. While the permanent members retained veto power with respect to non-procedural matters, the Security Council would not require a unanimous vote to act, and would have the power to take decisions that would be binding on Member States.



Following the resolution of most outstanding issues, the San Francisco Conference closed on June 26, 1945. In a show of support, Truman attended the final session for the signing of the United Nations Charter, and congratulated the delegates for creating a “solid structure upon which we can build a better world.” However, Truman still needed to secure Senate ratification of the Charter. Both he and Stettinius urged the Senate to give its advice and consent to ratification; Truman said, “I want to see the United States do it first.” In a testament to the sustained wartime efforts to build support for the United Nations, the Charter was approved in the Senate on July 28, 1945, by a vote of 89 to 2, with 5 abstentions. (The U.S. ratification followed that of Nicaragua and El Salvador.) The United Nations officially came into existence on October 24, 1945, after the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, China, and France, as well as a majority of the other signatories, had ratified the United Nations Charter.



Early Challenges and Future Changes



At its first session, on February 14, 1946, the United Nations General Assembly voted to establish its permanent headquarters in New York City. In a world emerging from the overwhelming conflict of World War II, the United Nations seemed to represent hope that such devastation would not recur. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly in 1948, symbolized this optimism and idealism. Yet the first true test of the United Nations’ ability to prevent widespread international conflict came in June 1950, when North Korea invaded South Korea. In response, the United Nations Security Council initiated military sanctions against North Korea, an action made possible by the absence of the Soviet representative, who had walked out in protest against the Council’s refusal to seat representatives of Communist China. This allowed the Security Council to assist South Korea in repelling its attackers and maintaining its territorial integrity.



Other issues brought before the United Nations in its early years included the Greek and Turkish dispute over Cyprus and the Cuban Missile Crisis. However, as relations between the East and the West deteriorated in the Cold War era, the Yalta decision to grant all permanent members of the Security Council veto power frequently stymied the Security Council. This increased the profile of the General Assembly, where no state enjoyed a veto. As issues pertaining to international security remained deadlocked in the Security Council during the Cold War, the increasingly active General Assembly expanded the focus of the United Nations to include economic development, famine relief, women’s rights, and environmental protection, among other issues.



With the end of the Cold War, the United Nations has taken on increasing security responsibilities, negotiated peaceful resolutions to conflict, and deployed peacekeeping forces around the world. In recognition of the organization’s significant contributions, the United Nations and United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan were awarded the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize. The Norwegian Nobel Committee declared in its award citation, “Today the organization is at the forefront of efforts to achieve peace and security in the world, and of the international mobilization aimed at meeting the world's economic, social and environmental challenges...the only negotiable route to global peace and cooperation goes by way of the United Nations.”



Office of the Historian

Bureau of Public Affairs

U.S. Department of State

October 2005

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





http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwi/

a)

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwi/17688.htm

Wilson's Fourteen Points
The immediate cause of America’s entry into World War I in April 1917 was the German announcement of unrestricted submarine warfare, and the subsequent sinking of ships with Americans on board. But President Wilson’s war aims went beyond the defense of U.S. maritime interests. In his War Message to Congress he declared our object “is to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world.” Wilson used several speeches earlier in the year to sketch out his vision of an end to the war that would bring a “just and secure peace,” and not merely “a new balance of power.” He then appointed a committee of experts known as The Inquiry to help him refine his ideas for peace. In December 1917 he asked The Inquiry to draw up specific recommendations for a comprehensive peace settlement. Using these recommendations, Wilson presented a program of fourteen points to a joint session of Congress on January 8, 1918. Eight of the fourteen points treated specific territorial issues among the combatant nations. Five of the other six concerned general principles for a peaceful world: open covenants (i.e. treaties or agreements), openly arrived at; freedom of the seas; free trade; reduction of armaments; and adjustment of colonial claims based on the principles of self-determination. The fourteenth point proposed what was to become the League of Nations to guarantee the “political independence and territorial integrity [of] great and small states alike.” Wilson's idealism pervades the fourteen points, but he also had more practical objectives in mind: keeping Russia in the war by convincing the Bolsheviks that they would receive a better peace from the Allies; bolstering Allied morale; and undermining German war support. The address was immediately hailed in the United States and Allied nations, and even by Lenin, as a landmark of enlightenment in international relations. Wilson subsequently used the Fourteen Points as the basis for negotiation of the Versailles Treaty that ended the First World War. Although the treaty did not fully realize Wilson’s unselfish vision, the Fourteen Points still stand as the most powerful expression of the idealist strain in American diplomacy.

Additional Reading:

Lawrence E. Gelfand, The Inquiry: American Preparations for Peace, 1917-1919 (New Haven, Connecticut, 1963).
Thomas J. Knock, To End All Wars: Woodrow Wilson and the Quest for a New World Order (New York, 1992).

