3 juin 2010 4 03 /06 /juin /2010 17:58

Internationalnews

Current Concerns

No 9, may 2010

 

http://brucemulkey.com/wp-content/iran_iraq_war.jpg

Being members of the United Nations, 192 states of the world are bound :


• to maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;


• to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”


Furthermore, the following duties of the UN member states are stated in the Charta of the United Nations:


• All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.


• All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”


The fact that member states of the United Nations have repeatedly infringed these regulations, does not dispense today’s world from these obligations. On the contrary: all wars after the Second World War have confirmed in a horrible manner how true it was and still is what the founding members of the United Nations stipulated in 1945 as the first and highest aim at the beginning of the preamble of the Charta that they were “determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind”.


Is it compatible with these principles when representatives of governments and the media massively stir up a phobia against a country and even do not exclude war against this country?


That is exactly what has been happening against Iran for years. And again even more vehemently during the past weeks and months.


In doing so the proponents of the campaign do not consider:


• that not only has the Iranian Government maintained for years that it doesn’t want to possess nuclear weapons, but that also the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA and all secret services as well have never presented a substancial prove for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Up to this day, the reports of the US secret services have in fact confirmed that Iran does not operate a program for nuclear weapons. Some of Iran’s opponents claim on these grounds that there is no point in proving the existence of an Iranian program for nuclear  weapons but that Iran should give a gapless prove that it does not strife for atomic weapons – but how can that be possible if at the same time anything that Iran presents is principally called in question,


• that the statements of the Iranian president (of state) concerning Israel have been falsified by the western media and that Iranian plans of waging war against Israel are not known,


• but that, on the other hand, most probably there are Israeli (and also even US American) plans for a war of aggression against Iran, although wars of aggression are forbidden by the UN Charta;


• that Iran is threatened with war by other countries, also by superior German officers: Meanwhile, a manuscript of the speech held by German NATO general Karl-Heinz Lather at the Gemeinschaft Katholischer Soldaten (Association of Catholic Soldiers) in Bonn on 25 March 2010, is available. Grotesquely enough, he said at the occasion of the World Peace Day 2010: “By the way, soon the World Community [meaning the NATO states] could be forced to intervene again if Iran does not give up its ambitions for nuclear weapons. Political action, diplomacy and economic sanctions seem to be of little avail” and he adds – in opposition to the duties emanating from the UN Charta – that “states and governments  [meaning the NATO states] usually [hence not always] adopt and aspire for a mandate of the United Nations as a prerequisit for a military intervention [but which is obviously not necessary, according to the conception of the German general]”;


• that the earlier “offers for negotiation” to Iran disregard the equal rights declared by the United Nations for all member states of the state’s community and that they demand from Iran something which has no legal basis concerning the nuclear treaties – a fact about which nobody can be deceived, not even by the decisions of the World Security Council concerning the Iranian nuclear program;


• that at the same time states which refuse to adhere to the non-proliferation treaty – namely Israel, Pakistan and India – and which store a big arsenal of nuclear weapons, are almost never asked to finish this condition (not to mention the 5 “official” nuclear powers who, they as well, have signed the Treaty and have committed themselves to nuclear disarmament and even zero armament; they are very, very far away from this aim) – meaning that also here double standards are applied;


• that Iran is, not at all, put under pressure by the “World Community”, but that it is above all Israel, the USA and the EU who have joined up to put other countries under pressure to submit to their plans. The majority of the states and governments, for example the 118 states of the Non Aligned Movement,  judge the policy of Iran and the possibilities to have relations and solve conflicts  with this country very differently from that political bloc, which is nothing else but a small minority in the world.

At this point, nothing is to be said about the real background of the war plans against Iran. It must however be added that the current campaign represents an alarming beating of war drums for everybody who is impartially dealing with this matter. This does not mean that everybody who is now threatening Iran wants to wage war. But everybody who threatens Iran – everybody who is ignoring the Charta of the United Nations – is a forerunner of all those who want the war. It is not less worrying that there are no longer any voices of dissent coming from the governments and media of that bloc. There is no discussion, but everybody seems to be brought in line to add to the agitation. And we can call it agitation because this kind of  enforced conformity solely springs from political plans which have little concern for the truth.


This ignorance of the bloc against the Charta of the United Nations is no peccadillo. This ignorance undermindes the bases of a just and peaceful coexistence of the peoples and states. It is a threat to mankind. There are quite a lot of the World Community who are not ready to take part in this.


During the past years a series of wars have been waged without the consent of the world community. The victims and costs of these wars are immeasurable already today. So there is all reason to think about the question how a new war can be prevented and how it might be achieved that international law regains respect – that is by all nations.•


http://www.currentconcerns.ch

 

Photo: brucemulkey.
 

Url of this article: http://www.internationalnews.fr/article-the-iran-campaign-and-international-law-by-karl-muller-51613844.html

 

Partager cet article

Published by Internationalnews - dans Iran
commenter cet article

commentaires

Présentation

  • : internationalnews
  • internationalnews
  • : Un site d'information et de réflexion sur l'actualité internationale, le nouvel ordre mondial, la géostratégie, la propagande, l'impérialisme, le nucléaire, l'économie, l'environnement et la culture, illustré de documentaires. Site géré par des journalistes bénévoles, sans aucune obédience politique, religieuse ou autre.
  • Contact

STOP TAFTA !

Rechercher

Dossiers les plus consultés