The United Nations Security Council approved a resolution calling for new sanctions against Iran today. Wait, did you just yawn? Pay attention, there's real news here. The man-bites-dog story is that two countries - Brazil and Turkey - voted no, while Lebanon abstained.
That's a record. There's never been more than one no vote before; there's never been less than 14 yes votes before; it's only the second time that there were any no votes at all. And it's the first time any non-Muslim country voted no (Brazil.)
This is the sixth Security Council resolution attacking Iran's nuclear program since July 2006. Here's the scorecard:
Resolution 1696, July 31, 2006:
Fourteen votes in favor to one against (Qatar.)Resolution 1737, December 23, 2006:
passed unanimouslyResolution 1747, March 24, 2007:
passed unanimouslyResolution 1803, March 3, 2008:
passed by a vote of 14-0-1, with one abstention (Indonesia.)Resolution 1835, September 27, 2008:
passed unanimouslyResolution 1929, June 9, 2010:
passed by 12 votes to two against (Brazil and Turkey) and one abstention from Lebanon
Why did Brazil and Turkey vote no?
Because:
1) they don't believe new sanctions are going to resolve the conflict;
2) they think that new sanctions will be counterproductive to diplomacy;
3) they think that the current path could eventually lead to war;
4) they are understandably annoyed with the U.S. for first encouraging them to pursue a nuclear fuel swap deal with Iran and then reversing its position when Brazil and Turkey's diplomacy succeeded;
and perhaps
5) Turkey is still understandably annoyed with the U.S. for acquiescing in the Israeli military attack that just killed 9 Turks.
Still, you might say: that's just Brazil and Turkey. Who cares a fig about them?
Well, if you look at a map, you'll soon discover that Turkey is the proud possessor of something extremely relevant to the question of cutting off Iran's' economic ties to the world: a 300-mile border with Iran.
Now, I would not expect Turkey to openly defy the letter of the sanctions passed by the Security Council (although some have questioned whether Security Council action is binding in this case, since Security Council action can't take away Iran's legal right to enrich uranium.) But recall that the U.S. has said that these Security Council sanctions were not the real show: the real show was the enhanced sanctions the US hoped to get from Europe and the Gulf countries using the Security Council resolution as cover. What's the probability that Turkey will lift a finger to help with the enforcement of sanctions that go beyond what the Security Council just agreed?
And the utility of the Security Council resolution as cover was just decreased, because the two Security Council countries from the Middle East opposed it, and because Brazil opposed it. And Brazil's opposition gives carte blanche to Latin America to say: this doesn't mean anything to us in terms of our ongoing economic relations with Iran.
Which is not to say that the new sanctions - particularly the "add-on" sanctions currently being pursued by the U.S - won't hurt Iran economically. But there is no reason to expect the new sanctions to fundamentally change the diplomatic dynamics. The probability that enhanced sanctions will compel Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium is virtually nil. Sooner or later, Washington will have to face up to the fact that it has no meaningful alternative to serious negotiations with the Iranian government.
All the pundits in Washington can hold their breath until they turn blue, but Brazil and Turkey have gotten too big and too independent, especially given Washington's waning power, for the U.S. to push around.
As President Lula says in Oliver Stone's new documentary, "We paid off the IMF, we paid off the Paris Club, we do not owe anything to anybody."
UPDATE: Brazil has released an "explanation of vote," and remarks it made in the Council debate. (English follows the Portuguese.)
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
By ESAM AL-AMIN. Obama either betrayed the Turkey/Brazil initiative, doublecrossing them, or he was persuaded by internal political forces to abandon their effort.
In either case, Obama and Clinton continue on a similiar course as Bush, with less warmongering but still the disingenuine pursuit of a mutually beneficial, diplomatic resolution.
Given the massive American, Israeli military/war machine and industry ( $1 trillion US dollars spent as of June 2010), its now true that free market global capitalism thirsts for war and destruction.
your writing style leaves much to be desired .. .I would call it omniscient circumolocution
Moreover, note that this right is not *granted* by the NPT, but *affirmed* by it. Here is the text:
"Article IV: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty."
"inalienable right" - that's strong language. that means nothing can take it away. and the language indicates that the NPT is acknowledging that the right exists prior to the NPT, the NPT is merely affirming that this right is not impinged on by the NPT.
Because of this, it is argued at the link below that Security Council resolutions demanding that Iran suspend the enrichment of uranium are not legally binding, because they aim to restrict the exercise of a right that it is not within the power of the Security Council to take away:
http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2007/08/the-legality-of.html
http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2009/09/iran-nuclear-conflict-the-true-context.html
http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2008/08/irans-uranium-enrichment-program-fixing-the-framing.html
And that is probably why TUrkey and Brazil have supported Iran, and Egypt and all of the members of the NonAligned Nations have insisted that Iran does have the right to enrichment.
What the hell is Russia up to here? Whatever it is, one thing is for sure: Russia plays a truly savage game of geopolitics, and Iran is feeling the teeth and claws of the Bear on its back.
I'm very proud of my President.
1-) While Israel has nuclear weapons, it is not honest to say Iran should not have. Nobody in the region should have any nuclear weapon. Why these voices are not loud against Israel? Nobody wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, but you should be honest too. Israel is still refusing to adhere to the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). Iran and Turkey are regional competitors, currently and historically. So, it would be naive to think that Turkey wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. Nobody wants it because that will force us to have them too as a regional competitor. We just want a nuclear free zone in the region and to use diplomacy as much as possible.
2-) Brasil and Turkey had tremendous success but Israeli lobby wants war and what they know is only war, no diplomacy. If you look at the leaked document, this is what USA wanted, but now they are rejecting it. http://www.politicaexterna.com/archives/11023#axzz0pi07yCGE
If Turkey would vote yes, then it would be discrepancy (I don't know if it is a right word to use). Everybody expecting Turkey and Brasil to vote no or abstain. Nobody was expecting to vote yes.
3-) Turkey and Iran have $10 billion trade volume as far as I know. Any war or harsh sanctions will hurt it. So, Turkey is always trying to use diplomacy, nothing more.