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

B)

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwi/17686.htm

Bryan as Secretary of State
William Jennings Bryan, the silver-tongued populist Democratic candidate for President in 1896, 1900, and 1908 is best known for his support of “free silver,” the farmer and the common man, and his opposition to the gold standard. In 1912, Bryan campaigned vigorously for the Democrat’s presidential candidate, Woodrow Wilson. As a reward for his campaign service, Wilson appointed Bryan as Secretary of State, even though Bryan had no foreign affairs experience and was an avowed pacifist. Bryan used his tenure as Secretary of State to promote the elimination of international conflict by mutual agreement, concluding arbitration of disputes treaties with 30 nations. In keeping with his populist roots, he obtained housing subsidies for diplomats abroad, helping those of more modest means to serve as ministers or ambassadors. He attempted to broker a settlement during the Mexican revolution based on democratic compromise, but ultimately supported Wilson's policy of intervention in Mexico. Bryan generally opposed gunboat and dollar diplomacy in Latin America and sought to make amends for past U.S. interventions. He facilitated a $25 million indemnity for Columbia for territory lost to Panama.

When World War I broke out, Bryan made it very clear to Wilson that he favored strict neutrality and strongly opposed any U.S. involvement. As Secretary he tried to bring the Allied and Central Powers to a negotiated end of the war. Bryan objected to American loans to the Allies and questioned Wilson’s decision to allow U.S. citizens to travel on British vessels when the danger existed that the ships may be sunk by German submarines. His efforts proved fruitless. The United States gradually tilted towards the Allied cause as German submarines began to sink merchant ships with U.S. civilians aboard. The Germans sank the Lusitania in May 1915, killing 1,200 non-combatants including 128 Americans. The following month Bryan resigned his office in response to Wilson’s stiff note of protest to Germany. Bryan believed the note violated U.S. neutrality and placed the United States on the road to war. Although he resigned over a matter of principle, Bryan did not criticize Wilson and helped campaign for him in the 1916 election. After the United States entered the war on the Allied side in April 1918, Bryan faded from the political scene, only to gain fame one last time as the leader of the prosecution team that attacked the teaching of evolution in the famous Scopes “Monkey Trial” of 1925.

Additional Reading:

Merle E. Curti, Byran and World Peace (Northampton, Massachusetts, 1931).


Last edited by Oppenheimer on Tue May 16, 2006 11:57 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Tue May 16, 2006 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

United States Institute of Peace
Washington, DC
March 16, 2006


Stephen Hadley, National Security Advisor

(excerpt)

"Today, we released the President's National Security Strategy, which explains the strategic underpinning of his foreign policy. As the President has said, America's policy -- and its purpose -- is to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

The National Security Strategy lays out the President's vision of how to achieve this goal -- and today I want to draw your attention to five important themes in the strategy. First, America must be strong and secure. We are at war, and defeating the terrorists is America's most immediate challenge. Second, our strategy is to defeat -- our strategy to defeat the terrorists must include a strategy to defeat their hateful ideology. We do this by promoting a positive vision -- the promise of freedom and democracy. Third, freedom and democracy are more than just a means to an end. Our nation has long promoted freedom as the birthright of every human being. We champion effective democracy as the best way for nations to secure the freedom of their citizens, as well as their prosperity and security. Fourth, security and effective democracy can enable the pursuit of a smart development strategy that can improve the lives of people everywhere. Fifth, a community of effective democracies can best address the regional and global challenges of our time. "


http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/wh/63257.htm
-----------------

The National Security Strategy -- 2006

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
Dear Hashem,

With all due respect for your former position and title, honorable as it is, misconceptions know no respect for position or status in life, and this is true in general, across the board...on any subject.

One might say that language is the worst form of communication ever invented, but until evolution decides otherwise, we're stuck with it.

So it is my understanding from many of your postings that you believe Great Britan to be the root of all diplomatic dysfunctionality in the world, past and present. As I understand your take on things, generally speaking.
Please correct me if I've been off in my interpretation of your viewpoint.



I don't see any place Ambassador Hakimi says the root of all diplomatic dysfunctionality in the world is Britain, you accuse others with general statement and try to discredit them, this is not right. Regarding Neo Colonialist British foreign policy you are in the state of denial, misconceptions and not objective at all. It seems you don't want to accept the historical facts and Truth regarding past 300 years Neo Colonialist British role in Iran . The denial of truth is the men's worst enemy.

Oppie, we have discussed about UK policy many times before and reminding you, when ActivistChat members were objecting to Jack Straw relations with Mullahs and EU3 deals with Islamo-fascist, you were defending them,
what happened, who was right?
finally after 3 years of EU3 appeasing policy towards Iran, the EU3 failed and Jack Straw was fired.....

Agree with following Ambassador Hakimi statement:


Ambassador Hashem Hakimi wrote:


I am not a lawyer or expert in International Organization Making, therefore I can not put forward what & how a sort of World Assembly should be envisaged and put together. What I, & so many others know is that, the present UN-UNTED NATION is not going to work, it could not be reformed nor could be corrected, therefore, the sooner is replaced or even closed the better.

Also Russia should be kept in G8 but under constant hammer. They are like elephants they need constant hammering to behave!?

Regards,

Hashem


We are after a kind of UN that can solve difficult problems. This UN was unable to solve world's difficult problems.

The U.N. Security Council and UN has zero credibility regarding difficult problems and in the current form should be considered as useless and "irrelevant" .

The most recent Test Case failures for UN, was ignoring Taazi Human Rights Voilations and Taazi Nuclear Issues ....
It is shame for UN that Taazi Regime is still official member of UN.
Where is the acceptable UN actions regarding Kazemi Case?
The War happens because of UN failures....


Last edited by cyrus on Wed May 17, 2006 4:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't see any place Ambassador Hakimi says the root of all diplomatic dysfunctionality in the world is Britain, you accuse others with general statement and try to discredit them, this is not right. Regarding Neo Colonialist British foreign policy you are in the state of denial, misconceptions and not objective at all. It seems you don't want to accept the historical facts and Truth regarding past 300 years Neo Colonialist British role in Iran . The denial of truth is the men's worst enemy.

Oppie, we have discussed about UK policy many times before and reminding you, when ActivistChat members were objecting to Jack Straw relations with Mullahs and EU3 deals with Islamo-fascist, you were defending them,
what happened, who was right?


Well Cyrus, as I said, "Language is the worst form of communication ever invented."

Where in my statement regarding misconceptions did I insult anyone, it is a given truth in general that many, including Jack Straw and many other people carry misconceptions, and I meant this across the board with people in general on any subject.

Where in did I insult HHakimi personally or accuse him of anything? I posed my understanding of his take on things, as from his words he's posted over time, and asked him to correct my understanding of his attitude toward the Brits if I was wrong in that interpretation.

Listen Cyrus, if you think I'm in a state of denial about UK colonial history, please not to forget that I'm a citizen of the nation that kicked UK ass twice to gain its independance from colonial rule.

I know well the history and honest anger Iranians across the board have toward the UK over long period of time, nor do I discount the doubts expressed for their actions today.

But what I was stating to help elevate Hhakimi's understanding is the exact role America played in international relations.

Quote:
Oppie, we have discussed about UK policy many times before and reminding you, when ActivistChat members were objecting to Jack Straw relations with Mullahs and EU3 deals with Islamo-fascist, you were defending them,


Who is doing the accusing , my friend? Please show me one item in context that I've posted ...ever...that "defends" Jack Straw's relations with the mullahs.

Morover, I expressed many times UK's and Russia and France, Germany, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and other's questionable trade relations with the mullahs.....in that it was "criminally negligent for any nation to continue...one day longer."

Nothing's changed in my opinion about that.

Nor has my mind changed about the fact that the IRI is unworthy of sitting as member of the UN.

So please don't accuse me of being rude to others when what you yourself seem to be doing with me personally is all of that in accusing me of "
Quote:
It seems you don't want to accept the historical facts and Truth regarding past 300 years Neo Colonialist British role in Iran . The denial of truth is the men's worst enemy
."

I guess I'll just chalk this up to a misconception you have of me.

I do also recognize the fact that the IRI uses this long term anger at colonial history for its own political end....trying to gain people's support.
How the Iranian opposition deals with that effort by the IRI is not up to me to decide, all I can do is note that the situation exists, and objectivly note its effects.

In some respects America's foreign policy was "novice U.S.A." back in Wilson's day, and I posted his Sec. of State's involvement as illustration.


HHakimi Wrote:
Quote:
As long as the Brits are in position to pull all the strings, as they are doing now, the UN-UNITED NATIONS is a pawn in the hand of the big mischief maker, the Brits. The Brits do not want any change. You do not read or hear any criticism of U.N. by the Brits? They are happy with it! Why? Because they make the best out of it! The Brits have the guts to criticize the entire world, but why not U.N.?


I think it is fair to say that my understanding of Hashem's viewpoint is arrived at sincerely, not with intent to insult him or "defend the UK" , it is simply that I believe his understanding was incomplete as it pertained to America's role in the formation of the League of nations, as well as the UN.

Don't like the UN? Well the US conceptualized it from get go, conceptualized the league of nations but unable to get it ratified in congress to become member to it.

The premis for the UN's existence is still valid Cyrus, its dysfunctionality is what folks including Hashem, you and me have a problem with.

Do we start from scratch...or change what exists?

Since getting rid of the UN is not likely to happen in my lifetime, I think it's best to think about how to make it effective rather than debate whether it should exist at all.

Hope this clarifies your understanding of my position taken on a number of issues.

Best,

Oppie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

One thing about the Brits in a post-IRI world is this:

If the EU, does indeed cut off economic ties with the IRI as a result of chapter VII resolution, or failing that , imposes sanction of its own accord, it seems logical to wonder if some will see it as a confession that their past support was questionable in ethical terms, and simply call for them to be burnt on the funeral pyre of colonialism.

Or another choice being, relief that this is no longer an issue of contention as UK policy with the Iranian people.

Should UK make reparations to the Iranian people (not the IRI, of course) for the colonial mindset of yesterday?

Does it in fact continue today as Antar has as lately as yesterday, accused the EU of?

What is different in the source of anger is the IRI calls it "interference in internal affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran" and the opposition regards it as the same, but steming (in the opposition's eyes) from EU and other's support for the IRI in various aspects. Just to be clear, I understand the difference and am not suggesting the opposition (or any member of) supports the regime in any way by its legitimate anger toward any nation's blind propping up of this regime over the years.

Yet the manipulation of "national pride" by the IRI is not just a slap in the face to the opposition to weaken their call for change to isolate the regime, IRI has in fact... has NOT been effective in using this as a propaganda tool on the west because the opposition drove its' point home to the international community in Jan.-Feb 2005, and the changes you have witnessed in global mindset toward the IRI has stemmed from that effort.

