The Iranian Nuclear Crisis
Before the Security Council: Responsibility of the International Community of
States The most up-to-date and politically charged case before the UN Security
Council is the Iranian Nuclear Conflict. A few months ago the new Iranian
president, Ahmadinedshad, had decided to make Iran “ascend” to a nuclear power.
This has caused the great powers great anxiety because the idea of an Iran -
that has actively supported, advanced and fomented international terrorism –
even near an atomic bomb somehow “discomforts” the minds of the western
(perhaps) as well as the eastern powers. And this will not change in spite of
all affirmation on behalf the Iranian government that it intends to use nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes only.
For a long time the EU tried by its policy of “critical dialogue” to bring Iran
to reason, however, the regime had drawn a red herring across the EU’s track.
Even though the regime had signed the additional protocol of the nuclear weapons
non-proliferation treaty in 2003 it took up its nuclear program over and over
again. Then, in the first few months of the nuclear crisis, negotiations
restarted between Iran and States as the USA, France, Great Britain, China,
Russia and even Germany.
But as all means seemed to be exhausted and the patience of some States was
about to snap, yet Iran insistently stuck to its nuclear program, the Security
Council came into play. The great powers issued a last ultimatum to Iran to
refrain from its nuclear plans, otherwise the “issue” would be brought before
the Security Council. Iran’s attitude – after a short game of cat-and-mouse and
one or two not seriously taken dialogues with China and Russia: unchanged!
And indeed the Security Council included the Iranian case in its agenda. Now
States like the USA, France, Great Britain, China and Russia (this time without
Germany) were concerned with the “issue” and they decided to set Iran a final
deadline to stop the uranium enrichment process. Iran’s reaction: overjoyed,
namely because they had succeeded in enriching uranium.
Meanwhile, the deadline has expired, yet the Iranian President promises his
peoples at mammoth events to turn Iran into an independent great power that
would never let the “Western World” dictate it anything again.
It is quite astonishing that the apparently most important board of the world
regarding peace-keeping warns a peace disturber and demands him to refrain from
the peace disturbing (if not peace threatening) activity, but who nevertheless
continues with his course as if he does not feel addressed.
However, what is even more paradox is that in cases as the one mentioned above
the most important and powerful countries who cannot find a common solution to a
dispute, should be able to come to a conclusion in the same case, in the same
constellation, yet, this time, in the Security Council.
What makes the Security Council so special that it is deemed to be more
effective in finding conflict resolutions than the national States themselves?
What is the idea behind this organ of the most important international
organisation?
The United Nations were founded in 1945 to establish an effective system of
collective security as a prevention of future wars. After the same idea had
failed in the League of Nations the mistakes of that system should not be
repeated in the United Nations. As the League of Nations only set up procedural
rules for warfare the Charta of the United Nations did not only forbid war but
also the general use of force against the territorial integrity and political
independence of other countries. This idea can be ascribed to the general
understanding at that time and the basic principle of the United Nations Charta,
namely the sovereign equality of all States.
However, in order to pass a resolution under chapter VII the Security Council
must at fist determine that the issue before it constitutes at least a threat to
the peace. Not only in doing so but also in choosing the type of its measures
the Security Council as the political executive organ of the United Nations
enjoys the widest discretion possible. This is why the Security Council cannot
be forced to act.
In the case of Iran the Security Council is faced with a regime that supports,
advances and foments international terrorism which has already been
characterised as a threat to international peace and security several times.
Furthermore, Iran elaborates an ideology that is based on discrimination and
rejection of essential human rights. It threatens its neighbours with military
elimination and in the same breath it enriches uranium for – allegedly –
peaceful purposes whereby it violates it international legal obligations. That
Iran’s behaviour constitutes a threat to international peace and security can
hardly be denied. But why does the Security Council not agree on that?
The reason is its political construction. When its composition and functions
were worked out in 1945, the States knew that they had to provide for a special
role of the victorious powers in order to ensure their membership. Moreover, the
founders of the United Nations were fully aware of the fact that by granting the
right to veto the permanent members could misuse the Security Council as a forum
to secure their national interests by vetoing any question that was inconsistent
with their national strategies. Nevertheless, the founders trusted in the great
powers’ sense of duty and responsibility and they hoped that the Council members
would not act as the representatives of their countries but as the
representatives of the world organisation for the security of the international
community of states.
Unfortunately, the Iranian nuclear crisis, too, shows that the permanent members
do not fulfil this hope.
