[Marxism] Iran sanctions vote signals a global rift

["Walter Lippmann" <walterlx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The opponents of the ANC are delighted by the news that the
South African government voted for these new sanctions, though
opponents of the ANC government aren't exactly known for their
support for Iran in the world. For them it's more like gloating.

The Monitor here points to one other aspect of what's going on
behind the scenes which runs counter to the apparent triumph 
against Iran at the UN. It's this second aspect which we see 
the Monitor taking notice of here and why I'm drawing it to
your attention.


Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California
====================================================================

from the March 05, 2008 edition -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0305/p01s08-wogi.html

Iran sanctions vote signals a global rift

Some developing nations may be starting to sour on push by world
powers to control lucrative nuclear technology.

By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

United Nations, N.Y.

The passage this week by the United Nations Security Council of a
third set of sanctions against Iran places a spotlight on two trends
in the international community's dispute with Tehran's nuclear
program.

Perhaps most striking is the relative retreat by the United States
from leading status among Iran's accusers, with European powers
taking over the helm.

But there is also an emerging rift between some of the world's
developing countries and the big developed powers at the forefront of
the effort to impose punitive measures against Tehran. For countries
like Indonesia, South Africa, and Libya, which questioned the timing
of the new resolution, Iran's claim of victimhood at the hands of
arrogant world powers seeking to control access to vital and
lucrative technologies may be starting to resonate.

The mixed views of some developing countries were reflected in the
Council vote. At 14 yeas and one abstention, it marked a retreat from
the unanimous vote achieved on the second Iran resolution, which was
approved last year. (The first resolution, approved in 2006, passed
on a 14-to-1 vote, with Qatar voting "no.")

The abstention Monday came from Indonesia. In a Western-powers push
at the end of last week to avoid other abstentions or "no" votes,
language noting Iran's cooperation on the nuclear issue over recent
months was added at the insistence of other developing countries.

"South Africa does not want to see [either] a nuclear Iran or a
country denied peaceful technology," said Dumisani Kumalo, South
Africa's ambassador to the UN, in a postvote statement. Ambassador
Kumalo said South Africa, which once threatened to vote "no" or
abstain, voted "yes" based on Iran's failure to comply with earlier
resolutions.

But reflecting the view of other rotating Council members, including
Vietnam and Indonesia, Kumalo said South Africa would have preferred
to put off the vote and leave further deliberations on the Iranian
nuclear program to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the
UN's nuclear watchdog.

In a statement, Iran played to concerns of developing countries that
the world's developed powers seek to prolong their control of top
lucrative technologies. "No country . can solely rely on others to
provide it with the technology and materials that are becoming so
vital for its development and for the welfare of its people," said
Mohammad Khazaee, Iran's ambassador to the UN. "Peoples across the
globe have lost their trust in the Security Council" and see it as
the work of "a few powers to advance their own agenda," he added.

The months-long debate over the merits of a third resolution, and the
way in which the resolution was watered down to achieve passage,
suggest the degree to which developing countries fear that the UN
process could lead to military strikes against Iran.

Indonesia's ambassador to the UN, R.M. Marty Natalegawa, said it
abstained to express how the resolution did not reflect the "mixed
picture" of Iran's cooperation with international agencies. The
resolution risks rendering Iran even less cooperative with the IAEA,
he said.

The Security Council passed the third set of sanctions against Iran
over its pursuit of uranium enrichment, a process the international
community fears could lead to development of a nuclear weapon. In
response, a defiant Iran promised to press forward with its nuclear
program, including uranium enrichment. Iran "cannot and will not
accept a requirement which is legally defective and politically
coercive," Ambassador Khazaee said in a speech to the Council before
the vote.

The resolution is considered an "incremental" increase in pressure on
Tehran to halt its enrichment program, according to US officials. It
is not expected to force a quick change of heart by Iran.

Yet there has been a shift of sorts in the international community:
Recent diplomatic efforts concerning Iran's nuclear program reflect
how the lead in pursuing punitive measures has been largely taken
over by European countries.

Western powers have long agreed to play down the US role in the
pressure on Iran, some analysts note, to avoid the appearances of a
duel between longtime antagonists. "They want to emphasize that it's
not the US versus Iran," says Ray Takeyh, an Iran expert at the
Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

But there are other reasons the Europeans are stepping up to the
plate more emphatically, analysts say.

One is a matter of urgency mixed with proximity. Documents unveiled
last week at the IAEA suggest that Iran, at least at one point, was
seeking to build a nuclear warhead. With Iran also developing a
long-range missile capable of reaching continental Europe, France and
Germany want to avoid a world where they would fall within Iranian
nuclear range.

In a statement following the vote on behalf of the foreign ministers
of the Britain, France, Germany, the US, China, and Russia, Britain's
ambassador to the UN, Sir John Sawers, said the resolution reflects
the "ongoing serious concerns about the proliferation risks of the
Iranian nuclear program."

The US role in efforts to pressure Iran has also been muddied by the
National Intelligence Estimate, publicly released last December. 
The report concluded that Iran suspended its nuclear weaponization
program in 2003. The intelligence estimate confused many countries
about the US position and has led to divisions among US agencies and
within the White House, some analysts say.

Those internal divisions have only put more emphasis on Europe's
leadership role. Europe's strong concerns about Iran were initially
expected to be reflected in a separate resolution that Britain,
France, and Germany had proposed bringing up this week with the
IAEA's board of governors in Vienna. But the proposal ran into a
brick wall from nonaligned countries - that is, developing nations
expressing views independent of Western powers - and was dropped
Tuesday.

An IAEA resolution critical of Iran's actions and its lack of full
transparency would have marked the first such action on Iran by the
board since the Iran dossier was referred to the Security Council in
2006. But representatives of the Non-Aligned Movement said in Vienna
Tuesday that they were adamantly opposed to any action by the board
of governors.

"We don't think that there is any need for a draft resolution," said
Norma Goicochea Estenoz, Cuba's ambassador to the IAEA and chair of
the nonaligned countries' bloc of nations within the IAEA. "In our
opinion, it would damage the environment of cooperation and
confidence-building between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the
agency."

Despite that setback for the Europeans, passage of the new Security
Council resolution is expected to pave the way to passage of tougher
sanctions by the European Union. The EU last year approved measures
that were designed to promote implementation of the second Security
Council resolution, but it has not before acted beyond UN measures.

More starch in UN sanctions

December 2006: United Nations Security Council first imposes
sanctions, ordering all countries to stop supplying Iran with
materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and
missile programs. It also orders countries to freeze the assets of 10
Iranian companies and 12 individuals.

March 2007: Security Council votes to toughen sanctions after Iran
expands its enrichment program. It bans Iranian arms exports and
orders countries to freeze the assets of 28 additional individuals
and organizations.

March 2008: The Council's third resolution, approved Monday, does the
following:

.Introduces monitoring of two banks with suspected links to
proliferation activities, Bank Melli and Bank Saderat.

.Calls on all countries "to exercise vigilance" in entering into new
trade commitments with Iran.

. Orders countries to freeze the assets of 12 additional companies
and 13 individuals linked to Iran's nuclear or ballistic-missile
programs.

.Bans travel abroad by five individuals linked to Iran's nuclear
effort.

.For the first time, bans trade with Iran in goods that have both
civilian and military uses and authorizes inspections of shipments to
and from Iran by sea and air that are suspected of carrying banned
items.

- Compiled by Howard LaFranchi using Associated Press and Reuters
reports


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism