•  HOME 
  •  BOOKS 
  •  WWP 
  •  DONATE 
  • Loading

Follow workers.org on
Twitter Facebook iGoogle

U.S.-EU conspire against Non-Proliferation Treaty

Part one

Published Dec 4, 2005 10:49 PM

Vice President Dick Cheney—whose popularity plunged in mid-November to 27 percent, even lower than his boss, President George W. Bush, who has managed to please only 34 percent of the U.S. public—once said that the country that controls Middle East oil can exercise a “stranglehold” over the global economy. Did Cheney let the cat out of the bag?

Far back in 1997, in a Foreign Affairs article titled “A Geo-strategy for Eurasia,” Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, wrote: “A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world’s most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa.”

On the basis of what has transpired since these opinions reached print, one can conclude that the United States has been in the deadly business of dominating the world—and at this juncture targeting Iraq, Iran and Syria, three countries that have dared to differ with Washington’s whims and wants.

U.S. belligerence against other nations can take many forms. These include economic and trade sanctions, diplomatic containment, orchestrating an environment of isolation, spreading fabricated propaganda and outright lies, intruding into air space, carrying out acts of sabotage, buying off individuals to commit acts of treason, bribing other governments to take Washington’s side, or carrying out naked acts of aggression and war to subvert or overthrow a government.

In the language of the U.S. government, all these acts are committed under the cover of spreading “American democracy.” And now an old, all-too-familiar argument is being resurrected to bring countries into line with U.S. plans to dominate the Middle East: that Iran cannot be “trusted” and must be “thwarted” in its plans to develop nuclear energy.

To deny Iran or any other country from “researching, developing and producing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” is a violation of the right of not only Iran, but other nations, as is embodied in the fourth paragraph of the Nuclear Non-Prolif eration Treaty. The NPT is administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is currently headed by Mohammed ElBaradei.

Officials of the IAEA, a United Nations monitoring agency, have visited the Iranian nuclear facilities many times in the last two-and-a-half years. They have held meetings with the Iranian authorities in charge of the nuclear energy programs. Throughout this long period the United States has adamantly claimed, without a shred of proof, that Iran plans to produce nuclear bombs—and therefore must be denied the right to produce enriched uranium, a process for producing nuclear fuel used in nuclear reactors.

All along, Washington has brought pressure on the agency and its governing board to pass a resolution stating that Iran is in violation of the NPT—another unsubstantiated charge—and must be referred to the UN Security Council for possible economic sanctions.

And what has been Iran’s response? In order to build confidence, the Iranian government has not only allowed regular inspection by the IAEA. It has accepted an additional protocol that permits the nuclear agency to inspect any nuclear site without prior warning.

It is interesting to note that Israel is not a party to the NPT agreement, has more than 250 nuclear bombs in its “secret” arsenal and is building a huge apartheid wall on Palestinian land, against international law—but has never been referred anywhere for any reason.

Also, “the United States has not yet adop ted the necessary implementing legislation for the additional protocol to become a law,” according to the Arms Con trol Association’s fact sheet of January 2005.

In contrast, Iran, in addition to cooperating with ongoing inspections by the IAEA, held joint meetings with the three major Western European powers. And, for the purpose of “confidence building,” Iran “voluntarily” suspended its nuclear-enrichment operations for almost a year.

After the three European and the Iranian representatives had met for a year, the Europeans insisted that Iran extend the period it would suspend uranium enrichment—but did not agree on a resolution to assure Iran’s right to produce its own fuel for nuclear reactors. On the contrary, this period of suspension sets a pre ce dent. So if Iran decides to resume the enrichment process, in the eyes of the so-called international community this resump tion would be considered a violation.

In other words, the apparent European enthusiasm to meet with the Iranian government really serves the U.S. policy of containment and imposition of sanctions. As in Iraq, having Europeans hold the meeting usurps the UN’s authority and paves the way for a genocidal crime against the people of Iran.

Learning from this experience, the Iranian government under the new president, Ahmadinejad, decided to withdraw from the endless meetings and bickering. Iran began not the process of uranium enrichment, but the earlier stage of turning yellow cake (uranium raw material) into a gaseous state called tetrafluoride.

A day did not pass without the major European countries—Britain, France and Germany, with the United States lurking behind the scenes—declaring Iran in utter violation of the NPF and pressing the IAEA to pass a resolution referring Iran to the UN Security Council for probable economic and trade sanctions. At this stage the European powers had completely capitulated to Wash ington’s foreign policy designs against not only Iran but all the countries in the Middle East and Central Asia, particularly Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Palestine.

It did not take much persuasion on the part of the United States to make the Euro pean powers and Britain’s Labor government show their true imperialist colors.

In the history of the IAEA, no resolution had passed without a total consensus on the part of its board, composed of 35 members. In this case, even though the resolution lacked muscle and teeth, the United States and the European imperialist powers could not muster a consensus. Without a deadline for referral, the IAEA resolution passed with 26 for, eight abstentions including China and Russia, and one against. The no vote came from Venezuela.

The Iranian response was that should the resolution be referred to the UN Security Council, Iran may decide to withdraw from the IAEA and end its membership in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

It was at this point that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared that no measure with regard to Iran is off the table. In other words, they were implying a threat of force and war against Iran.

Ardeshir Ommani is co-founder of the recently formed American-Iranian Friendship Committee.

Next, Bush and Blair’s threats, the Iranian Oil Bourse and dollar supremacy v. euro