Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Brazil Takes the Lead In Trying to Prevent Another Senseless War
Brazil’s foreign minister, Antonio Patriota, made a courageous and very important statement last week about the rising threat of a military attack on Iran. He asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to weigh in on the legality of a threatened military strike against Iran.
"One sometimes hears the expression, 'all options are on the table.' But some actions are contrary to international law," said Patriota.
Strait of Hormuz (Photo: Ebrahim Norouzi/Jamejamonline/Reuters)
The people who keep saying “all options are on the table,” with respect to Iran, include various U.S. and Israeli officials, and most importantly President Obama himself.
And everyone knows what they mean when they say “all options are on the table”: they reserve the “right” to bomb Iran if they don’t get what they want through non-military means, including economic sanctions.
But such an action would indeed be “contrary to law,” as Patriota suggested. In fact, it is a very serious crime under international law, and a clear violation of the United Nations Charter (Article 2). Even threatening to use military force against another UN member state – which President Obama and the Israeli government have done-- is a violation of the UN Charter.
Here in the United States, the media – especially the biggest TV and radio media that have the largest audience – have been producing war propaganda about the “threat” from Iran, in a virtual replay of the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The U.S. Congress, led by neoconservatives and the AIPAC (Israel) lobby, has been pushing to cut off diplomatic solutions. A resolution currently before the U.S. Senate would encourage military action against Iran for merely having the “capability” to produce a nuclear weapon – something that Brazil, Argentina, Japan, and other countries with peaceful nuclear energy programs already have.
And all this despite the fact that Iran is in compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, including the required inspections, and has shown no intention to violate the treaty. And the consensus view of America’s sixteen intelligence agencies, the New York Times reported on Saturday, is that “there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb.”
It is vitally important that nations who have an interest in maintaining the peace, and in a world more governed by international treaties and diplomacy – rather than by force – speak up, as Brazil has now done, before a war begins.
Patriota’s statement is very important. There is much more that can be done. Brazil could work with the BRICS grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and UNASUR (the Union of South American Nations) to get further statements and commitments. These groups or their member countries could issue statements about how they would respond to a country that carries out an unprovoked military attack on Iran. For example, they could pledge to recall their ambassadors from that country; break diplomatic relations; or review their commercial relations, with a possibility of selective economic sanctions.
It’s worth the effort, to prevent another unnecessary war and its inevitable atrocities.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
23 Comments so far
Show All"Antonio Patriota" has to be the most publicly appealing and marketable name for a national political figure since the name bestowed upon the inimitable former US Senator from Idaho, Frank Church.
On a serious note, this is indeed a wonderful development. It is useful to simply remind American political leaders of both major parties and United States media pundits that international law indeed does exist, and that no nation is at liberty to unilaterally declare something which is flatly illegal to be just "another policy option on the table." Like engaging in torture, waging or threatening to launch a preemptive war is not only immoral and reckless, but unlawful.
One would think that at this particular point in time Barack Obama would leap at the chance to respond favorably to this initiative from Brazil, to lower the loose war talk rhetoric and the tension level in the Persian Gulf, if only for reasons of domestic partisan calculation in an election year. Igniting a wider military conflagration in the Middle East is the last thing any sane person should want to see, especially the current president.
Bill from Saginaw
I am glad to hear about these efforts to stop the devastation. Even if they seem ineffective now, or turn out to be later, such efforts are worth a try.
This is what I've been saying for months now. Iran is not violating any laws or treaties - in fact, it is 100% in compliance with the law, including UN inspections. It has the legal right to develop nuclear power for energy purposes, which it is doing, as long as it allows inspectors in to make sure it is not developing weapons - again, which it is doing.
It is the U.S. and Israel - not Iran - who are violating international law by threatening to attack Iran. But - typically - the UN and most other nations are silent on this hypocrisy, because their leaders are either scared (no idea why they would be) of the big bad USA/Israel mafia, or else they are firmly in their pockets.
