Can a Security Council 'Coalition of the Unwilling' Defy Washington's Sanctions Crusade?

Published on
by
CommonDreams.org

Can a Security Council 'Coalition of the Unwilling' Defy Washington's Sanctions Crusade?

Sanctions that don’t work vs. diplomacy that does

The U.S. crusade for new UN sanctions against Iran has been underway for a long time. But the new intensity, the new scurrying around to make sure China and Russia are on board, and the new scramble for an immediate public announcement all reflect Washington's frustration with the new agreement with Iran brokered by Turkey and Brazil. That agreement requires Iran to send about half of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey in return for somewhat higher-enriched prepared fuel rods for use in its medical reactor, which is pretty close to what the U.S. and its allies were demanding of Iran just months ago.

So the harsh U.S. response — condemning the agreement as "just words," demanding that Iran make even more concessions, implying that only a complete and utter Iranian surrender would suffice — makes it clear that U.S. policy towards Iran isn't about an actual nuclear weapons threat, but about power politics. There’s no question the United States is really mad: Reports are circulating around the UN that Washington is up to its old habits of issuing implicit threats against the two upstart diplomatic powers. Brazil has been angling for a permanent Security Council seat and Turkey has long been trying to join the European Union. No dice on either one, U.S. diplomats seem to be hinting.

New UN sanctions are not going to stop Iran's nuclear enrichment, still legal under the NPT and still under UN nuclear inspections. Instead, like economic sanctions against any country with a repressive government, they're far more likely to impact the civilian population. The Brazil-Turkey initiative, on the other hand, actually takes major steps towards transferring much of Iran’s enriched uranium out of the country, increasing international oversight of its nuclear power program and, if allowed to go forward without U.S. interference, could well lead to a significant diminution of Iran's future enrichment. If that were really the goal of the U.S. anti-Iran mobilization, you'd think Washington would be pleased. Instead, many in Congress and the Obama administration appear to be working as hard as they can to undermine the Brazil-Turkey initiative, even though (or maybe because) it might lead to a resolution of the current crisis.

New UN sanctions could derail the new tripartite agreement. But there's one thing that could prevent that danger: a renewed level of independence in the UN Security Council. U.S. pressure seems to have won promises from Russia and China that they won’t veto a harsh new sanctions regime — but that's not the same as a promise to vote for the sanctions.

If current council members Brazil and Turkey can convince some of their allies to resist U.S. pressure, abstentions by Russia and China (and maybe even France?) could allow a new "coalition of the unwilling" to prevent the sanctions because not enough countries voted for them.

Led by Turkey and Brazil, non-permanent Council members (whom the U.S. and the other veto-holders rarely consult on Iran policy) could stop a sanctions move in its tracks. Can President Lula and Prime Minister Erdogan convince a country like Japan, which has more reason than most countries to want to abolish nukes, to vote against useless sanctions and instead give the new diplomatic initiative time to work? Might other council members (Lebanon, Mexico, Austria, Gabon, Bosnia, Nigeria) be persuaded that a new round of sanctions will do nothing to stop Iran's enrichment, but will undermine the new initiative that might do just that?

The UN Security Council said no to U.S.-British pressure in late 2002 and early 2003, when Washington and London tried to coerce Council members to endorse Bush's war in Iraq. That time, Germany, France, and Russia led the opposition, and the "Uncommitted Six" (Guinea, Cameroon, Angola, Pakistan, Chile and again, Mexico) refused. The Six said no and finally, on February 15, 2003, the world "said no to war" in massive protests in 665 cities around the world. Washington and London backed down and announced they were giving up their campaign for a UN endorsement.

The Security Council stood defiant once before to try to stop a U.S. war. Maybe it can do so again, so that U.S.-led UN sanctions don’t destroy the best diplomatic solution we’ve seen for a very dangerous crisis.

Phyllis Bennis

Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.  Her books include Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer, Understanding the U.S.-Iran Crisis: A Primer, Ending the Iraq War: A Primer, and most recently Ending the Us War in Afghanistan: A Primer. If you want to receive her talking points and articles on a regular basis, click here and choose "New Internationalism." You can find her on Facebook here: http://www.facebook.com/PhyllisBennis

Share This Article

More in: