UN Impotence, Iranian Duplicity, and Papal Logos

Is the UN pursuing a role in the enforcement of global security or merely trying to convince the West that a Nuclear armed Iran is an inevitability and not so bad after all? Forget a UN wielding a Rooseveltian "Big Stick" towards the Iranian Problem in the near future (although NATO's recent success in Southern Afghanistan might envision a stronger international peace creating (not keeping) and policing entity with possible UN partnership

But there is good news and bad news.

The good news: The UN Security Council has adopted Resolution 1696 based upon Article 41 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This means that the UN can now employ legally binding measures?-short of war?-to stop Iran from enriching uranium, that is, sanctions. The deadline, which has come and gone, was August 31, 1006. I was never very hopeful that the UN would actually impose any such hurtful things upon Iran and my opinion was shared by many, including Iran's President Ahmadinejad who voiced his prediction in April of this year. Some readers here might remember my (extremely) short thread "Iran's Nuclear Effort: Do Western Nations Really Care?" voicing concern that those in the West, except the obvious few, were disingenuous about preventing a nuclear tipped Iran. Well that question has been answered in the negative.

The Bad news: The very nations that voice objections to Iranian nuclear proliferation, specifically the veto carrying nations of Russia, China, and France are doing their most to prevent the UN's power to sanction in this case.

China's Middle East Envoy Sun Bigan rejects such measures as "detrimental not only to the region but also to ourselves". That's honest, since China's oil imports from Iran are up 56% from last year's. Russia's Defense Minister who is selling Iran a $700 million air defense system says simply "Sanctions won't work" ($700 million sounds cheap--perhaps the clerics in Iran may want to query Saddam as to what he bought and how it worked out for him). France's President Jacques Chirac (Apparently no relation to Napoleon Bonaparte--at all), described by the Bush Administration as the U.S.'s stalwart ally against Iran, informs us "I am never favorable to sanctions" but if they are unavoidable their attributes should be "moderate and adapted". Considerate Sanctions-- sounds oxymoronic doesn't it?

Further, in 2003 the U.S. agreed to downplay the evidence (Obtained by the UN's own Nuclear regulatory body, the IAEA, of Iran's cheating on its NPT agreements, so as to give European diplomacy a chance and continued to do so despite evidence of further cheating through 2004. Later in 2004 the Bush Administration went along with another European negotiation only to see it collapse six months later. Earlier in 2006 President Bush agreed, in principle, to negotiate directly with Tehran if it suspended enrichment. In his latest speech to the General Assembly Bush underlined that the U.S. doses not oppose Iran's attempt to pursue civilian nuclear power sources. The U.S. has consistently demonstrated good faith towards an honest negotiation posture but reciprocation has not been forthcoming. Additionally the U.S. has bent over backwards to allow the UN to show its "relevance". I, for one, have failed to see this manifest in various outcomes of UN initiatives towards the resolution of this problem.

But Iranian deceit has a rich history. Skipping over Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's and successor Ali Khamenei's praise and support of the 444 day seizure of the U.S. embassy back in '79-'80 we come upon Khamenei's demand that Salman Rushdie apologize for his publication of "Satanic Verses" in exchange for cancellation of Khomeini's decree to kill Rushdie. Rushdie complied but the bounty stayed in place. The British demanded the lifting of the bounty as a precondition for reestablishment of diplomatic relations. Ambassadors were exchanged but the bounty remained.

Iranian diplomats pledged not to destabilize Afghanistan and aid in its reconstruction, instead the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps sent in operatives disguised as school teachers to further instability. In Iraq, shortly after Saddam's ouster, Iran pledged noninterference to both the U.S. and the Brits. But according to present Iranian journalist reports Iranian leadership dispatched 2,000 Revolutionary Guards with Radios, money, and supplies. Also the Revolutionary Guards stepped up training of Muqtada al-Sadr's militia. The overall paradigm here is manifest in Khomeini's extended exile in Najaf from the Shah's Iran where he endorsed Taqiya?-religiously sanctioned dissembling.

Given the empirical evidence of Iran's duplicity for all to examine and the adversity of significant members of the UN Security Council towards meaningful sanctions one can reasonably suspect that the UN sees the task of persuading the U.S that a nuclear Iran is "not that bad" much easier than the correct and moral obligation to collective security that its charter implies.

Perhaps, but a future glimpse of scenarios down the road comes from Gamal Mubarak ?'s (Hosni Mubarak son and apparent heir) trial balloon that maybe Egypt, Sunni Arab's largest nation should go nuclear also-- to prevent the advancement of the King of Jordan's perceived "Shiite Triangle". So why not Saudi Arabia and Turkey too? After all, what harm could a few more nuclear tipped Middle East nations do?

So how does this involve the Pope, other than the obligatory Armageddon scenario? His quote from a historian's book quoting a Byzantium Emperor expressing his belief that a faith can hardly be referred to as such if it is spread by threat of death is not even a one liner in a 7 page text. The Pope's speech was centered on the Greek word "logos" meaning "word" or "reason". He tried to relay the thought that a fruitful discussion of religious difference, or any difference for that matter, can only be resolved to the satisfaction of both sides with a dialog based on reason. His is a wonderful document that needs to be read in its entirety to be appreciated. Timber has given the link in another thread but here it is again.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

I seriously doubt that anybody in the West that has called for him to retract his speech (along with those who choose to shoot Italian Nun hospital help) have read it in its entirety. But all those Muslims have no sense of irony:

"They fail to see the richness of the following sequence. The pope makes a reference to a 14th-century Byzantine emperor's remark about Islam imposing itself by the sword, and to protest this linking of Islam and violence:

• In the West Bank and Gaza, Muslims attack seven churches.
• In London, the ever-dependable radical Anjem Choudary tells demonstrators at Westminster Cathedral that the pope is now condemned to death.
• In Mogadishu, Somali religious leader Abubukar Hassan Malin calls on Muslims to "hunt down" the pope. The pope not being quite at hand, they do the next best thing: shoot dead, execution-style, an Italian nun who worked in a children's hospital.


Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post
Friday, September 22, 2006; Page A17

What do you think?

JM

P.S. The book of John in the new testament begins with "In the beginning there was the word" Translated from the Greek "word" becomes "reason". Even if some think the Bible is just a nice collection of stories this concept that God is based in reason has extreme value. Any faith that is based on reason cannot be all bad.