Time as seen in a gathering momentum in realization of a more correct global posture to the IRI than had been prevelent. It takes time for mindsets to effect reversals of policy, let alone the time it takes for mindsets to change of their own volition, to effect change upon the status quo.

In any case, no matter how one reacts to change, the question still comes up, "What's the next step?"

I think that those who feel the IRI may "miscalculate" and fail to understand the will of the international community , have some reason to believe that. However, I believe that war would be on the IRI's head, and no other. I logicly conclude this is the IRI's intent to begin with...to have the blame for war put upon others.

In any case, I give diplomacy a one in ten chance of changing the behavior of the regime regardles of total cohesion of the UN on the matter.
Booting them out of the UN, or at very least only as observer status if that is the best initial action prior to excluding then totally should the IRI remain non-complient to the IAEA and other matters, including General Assembly condemnation of IRI human rights dossier last year, may have some effect on diplomacy itself, in how it evolves.

Food for thought.



Regards,

Oppie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ambassador Hashem Hakimi wrote:
Dear Cyrus,

One irrefutable point is; when any Tom, Dick & Harry of the British Royal Family is going to pay a visit to TIMBOCTO, from six month or more, ahead the entire British Media blow into their trumpet for that up coming auspicious event! Is that right Mr. Oppie?

Then what happens when the Crown Prince of UK, the most important dignitary after the Queen flays to Tehran without prior information by the British till his photographs shacking hand with Khatami etc is suddenly published all over the world?

I would ask Mr. Oppie, how he interprets that kind of unprecedented bizarre action on the part of the so formal Brits?

Regards,

Hashem
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:
The way and manner in which the British government installed this barbaric Mullahcracy....
--------------------------

Dear Spenta,


Well waking up to reality is a long hard road....just maybe now they are starting to get a grip....but what I wanted to ask you is this:

How is it that folks blame the Brits and US president Carter, when the Iranian people themselves in '80 had supported the instalation of the Islamic Republic of Iran?.


Oppenheimer wrote:
Hey Korshid,

http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=28419#28419

And an interesting UK foreign office statement by Straw mentioning the abysmal long term human rights record of the regime in terms of EU attitude....dated Sept 1.

Oppie


Oppenheimer wrote:

I'm no expert on British law, but I thought Straw was just reelected , or subject to a vote of confidence in his home district last year....I just don't know if Blair can "fire" him like an appointee.

A reasonable question to ask would be if "Jack of Tehran" really knew the full background of the person he was shaking hands with, as he was newly appointed...as I don't read too much into handshakes, and policy in action speaks louder....we'll see if he has a Neville Chamberlain moment or not soon enough.



Dear Oppie,

Oppenheimer wrote:
Who is doing the accusing , my friend? Please show me one item in context that I've posted ...ever...that "defends" Jack Straw's relations with the mullahs.


The above statements by you is considered as kind of past indirect support for Jack Straw, Britain and your question to Spenta give the impression of indirectly defending Brits.

Oppenheimer wrote:
Listen Cyrus, if you think I'm in a state of denial about UK colonial history, please not to forget that I'm a citizen of the nation that kicked UK ass twice to gain its independance from colonial rule.

Good clarification.

It seems that at the same time, we are talking about two different matters!
The future of UN-UNITED NATIONS & the British mischief all over the world?
We think it is needed to separate the two matters.
In this thread lets talk about UN not UK and if we agree I move some of posts related to UK out of here.
Thanks,
Cyrus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyrus
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 4993

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oppenheimer wrote:

Should UK make reparations to the Iranian people (not the IRI, of course) for the colonial mindset of yesterday?



Dear Oppie,
Yes, I think the wise policy for Britain might be for Tony Blair who knows all their past British colonial mischief in Iran accept the share of guilt, dirty tricks .... and to make public apology to freedom-loving Iranian people not Taazi occupiers of Iran and move in the right direction to correct them honestly without any tricks, fully support Free Society and Secular democracy in Iran.
Regards,
Cyrus
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Cyrus,

Its fine with me if you decide to leave both topics in this thread, the're in someways, interrelated.

When the notion of regime change comes up, the matter of a popular revolt comes up as internal solution. Many Iranians would probably agree that if they knew then what they know now about the regime, Khomeni would have been Tarred and Feathered on the spot when he landed in Tehran from France. That he was cheered upon arrival is a matter of historical record.

An entire nation of people can be fooled, or at least enough of them to effect a change.

Just like the Taliban fooled the Afghan people into believing they were going to bring about the return of Afghanistan's king, Zahir Shah, as example, so can other nation's governments be fooled, and be found wanting in policy. Were they capable of "installing" a government without the will of the people?

Thus my question was an honest one, and objectively put, in looking at all factors involved.

Thanks for recalling these, if there be honest doubt, it's only in how you've interpreted their meaning and intent.




Quote:
Oppenheimer wrote:
The way and manner in which the British government installed this barbaric Mullahcracy....
--------------------------

Dear Spenta,


Well waking up to reality is a long hard road....just maybe now they are starting to get a grip....but what I wanted to ask you is this:

How is it that folks blame the Brits and US president Carter, when the Iranian people themselves in '80 had supported the instalation of the Islamic Republic of Iran?.





