Category: News and Views
[…] By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all resources, while others endure the
resulting poverty, suffering and misery.
Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger. […]
Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generation nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and
stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threats against
other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? To what length
can powers producing and possessing these weapons go? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And, are the inhabitants of
these countries content with the waste resulting from the use of their wealth and resources for the production of destructive arsenals? Is it not possible
to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of on instruments of death? Aren't wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away and no
reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful not being content
with their own rights and still striving to devour the rights of others. […]
Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win hearts and minds through the championing of real justice, compassion and peace
than by continuing their production and proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their use? […]
Who can ensure Iraq's security? Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire region. Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and security in Iraq
when the occupiers are themselves among the permanent members of the Council? Can the Security Council adopt a fair decision in this regard? […]
Worst yet is the blanket and unwarranted support provided to this regime.
Just watch what is happening in Palestinian lands. People are being bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and alleys.
But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support or protection. Why?
At the same time, a [Hamas] government is formed democratically and through the free choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory. But
instead of receiving the support of the so-called champions of democracy, its ministers and members of parliament are illegally abducted and incarcerated
in full view of the international community.
Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally besieged government? And why can't the Security Council take any steps? […]
Meanwhile, some members of the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the aggressor to achieve its objectives [in
Lebanon] militarily. We witnessed the Security Council of the United Nations practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for a ceasefire.
The Security Council sat idly by for so many days witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were persistently
repeated. Why?
In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can
this Council fulfill its responsibilities? […]
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty]. All our nuclear activities are transparent,
peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors. Why then are there objections to our legally recognized rights? Which governments object to these
rights? Governments that themselves benefit from nuclear energy and the fuel cycle. Some of them have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends,
including the production of nuclear bombs, and some even have a bleak record of using them against humanity.
Which organization or Council should address these injustices? Is the Security Council in a position to address them? Can it stop violations of the inalienable
rights of countries? Can it prevent certain powers from impeding scientific progress of other countries?
The abuse of the Security Council, as an instrument of threat and coercion, is indeed a source of grave concern. […]
A review of the preceding historical realities would lead to the conclusion that regrettably, justice has become a victim of force and aggression.
Many global arrangements have become unjust, discriminatory and irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from certain powers; […]
For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and intimidation
against other nations. But when it comes to the interests of rightful claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of nations,
respect for the rights and obligations of peoples, international law and justice have no place or value. This is blatantly manifested in the way the elected
government of the Palestinian people is treated as well as in the support extended to the Zionist regime. It does not matter if people are murdered in
Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned or besieged -- these [apparently] do not violate human rights. […]
Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. When the oppressed are crushed by bombardment,
the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a ceasefire. Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council which
is charged with maintaining security for all countries?
The prevailing order of contemporary global interactions is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community, and consider their
decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world and other nations as only second
class in the world order.
The question needs to be asked: if the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit
aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state,
they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a
just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice? […]
The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of
the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity.
Today, it is undeniable that the Security Council, most critically and urgently, needs legitimacy and effectiveness. It must be acknowledged that as long
as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate
nor effective. […]
No one has superiority over others. No individual or state can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and,
through influence and pressure, position themselves as the `international community'.
He's right and I find it impossible to disagree with his thinking, I also fear for Iran and the stability of the western world in the light of america's intransigence.
Infinately more worringly is the fact that bush, in his rabid obssession with fueling the fires of anti Iranian hatred, has consistantly failed to follow advice to open dialogue with Ahmadinejad.
He's as blind as he is stupid
I due hope you don't mean it litterally
I'm sure he doesn't...
However, I agree with him, and as long as Bush selectively deals wth only the countries that suit him, i'll never believe he's doing this out of love for his so called democracy.
Yes, we'll overthrow your mad, insane bloody dictatership and replace it with our own, just as bloody mad dictatership and we'll kill a hell of a lot of people doing it!
does that make sence to anyone?
Ahmadinejad wont last much longer as he's consistantly failed to deliver on his promises and the Iranian people want change.
However better Ahmadinejad than another version of the Ayatollah.
I honestly think the american people are starting to wake up to bush and his generals.
they have been in the middle east so long, and nothing has changed.
the people of afghanistan are starting to want stability so much that many are supporting the taliban over bush as it provides them with more tability.
If bush and his friends screw up iran like they've continually screwed up iraq, they will lose some friends in high places very very quickly, not only in the world, but in their own country.
the war on terror has effected everything, the economy, american civil rights and freedoms...everything.
The Iranian president simply fails to live by his own words. He objects to global powers having nuclear weapons, yet he gives Russia and China access to the oil in his country. He says that countries should be happy with their own rights and not impose them on others, then condemns the shunning of the ddemocratically elected Palestinian regime. However, he has assisted Hezbollah which is not the democratic government of Lebanon, and supported their abduction of an Israeli soldier. He has also failed to condemn the undermining of the democratically elected government in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Oh and he talks about justice. Is descrimination of Kurds in Iran justice? Is the censoring of music there justice? If justice is calling for a state to be whiped off the map, and condemning people who stand up to terrorism rather than condemning Islamic extremists who blow innocent Muslims to bits is justice, I want injustice. The Iranian president is so similar to Hitler, yet because he's the president of a country in the middle east, and he along with most Iranians is a Muslim, people will stick up to him. What if he was a white neo-nazi leading Germany who called for Israel to be whiped off the map. Would people be agreeing with him then?