Actually, it could be expected that the draft resolution recently handed in by
the USA, Great Britain and France on 3rd May, 2006 should be passed because it
qualifies the Iranian disregard of the previous Council resolution (demand to
give up the nuclear program) as a threat to the peace and opens the way for
chapter VII measures. Yet Russia’s and China’s interests seem to block the way:
In spring Russia has commenced with the building of a 4.000 km long pipeline
that shall supply China, Japan and South-East Asia with oil, although China had
signed a long-term contract (term-time 30 years) with Iran in autumn 2004 for
the purchase of oil and gas worth 60 to 70 billion US dollars.
Additionally, Moscow is of the opinion that its prices for oil and gas in Europe
are too low and plans to curtail the supply (or raise the price).
This oil policy of Russia shows that it cannot be interested in a regime change
and thereby in the democratisation of Iran because a democratic Iran would
certainly move into Europe’s focus as an oil supplier again. It could also
prevent Russia’s lucrative deal with China because of the existing contract
between the latter and Iran.
Besides, a democratic Iran could also be a thorn in China’s side as it might
become a direct rival because by its democratisation Iran could offer the
western countries a new sales and investment market.
Except for the economist interests of these two countries and the acute nuclear
crises, one may ask whether Russia and China are generally fit to further the
respect for human rights and the progress of democracy in Iran. It seems
questionable whether these states can have an interest in criticising the
humanitarian situation in states like Iran, thereby drawing even more attention
to topics like the respect for human rights.
The development of the United Nations and especially the practice of the
Security Council have shown over the last years that the focus is no longer on
the security of states but on that of the people. Thus, the treatment of human
rights is no longer understood as a solely internal matter in which the Security
Council can not interfere due to the principle of sovereignty and the
prohibition of intervention. The states are now under an obligation to guarantee
the protection of their citizens. Where this obligation is disregarded in an
especially grave manner, the Security Council has shown to be willing to
interfere (but only in cases of the gravity of genocide or ethnic cleansing).
However, this presupposes that none of the Council's permanent member's
interests are to the contrary. Can Russia, whose troops commit grave violations
of human rights on the Chechen population and on prisoners, really want the UN
to understand the protection of human rights as their obligation? Can China, who
itself is accused of violating human rights in its own country, expect Iran to
respect these rights?
But this is exactly what must happen. If Iran is to be integrated into the
system of public international law, this requires that it respects the
fundamental principles of international law such as the prohibition of the use
of force, the respect of human rights, and especially in these days the battle
against international terrorism.
Since the new president took office, however, the remainders of hope (who
existed primarily in Europe) are lost, that there may be a real reform in the
country under the Islamic regime. Therefore the conclusion must be that the
regime has to be relieved of its office, to make a peaceful co-existence in the
community of states possible. A regime change would also calm down the entire
region because terrorism, not only in Palestine but also in Iraq, would lose its
financial fundament.
How such a regime change is achieved is a solely internal matter and the
responsibility of the Iranian people, not the United Nations.
But over the short term, the UN must in any case prevent the regime from gaining
access to nuclear weaponry (which is not in any case a solely internal matter),
for in the contrast to all other nuclear powers one can not rely on Iran not
making use of the bomb. This also answers the question why Iran is not granted
the same rights as the other, primarily western countries to make peaceful use
of nuclear technology for energy purposes.
Ahmadinedschad
Also, one must not forget that, despite the principle of state sovereignty,
states lose their rights (such as to enrich uranium) when they violate public
international law. Any other view would undermine the sanctioning system of the
UN-Charta.
As was said earlier, the sanctioning system of the UN can only begin to work
where the Security Council has found there to be a threat to the peace and
international security.
This has not yet happened in the case of Iran. But for this to happen, the
permanent members of the Security Council must fulfil their responsibility as
representatives of the UN and cease to misuse the Security Council for the sake
of national interests.
All in all, the community of states must recognise that half-hearted measures
will not achieve the solution of the problem.
It is not sufficient to pressure Iran with contractual duties and continue to
remind them to comply when they obviously do not, as the experiences with the
anti-proliferation treaty and the endless negotiations with Europe have shown.
For a regime such as that of Iran, contracts of international law and
international legal obligations do not have the same meaning as for the western
democracies.
The international community lead by the Security Council finally has to oppose
Iran as a unity and render effective sanctions. These may only in the very last
consequence, when all other means have failed and no other avenue is open,
include military sanctions.
But to avoid the recourse to military means, which is of primary importance
especially in the case of Iran, the Security Council has to fulfil its tasks
effectively to bring Iran to comply.
The Security Council has a wide range of sanctions of a peaceful nature at its
disposal. It is important that Iran is made the subject of the so-called "smart
sanctions" which hurt the regime and not the population (e.g. an economic
embargo of oil accompanied by exchange actions such as the "oil for food"
programmes).
This way, the international community could not only support the Iranian people
in their fight against the regime, but at the same time take the arguments from
those states who are prepared to act unilaterally against Iran.
The Iran Referendum Movement