Quote:
Oppenheimer wrote:
Hey Korshid,

http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=28419#28419

And an interesting UK foreign office statement by Straw mentioning the abysmal long term human rights record of the regime in terms of EU attitude....dated Sept 1.

Oppie


Posting evidence of change is not an act of "defense" of the UK, Cyrus....Or EU....Why you think that instead of seeing evidence of results in the opposition's efforts to open the world's eyes, well that's your decision how you choose to interpret it, now isn't it?


Quote:
Oppenheimer wrote:

I'm no expert on British law, but I thought Straw was just reelected , or subject to a vote of confidence in his home district last year....I just don't know if Blair can "fire" him like an appointee.

A reasonable question to ask would be if "Jack of Tehran" really knew the full background of the person he was shaking hands with, as he was newly appointed...as I don't read too much into handshakes, and policy in action speaks louder....we'll see if he has a Neville Chamberlain moment or not soon enough.


Aye and here's the real chuckle of the day, as I'd almost forgotten about this slightly prophetic...(chuckle) wandering thought process called thinking out loud....

In fact Jack of Tehran was not fired, but reshuffled out of the foreign minister's post, he is still a member of government.

I was wondering if he'd been properly briefed , which either means he was ignorant , or complicit in the charade. Thought that was obvious.

As it was he had his "Neville Chambelain moment" and was replaced.

"Inconcievable" I think was the word he used regarding hostilities..

Not so when you believe that's exactly what the regime wants.


Quote:
Dear Oppie,

Oppenheimer wrote:
Who is doing the accusing , my friend? Please show me one item in context that I've posted ...ever...that "defends" Jack Straw's relations with the mullahs.


The above statements by you is considered as kind of past indirect support for Jack Straw, Britain and your question to Spenta give the impression of indirectly defending Brits.


What is this "indirectly" stuff? I asked a strait-up question, no tricks, no gimmicks....What was the Iranian people's role, and why is it not being factored into opposition thinking now if they need the support of the people for regime change? Which might serve as a follow up today.

Then factor in the lessons learned not just by the people of Iran, but the international community as well, and what is going on in the UN.

Someone recently likened slavery with terrorism, in the sense that slavery was taken for granted, then universally condemned and abandoned in practice, as would be terrorism.

Does not bode well for the IRI, and more and more it is the regime itself that is "the problem" despite attempts at solutions from many quarters.


Quote:
Oppenheimer wrote:
Listen Cyrus, if you think I'm in a state of denial about UK colonial history, please not to forget that I'm a citizen of the nation that kicked UK ass twice to gain its independance from colonial rule.

Good clarification.


Thank you, it seemed appropriate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Oppenheimer



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

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This may clarify a few things as well, but there is a reason for being close-mouthed about measures discussed, candidly, in private. IRI has ears too.

We'll just have to see what the P5+1 comes up with.

---------


Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
May 17, 2006

(excerpt)

QUESTION: Could we go through the drill a little on Iran? Most of the stuff
last couple of days coming out of Europe --

MR. MCCORMACK: Did you have a question, Libby, or --

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, go ahead, Barry.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, just to run through it.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay.

QUESTION: It's off the talks at least until Tuesday. That's what we're hearing
from Europe -- the P-5+1.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Yeah, keep going.

QUESTION: Postpone it until Tuesday.

MR. MCCORMACK: Keep going.

QUESTION: I don't think I've heard an American official verify, although I
don't have any reason to doubt the Europeans, that a light-water reactor is
among the incentives. I would ask if it isn't a calculated risk? I'm not a
scientist, but I don't how easily one can discern whether equipment is being
put to weapons use or to civilian use. Maybe it's a risk, with supervision,
you're willing to take to move the thing along, et cetera. Could you bring us
up to date a little?

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Let me try -- I'll try to pace through that. One the first
-- the process point regarding these. I would expect that the political
directors probably will now get together next week, as opposed to on Friday.
And that simply is because what we're trying to do, and this gets a little bit
to the part about the light-water reactor reports that have been out there,
we're trying to put together a package and we've talked about this before. The
package would include incentives on one side and penalties, disincentives on
the other side. And we're not going to talk about the various elements of that
potential package in isolation and it is still a matter of discussion right
now. I don't think that there is agreement on -- full agreement on exactly what
would comprise this package.

Now, why is this taking some time? Why are we going to be meeting Tuesday at
the political director as opposed to on Friday? Well, the reason is that what
we're trying to do with our colleagues in the P-5+1 is on each of these tracks,
both the incentive side as well as the disincentive side, try to talk through
not just step one but what is going to be step one, step two, step three, step
four and so forth in this process. Meaning, how would the international
community react to either Iran agreeing to this package of incentives or
rejecting this package of incentives. So what we want to have is a good
understanding among the members of at least the P-5+1 as to how this is going
to play out. And so that -- you can understand this is complex, complicated
multilateral diplomacy. It takes a little bit of time. So that was the reason
why the meeting was shifted to next week as opposed to Friday.

Now, I do have to make the point that individual countries are not working in
isolation on this and they're just going to come together next week and compare
notes. There's almost constant contact among the various members of the P-5+1
at the political director level. Under Secretary Nick Burns is multiple times
per day on the phone with his counterparts at the political director level, so
there's a lot of activity that's going on. The meeting next week is just
intended to get together and really walk through what it is that they have at
that point, Barry, in terms of the package, both sides of it, the incentive
side as well as the disincentive side.

