Tag Archives: security council

Mar 25 2010

A unanimous Security Council vote is a world class victory

Today, both the Wall Street Journal and Fox news posted an article under the heading, “US softens sanctions plan against Iran” where it claimed that the United States, after deliberation with members of the Security Council, including China, was willing to abandon its initial position to isolate Iran from international financial markets, air restrictions and cargo shipping via land and sea ports.

While it is easy to make the argument that America has lost its backbone or influence on the world stage, or to think that a watered down sanctions regime will mean leniency towards Iran, one thing that cannot be misconstrued from a US move to build consensus is a setback or retreat on the issue of a nuclear free Middle East. 

And so I would argue that this move on the part of the United States is more tactical in nature to demonstrate that America’s interests are global interests and that America is willing to listen to its partners that also have an important role to play on the issue of global security. 

Let’s also be clear in that the real lever of power lies in Americas influence on the multinationals.  Already we have seen various oil companies pulling out of Iran or freezing their business activities in the country which in itself is indicative of Americas influence and seriousness to change Iran’s behavior in adhering with the international community’s concerns.

Therefore, a unanimous vote against Iran gives America greater clout and stronger maneuverability to push Iran into a corner by making sure that the country does not cross the threshold of turning low enriched uranium into weapons grade nuclear capability. 

This diplomatic chess game now means that for Iran to avoid greater hardship, beyond the upcoming sanctions, it will need to play by the International community’s rules or face crushing consequences in the event that Tehran still wanted to continue its defiant behavior.

Mar 17 2010

Action on Iran stalled in endless talk

Dr Emanuele Ottolenghi
A senior fellow at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies

The Australian – AT a weekend retreat in Finland, the foreign ministers of the EU met alongside the Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu.

Among topics discussed was Iran. And among the conclusions emerging from the gathering there was the admission by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner that there was little chance new sanctions would be passed by the UN Security Council before June.

Citing objections from China and Russia, Kouchner said: “We are talking and talking, trying to get an agreement by negotiation and at the same time working on sanctions. I believe that, yes, before June it will be possible, but I’m not so sure.”

Nor is there certainty about the alternative, which, according to the news report, would be unilateral sanctions by the EU and the US.

Clearly, there are obstacles on the road to unilateral sanctions philosophically.

In short, sanctions, even limited ones, are a long way away, and it does not offer any succour to know that EU ministers are “talking about it”.

The fact of the matter is that the last time sanctions were approved was in March 2008, when UN Security Council Resolution 1803 was approved. Then there was a US presidential election. Then there was a US policy review. Then there were Iranian presidential elections that nobody wished to interfere with. Then there was a summer holiday that nobody wished to spoil. Then there was a US effort to engage the Iranian regime that nobody wished to undermine. Then there was a failed nuclear deal that everyone thought was a win-win situation. Then there was an end-of-the-year deadline that came and went without any Plan B ready to roll out on January 1.

Then there was the talking to convince China and Russia (to say nothing of Turkey, which meanwhile became a member of the Security Council), and now there is more talking for Plan C in case Plan B fails. What will the next reason for delay be?

The bottom line is that these are excuses, pretexts, and little else. There is abundant evidence of Iranian mischief. There is nothing new by now about Iran’s policy of stalling talks. Russian and Chinese interests remain unchanged. The available options for sanctions have been dissected, debated, weighed, assessed and are known.

It therefore comes down to the following: do the US and the EU wish to stop Iran’s nuclear quest? If so, are they prepared to pay the political price required to make, at least, an honest and worthy effort? Are they willing to face up to the reality that there is simply no international backing for the kind of policies needed to stop Iran now and to avoid conflict in the Persian Gulf later?

If the answer to these questions is yes, there is no need to wait for June. Otherwise, we know what a June deadline means: it means more stalling, more temporising, more talking, and more procrastinating.

Dr Emanuele Ottolenghi is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defence of Democracies

Mar 12 2010

Britain to China “If you do not support sanctions you will face international isolation”

David Miliband, British foreign minister is to meet with the foreign ministry of China in Peking  to discuss the issue of international sanctions against Iran ahead of an upcoming security council meeting in the coming weeks. 

The position of the permanent members of the council, Europe and America is clearly to send the message that without full support by China on this matter, China risks becoming isolated from the international community and mainly its European and American trading partners. Given the trade balance between China and the West it would seem unlikely that the Chinese would not take this matter seriously into consideration. 

Similarly given the volume of trade and the multibillion dollar oil and infrastructure  contracts China has with Iran at worst China may agree to abstain from a vote if it so chooses not to take sides.