DemonStorm, you are exactly correct. According to the UN Charter, which the US approved as a treaty, member nations may not threaten to attack other nations. In the US Constitution, treaties are declared to be the supreme law of the land. Thus, threatening to attack other nations is not only illegal under international law, it is also illegal under US domestic law. If we were to ever again return to Constitutional government and rule-of-law in the USA. That is a big IF, because Bush II, Obama, successive Congresses, and the Supreme Court are all agreeing that the Constitution is just an old piece of paper, and that whatever the US President does is lawful and legal because the US President did it. How did this happen, that hundreds of politicians, from both parties, across a decade or more, all of them swearing an oath on the Bible to uphold and defend the US Constitution, and all of them with a few exceptions (Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney, who else?) deciding in repeated votes over and over and over, that the USA will not have Constitutional government and will not have rule-of-law? How has it happened?
It has happened because the Amereichan people have been systematically brainwashed over decades in Amereichan exceptionalism and a lack of critical thinking skills, not to mention no longer being taught the true meaning of the Constitution in schools. We have become apathetic, materialistic plebes. Ask any child you know about the Constitution. Most will give you a blank look. Ask them what any of the Amendments mean. You'll probably hear "freedom of speech," but nothing more. This has been PLANNED. If the citizens no longer even know what is in the Constitution, how can they give a damn if their government violates it on a daily basis?
Good for Brazil. A single sane voice in an insane world.
Of course it is contrary to law, but since when has the US obeyed the law? What is the world going to do if the US attacks - take it to the World Court, from whose rulings the US claims exemption, and will ignore even if that were not the case?
Let us be clear about this, shall we? The world is not governed by laws, it is governed by force. The US doesn't need or want any laws or democracy or countries which will interfere with its plans to own and exploit the world and its people, and will invade and kill at will to get what the "masters of mankind" want, which is everything and anything of value, all for themselves and nothing for anyone else.
"The real threat to U.S. military power is nuclear proliferation, because if every little country has nuclear weapons it becomes very tricky for the United States to engage in military action."
(Immanuel Wallerstein)
Thanks, you saved me some time by saying, very articulately, pretty much everything I thought when I read this.
Bingo. Right on the nose.
Meanwhile the US media is taking a leading role in promoting it. One wag said the NY Times is reporting on the attack by Israel against Iran as if it would be little more than a lunch date.
If international law had any serious court enforcement power behind it at the UN, it would be a different story altogether. The U.S. would need to respect the law as would any other country. That's not how it works. When it's convenient to flout the law, it is flouted. It beats to its own drummer, as it is their self-ordained (and their's only) right. And if countries threaten their hegemony, and the petrodollar that sustains War Policy, they become targeted as a rogue country or part of the so-called Axis of Evil, and for future invasion and regime change. I ask the question any 5th grader would ask: is this right?
More countries need to step up and speak out against this hostile empire that is feverishly working to criminalize political dissent in its own country and steal its people's freedom of speech and right of redress of government for grievances. The UN has to stand for a voice raised against international belligerence -- isn't that part of why it it exists? In American, the Constitution is not supposed to be just same quaint piece of paper that is cited or followed when it's convenient, and thrown away when it's not. Or apparently, with the NDAA going into effect today, it has become just that.
Good luck everyone.
"More countries need to step up and speak out against this hostile empire that is feverishly working to criminalize political dissent in its own country and steal its people's freedom of speech and right of redress of government for grievances. The UN has to stand for a voice raised against international belligerence" When have enough americans used their freedom of speech against international belligerence to have an effect, even against their own? Are americans perhaps reaping what's been sown by a silently assimilated complicity by duplicity?
Well-stated, Rgardener.
I believe that anyone, any organization or any country can petition the International Criminal Court to investigate and punish those who are committing crimes against international law when their own countries refuse to do so. Such an investigation of the U.S. might hasten the day when we no longer have the power or the money to make the whole world do what we want. (Wow.)