On the light-water reactor the same answer as yesterday. These reports about
light-water reactor and we're not going to talk about, you know, individual
press reports out there or try to pick out one element of what might be a
package. The Iranian Government has to look at this thing in its totality, both
sides of it. There are certainly benefits on one side for cooperation. On the
other side there are costs, not only in terms of potential sanctions but also
in terms of opportunity costs. You lose something when you don't take an
opportunity.

The Iranian regime is going to have to account for that in terms of what's best
for the Iranian people. There are, you know, certainly as I pointed out
yesterday, real stresses within the Iranian economy that are long-standing, so
they have to take a look and see what's best for the Iranian people.

QUESTION: The U.S. is looking for a consensus, both on incentives and
disincentives.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: That's harder to do because we know the Russians and Chinese may not
look at disincentives the same way, at least at this point, the U.S. and the
Europeans do. But we have it right. I mean, that is what you want to do.
Another way would be to offer them things and if they turn them down then you
get together again but* you decide* what to do about it. But in this case
you're trying to make those decisions, so to speak, beforehand.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Exactly. Opposite sides of the same coin, Barry. You want
to -- the idea here, as the Secretary has talked about, is to provide them a
choice. They have said -- I've heard President Ahmadi-Nejad say that they're
not going to trade gold for candy.

QUESTION: Sure.

MR. MCCORMACK: I think that was the quote. I think it's odd that he would
reject a proposal out of hand before he's even seen it, which, you know, raises
a lot of questions about what exactly his motives are.

QUESTION: Last point. Is U.S. participation in negotiations under consideration
at all in these discussions?

MR. MCCORMACK: Barry, we think that right now we're following the right course
in terms of consulting with our P-5+1 partners on what the incentives and
disincentives are. In terms of any future actions on our part, we'll try to
keep you up-to-date.

Libby.

MR. MCCORMACK: What do you make of Ahmadi-Nejad's continued insistence that
they're not going to give up their enrichment work? Do you take that at face
value?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think at this point we don't know exactly what is behind
those statements, whether or not this is a negotiating bluff or this is really
the stance of the Iranian Government. The intent -- one of the intents here
behind coming up with this package and presenting the regime with a choice is
to smoke out exactly what their intentions are. And I think that once this is
presented to the Iranian regime, we will have at least better idea of what
their intent is. You know, they say that they want to -- that they want to work
with, they want to cooperate with the international community and it is the
international community that is somehow being unreasonable. Well, I think that
that statement will be put to the test, certainly, when the Iranian regime is
presented with these choices.

And let me make a couple more points. At minimum, what we expect to come out of
this process at the bare minimum is if you continue to see Iran go down this
pathway of non cooperation that you're going to see a Chapter 7 resolution that
would demand that the Iranian regime come into compliance with what the IAEA
has asked them to do and what the Security Council has asked them to do in
terms of the presidential statement.

And also, none of that activity on the multilateral front precludes individual
states or likeminded states from talking to one another about what other
actions they might take, either whether that's on the financial front or on the
-- what we have called the Proliferation Security Initiative front and that is
to prevent any transfers, either incoming or outgoing with respect to Iran and
their nuclear program. So those are discussions certainly that we're having
with other states and I know other states are thinking about those very things
themselves as well.

Teri.

QUESTION: Back to the meeting planning again. What were -- I know that you
always say diplomacy takes time, so you know, don't make a big deal about
changing and updates. But what it is that happened that has happened since they
initially thought they could get -- they would be ready on Monday to do this
and then Friday? Could you just give us some behind-the-scenes understanding of
that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure. On the Monday meeting, I have to clarify. This was my --
this was -- I got some bad information that I passed along to you. The Monday
meeting was always intended to be the EU, getting together.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: And the question was whether or not Under Secretary Burns was
going to be traveling to London on Thursday or Friday to meet with them. The
assessment was Nick Burns talking to the Secretary as well as others, made the
assessment that, look, it's better to move the meeting to a few days later next
week on Tuesday to allow more of the discussions both internally within the EU
in capitals and then among capitals to take place and to really, as I said,
walk through what these steps would be, looking out into the future. The
discussions we're having right now aren't intended to just look at the
immediate next step. It's intended to look down the road. And that -- you can
imagine that that's a complex series of discussions, you know, how do you react
to a given action on the part of the Iranians and really talk about how all
this is going to play out. So that's the reason. That's the thinking.

QUESTION: So is that a change in the agenda that they had originally
envisioned?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. It's just --

QUESTION: Why did they used to think they could do that by Friday and they
can't anymore?

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, you just -- you make the best estimates in terms of
when you want to get together, both as a realistic assessment of when you might
be ready, as well as an action forcing event -- force people to put their --
roll up their sleeves and get the work done. Made the assessment that they
needed a few more days. As you can imagine, you're --

QUESTION: Who is they? Everybody?

MR. MCCORMACK: It's among the political directors, but certainly we make our
own assessments here. Under Secretary Burns in consultation with Secretary Rice
and others makes the assessment here in Washington, then they talk about that
among the members of the P-5+1 as well.

