Who was it that said there are no coincidences in this world? He may have been right. So right, that sometimes you have to blind not to see contradicting coincidences when they meet eye to eye.
On Monday, the Non-Aligned Movement summit began in Iran, with "special guests" from around the world, including U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. Funny how it was also the day that the Gulf Business review aired a list of the 30 top achievers under 30 years old in the Arab world. The hot list received a lot of attention on Twitter, and there's no wonder at all -- these achievers are young, good-looking professionals, and they all have that spark in their eye. Their life choices are quite clear -- they cannot be described as "non-aligned."
What does it mean, to be non-aligned? That's a very good question, especially if it involves the U.N., which fed us enough cover-ups over the years. Just to name a few -- Syria was a respected member of the U.N. Security Council for years, and Qaddafi was a major human rights activist with a yearly prize given out in his name.
Regretfully, not everyone has had enough of this charade, and if you need some proof, it's not in the pudding but in the summit in Tehran. Iran is hungry for legitimacy and support despite the just sanctions imposed on it by the free world, and by showing up at the summit, that's exactly what these "non-aligned" countries did.
The Non-Aligned Movement consists of 120 countries, most of them Arab or third-world. It was established during the cold war in the '60s, but the Cold War has ended long ago, so could it be that this movement's whole definition should be changed?
It's very comfortable to aspire to the Western way of life and achievements with one hand, and to support Iran's PR against the U.S. with the left one. But it just doesn't work that way. There are times in which you simply need to take a stand.
For years Iran has been playing a game of smoke and mirrors with its nuclear ambitions,
supposedly "for peace purposes." Now that the free world has understood the danger and is united against it with sanctions, Iran's goal is to form a crack in the wall. But if you want the sanctions against Iran to work, you have to decide which side you're on. So which will it be: the side of darkness, stoning, torture, terror, and lies covering up the horror regime? Or the side of personal freedom, free trade and aspirations for peace and prosperity?
If these countries aspire for a better economy and successful careers, they can't support the people who are out to hurt this way of life, in the Iranian regime.
Ban Ki Moon is not alone in refusing to take a real stand -- the newly elected Egyptian president, Morsi, also arrived in Tehran to smile at Ahmedinijad and his lies, and the two Palestinian leaders -- Abbas and Hanniya -- actually fought over the so-called privilege of being the honorable representative at this not-so-honorable gathering, that is only meant to blow some more smoke into the world's eyes.
The real problem is that we've all grown so accustomed to the hypocrisy of the U.N., that we somehow believe people can stick to their double standards whenever they like.
Regretfully, it just isn't so. There are times in life when you have to align. Are you supporting the world sanctions against Iran, in a big united effort to prevent a disastrous war? Or are you a crack in the fence built around Iran so it'll abandon its crazy ambitions to dominate the
world?
And no, you can't choose both, even if you think you can. By choosing "ambivalence," you're damaging the firm alignment of the western world. It just won't be the same if God forbid Iran gets its way. There will be no thriving economy or personal careers to write about in fancy magazines. So if you're not aligned with the free countries on this one, at least don't call yourself "non-aligned."
just to do away with a little bit of my confusion...
which of the two sides was it again that invaded Iraq, a country that had done nobody no harm, slaughtered over a million of it's people, reduced the country's thousands of years old monuments to rubble effectively bombing it back to the stone age, destroyed all their basic infrastructure, sold off all their cultural artefacts on ebay and gave it such wonderful Western "values" like Abu Ghraib?
Because, that will also be the side that is going to attack Iran.
Now, this is about gathering of 140 countries with diffrent cultures and backgrounds.
The only thing that holds these countries together is the fear that each one of them is the next victim of regime change by West. If it was not for West interventions in internal affairs of these counties, the NAM would have no reason to continue, but right now it is a necessity for standing up against the big bully on the block.
When one sees that countries such as India and Pakistan, which historically were not that friendly to each other, both come to NAM because both feel at some point West will be an obstacle toward their progress, the function of NAM become clear.
One also clearly sees that it is not about nuclear weapons, since both Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons. It is about political and financial independence.
West is controlled by a bunch of financial terrorists that use any fluctuation in commodities as a source of exuberant profits and manipulation of derivative market. West financial system looks more like gambling casinos. When the big players lose, they will run to Uncle Sam for bail outs.
The economy in NAM countries have are based on productions and they cannot compete with a gambling machine with endless amount of credit. The Western system is not healthy for westerners and it is not healthy for the world.
NAM is planing for the day after, when the paper tiger dollar collapses on the back of huge gambling bets that Bankers are making in derivative markets. At some point even Uncle Sam will not have enough credit to bail out these gambling addicts.
"Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has called on the United Nations to assume a more decisive role in creating a nuclear-free Middle East. "
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/08/29/258897/leader-calls-for-nuclearfree-mideast/
It looks that Iran is "Aligned" with other countries in Middle East in demanding a Nuclear Free Middle East. Guess which country is out of "Alignment" over there, its name starts with I, hint it is NOT Iran.
All indications show that it is US and Israel that should "Align" themselves with the rest of world community.
"Israel angered over IAEA vote on nuclear arsenal"
"US President Barack Obama Administration had initially supported the plan but later condemned the initiative Under Israel’s duress, which is the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. "
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/08/29/258819/israel-angered-over-iaea-vote-on-nukes/
Under international law and NPT law the nuclear material are not allowed to be transferred from NPT member to non-Members for any application, military or non-military.
Even if Israel wants to receive nuclear technology for peaceful proposes form NPT members, it should become a member.
How is the NAM relevant post the cold war? Most of the NAM countries are small and weak. They need a forum where they can be heard. The NAM is one such forum. Could it have achieved more..? definately so, but then its better than nothing.
Youre out of touch.... Iran is no angel , but nor is The US of A or Israel. Most of the NAM countries do not agree with Irans ways, but they disagree more with the American effort to vilify and undermine it.
Hate much?
Actually, US war of independence from British Colonial power is as honorable as the fight of third world country to resist unjust influence of US in their internal affairs.
US has horrible record in Latin America and Muslim world. US has supported dictators and despots to suppress democratic movement all over the world specially in Middle East.