The announcement should also be considered in the context of the rest of Brazil's policies both internal and international.
The PAC -Program for Accelerated Growth- which almost across the board is bulldozing indigenous rights of Article 231 in the Federal Constitution as the Amazon is treated as the powerhouse for extractive industry; where indigenous peoples in the south are forced to live in virtual "concentration camps" while hundreds of thousands of hectares are funded for agribusiness for soy, sugar cane and other monocultures and the greatest boon to Monsanto, petrochemical companies and the 'latifundio' massive estate farms with contracted guns to silence anyone presenting restorative alternatives.
Just to keep in mind that this drags with it a strategic media banana peel on the human rights level as the Olympics and World Cup construction is bulldozing people - still comes from the logistics of the 1%.
Yes, is Brazil the model for purity and altruism? Hardly. That doesn't take away from the fact that Brazil’s foreign minister, Antonio Patriota, is correct in saying "One sometimes hears the expression, 'all options are on the table.' But some actions are contrary to international law"
So go ahead and call Brazil out on their internal policies, and rightfully so... but don't distract from the issue at hand by wanting to "contextualize" the statement with some completely unrelated issues. That's manipulative and dishonest.
Hardly manipulative or dishonest. I agree that Antonio Patriota is making a sound and important statement and gladly agree with you on that point. Thanks for the opportunity to reaffirm it.
The point is that "some actions are contrary to international law" is worth keeping in mind for the long term.
"The point is that "some actions are contrary to international law" is worth keeping in mind for the long term."
Very much agree with that statement. You go on to say:
"bulldozing indigenous rights of Article 231 in the Federal Constitution as the Amazon is treated as the powerhouse for extractive industry"
Which is a truly horrible thing, but is technically not against international law, though perhaps domestic Brazilian law. But this is an entirely different issue. One could interpret it as a pot/kettle situation, though not to the same degree as if Mr. Patriota's statement was made by Colombia's FM for example.
This is an interesting point of particular interest in virtually every aspect of what people in resistance around the world are talking about (say, Occupy movement). Technicality is probably one of the most important aspects of the runaway expansion of illegitimate power. Were it not for these same powers abusing domestic rights and imposing veiled suppression through say, trade agreements, in order to acquire resources (why and how are US military forces in the middle east; US industries in low wage countries?) taking international treaties on human and particularly indigenous rights as manipulable conveniences... I'd submit that its worth keeping in mind and ultimately a false dichotomy. At the same time, I'd reiterate that this in no way detracts from the sound statement of the Minister. Its simply an existing context to keep in mind - perhaps not for you.
Fair Enough. :) Point taken.
Some very good comments here, and I thank all the posters for their input.
You know it never ceases to stun me, the utter arrogance and lack of humility on the part of these assholes who so quickly condemn other nations for aspiring to a small measure of the destructive capacity that we, the US have, to wage war on the world. Who the hell are we to tell another country they can't possess nuclear weapons? We are the only country in the history of mankind to actually use them on civilians. The greatest purveyor of violence in the world, as MLK said years ago. These lunatics who we have allowed to run our government talk of war like it was a game, because for them it is one. They will have no personal stake in the bloodfest; none of their loved ones will be sacrificed. How 'bout making it absolutely necessary for all who have a part in the decision to engage in armed conflict to actually serve on the front lines? That would eliminate 99% of all the false bravado and sabre rattling. What total assholes! If we do start a war with Iran, I hope all my brothers will join me in the true patriot cause, and bring this evil government down! The Day of Reckoning draws near..........
Coordinated political and economic pressure from the BRICS, UNASUR, Shanghai CO, NAM, and similar regional and trans-regional groups is the best way forward. Tomorrow Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and who next.
"We must realize, and make sure others realize that we all share the same destiny. Unity, in this global age, means that we have a common destiny, of life, and of death. The universal is no longer abstraction, but specific, because what is at stake is the fate of a specific planet and its specific inhabitants, facing the specific problems of life, death, and progress."
----- Edgar Morin