QUESTION: What does the U.S. need a few days for?

MR. MCCORMACK: What do we need a few days for?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK: It's not us, in particular. I think it's just the group as a
whole, like I said, to walk through to these series of steps.

QUESTION: Does this have to do with any pushback about the light-water reactor
proposal?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, but nice try. Nice try.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Well, I mean to reconsider what maybe was -- has been
floated out there.

MR. MCCORMACK: Barry tried. No, we're not going to talk about any --

QUESTION: How about news reports on the light-water reactor?

MR. MCCORMACK: I know. There have been a lot of news reports. But like I said,
we're not going to talk about any particular or alleged element of the whole
package.

QUESTION: But these are next steps was exactly what was supposed to have been
discussed during the P-5+1 dinner in New York last week.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. And that happens at the ministerial level. Okay, so that
is talking about --

QUESTION: It was decided.

MR. MCCORMACK: What they're trying to do at the political director level and
this is just a function of when ministers get together, they talk at a certain
level. Sometimes they delve into the minutiae and the details of it. But very
often, it's a matter -- it's a discussion about principles, strategy. And the
discussions at the political director level are intended to be much more at the
working level in terms of minutiae, and the details of it. You know, really
sort of hammer out specific language and hammering out specific understandings.
And then you bring the ministers back in so that they can walk through those
details themselves. But at -- just for sheer sort of efficiency and use of
time, you want to have the political directors be the ones that really work on those minute details.

Saul.

QUESTION: Is offering the Iranian security guarantees under discussion?

MR. MCCORMACK: From the United States' perspective, is the United States going
to be providing security guarantees? That's not something from the United
States that's on the table.

QUESTION: Okay. So --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll let other speak for themselves.

QUESTION: All right.

MR. MCCORMACK: But from the United States, that's not on the table.

QUESTION: Okay. Just -- I'm not quite sure of your criterion for what you will
and won't talk about then because it seems that you will -- you'll tell us
that's not under discussion. That's not on the table. But then when we mention
the light-water reactor, you won't rule that one out. People will infer from
that that it must be in that.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. I made an exception. I made an exception to the rule. This
was -- it's an important question, Saul, in terms of the security guarantees
and I don't want any misperceptions about that particular issue.

QUESTION: Okay. So, you don't want a misperception thinking the light-water
reactors in the --

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not going to -- on that as well as other issues, Saul, I'm
not going to try to steer you one way or the other on it.

QUESTION: When you made sure -- didn't have a misperception about security
guarantees, you said U.S. wants, okay. I'm ruling out that U.S. security
guarantees are not in this package.

MR. MCCORMACK: Not on the table.

QUESTION: What about the Europeans offering security guarantees?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll let them speak for themselves, if they want to address
those questions.

QUESTION: Sean, have you had a chance to follow up on the Shanghai summit in
Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think we posted an answer yesterday on that.

QUESTION: You did?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. Yeah.

QUESTION: Well, I didn't see it. Sorry. (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no, that's OK. (Off-Mike.)

QUESTION: I'm mean, you're not going to talk about the light-water reactor, but
--

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: -- I mean, it's important, isn't it. Because if you're having
negotiations with North Korea on its nuclear program, I mean, are you looking
at these incentives for Iran in isolation or are you looking at them in the
context of your discussions with other countries' nuclear programs that you
have concerns about?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think in terms of both those issues, we're not making a
linkage between what might be done in one set of proposals and what might be
done in another set of proposals. The histories with respect to North Korea and
then the other five parties to the six-party talks and then Iran with their
interlocutors is their separate histories and, you know, we're not going to
make a particular linkage between the two.

QUESTION: Well, you might not. But others will, won't they? You'd be sending
one signal to one country and another to another country.

MR. MCCORMACK: You know, like I said, we take each of those cases separately on
their merits as well.

Nicholas.

QUESTION: Sean, security guarantee is something pretty fundamental when it
comes to these things and he offered that to North Korea. I'm wondering why
it's not on the table--

MR. MCCORMACK: But the President -- you can go back and check the record -- you
know, what the President said is that we have no plan to invade or attack North
Korea. And you know, Saul asked a question about Iran and I gave him our answer
on that. So we'll let the record stand.

QUESTION: So you're not saying that the United States doesn't have has no
intention of attacking (inaudible) Iran as you did North Korea. You just think
it -- that that issue is not on the table at the moment.

MR. MCCORMACK: The specific question Saul asked about security guarantees in
the context of this negotiation -- it's not on -- it's not something that's on
the table. With respect to Iran, the question of the military option has come
up many, many times before. The President has been very clear on that. He's
answered it. There's no change to that answer. We are on a diplomatic course
now.

Dave.

QUESTION: Oh, I just -- is it correct to assume that as you talk about the
scenario as it unfolds in the future, that the discussion would include what
would happen if the Iranians ignore a Chapter 7 resolution, what might follow
in the UN? Is that part of the scenario?

MR. MCCORMACK: That's part of -- yeah, that's part of the discussions that I'm
talking about. That's what the political directors are talking about -- how
this might unfold. For a given action, what would be the reaction among the
P-5+1.

QUESTION: So you're talking again in this scenario about more than one UN
resolution?

MR. MCCORMACK: We are talking about how the entire scenario might unfold on
both sides. On the incentive side as well as the disincentive side.

Teri.

QUESTION: I know this is getting on your nerves, but I have to ask one more --

MR. MCCORMACK: Getting on my nerves? Where did that come from?

QUESTION: (Laughter.) I'm just being sympathetic. I have to follow up on
Sylvie's question. Aren't these the exact questions that they've been
discussing forever and ever? Why would these --

MR. MCCORMACK: What questions?

QUESTION: Well, the future, how Iran will react. I mean, yeah, what would we do
then? They've been talking about it forever, including last week. Why would
they just have to sit down and talk about that again?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the decision --

QUESTION: Is the light-water reactor -- (Laughter.) No, I mean --

MR. MCCORMACK: The decision --

QUESTION: That's the new element there, nothing else is new.

MR. MCCORMACK: The decision to look at this in its totality, the incentive
side, the disincentive side, and consider it as a package is a decision that
the ministers made just last week, while we were up in New York. So it hasn't
been that long that we have actually had this particular set of discussions.
Yes, we have been talking step by step.

QUESTION: Everyday, numerous times.

MR. MCCORMACK: That's right. And this -- look, these are serious issues. It's
complicated diplomacy. There have been -- it's you know, been in public some
differences in terms of the tactics. So what we're trying to do is we're trying
to address in one fell swoop those differences that might exist among members
of the P-5 about how this might play out. That's important because we have been
trying to build a consensus among member of the P-5+1 and members of the
international community to maintain pressure on Iran to get them to change
their behavior on this score. And so Secretary Rice believed that it was -- it
would be a useful way to approach this, instead of just taking it step by step,
one Chapter 7 resolution, then what might follow after that and then do it
serially in that regard. Let's have the discussion in its totality before
something might happen, before we --

QUESTION: So she suggested the delay? Is that what you're saying?

MR. MCCORMACK: What I would -- she did -- she did up in New York and I wouldn't
say delay, I would say because, in fact, what you're doing is you're having
discussions now on the front end that you might otherwise be having after a
given step. For example, we could have gone to a vote on the Chapter 7
resolution that would compel Iran to comply with the IAEA Board of Governors
statements that would compel them to comply with the presidential statement. We
could have done that. And we could have taken that step, seeing how Iran would
have reacted, then had another set of discussions about what might follow that,
what might follow in terms of sanctions, what might follow in terms of
individual or likeminded states acting together. So instead of having that
discussion in the serial manner, let's have it all at once. Let's have it on
the front end. So that's the approach that she decided to take.

QUESTION: So things are going to move really quickly after this then, right,
because you guys are going to have it all figured out?

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll see how they play out, Teri. You know, we don't have an
agreement on the package yet. That's what we're working through.

QUESTION: But it's the idea now to come to -- you've sort of -- you've worked
out your tactical differences now and that'll hold maybe Russia and China to
account when later Iran doesn't do what it's going to say and you have the
Russians and the Chinese word that they said they would do this, when Iran
doesn't comply--

MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said, we're trying to work through what are the steps:
one, two, three, four five and beyond.

Elise.

QUESTION: You seem to have red lines of what you won't offer Iran in terms of
incentives, such as a security guarantee. But do you have red lines on the
disincentives? I mean, is there a Chapter 7 resolution kind of your red line?
Would you accept anything less than a Chapter 7?

MR. MCCORMACK: We think -- we have stated from the very beginning that we think
at a minimum what should be required and what should be an outcome of these
discussions if Iran persists in their behavior is a Chapter 7 resolution that
compels Iran to comply with and heed the call of the international community.
So we think that that's a minimum coming out of this, if they continue down the
pathway that they're on.

QUESTION: You weren't able to get that. The Russians and the Chinese didn't
want a Chapter 7 resolution, so then you came up with this idea of a
incentive-disincentive package, so are you still standing firm to the idea of a
Chapter 7 resolution?

MR. MCCORMACK: If they continue down this pathway, if they continue in their
intransigence, if they continue in their defiance, if they continue in their
obfuscation, then we think that at a minimum a Chapter 7 resolution compelling
them to heed the call of the international community is called for.

Saul?

QUESTION: Change the subject to Sudan?

QUESTION: On Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, Iran. Okay, yes.

QUESTION: Partly Iran. I'm just trying to raise my hand for several hours.
Anyway, Turkish Prime Minister has said recently that he wants to visit
Washington for talks to pursue a diplomatic solution to the Iran crisis. Do you
want anybody else's mediation, mediation by anyone like Turkey?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think that we welcome the input of other countries from around
the globe who have an interest in seeing that Iran is not able to obtain
nuclear weapons or the know-how or the technology to produce nuclear weapons.
So Secretary Rice was just in Ankara. And she had part of her discussions with
the Turkish leadership. She met with Foreign Minister Gul, she met with Prime
Minister Erdogan, she met with President Sezer and they talked about Iran. And
certainly we welcome discussions with our Turkish colleagues on Iran and
welcome their suggestions.

QUESTION: But mediation?

MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of mediation, you have to define what you're talking
about. I am not aware of any specific proposal that's on the table.

--------end excerpt-------

************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/ for all daily press briefings
************************************************************
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 -> Petitions All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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