SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Can a Security Council 'Coalition of the Unwilling' Defy Washington's Sanctions Crusade?
Sanctions that don’t work vs. diplomacy that does
May 20, 2010
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.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Phyllis Bennis
Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and serves on the national board of Jewish Voice for Peace. Her most recent book is "Understanding Palestine and Israel" (2025). Her other books include: "Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer" (2008) and "Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power" (2005).
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 is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and serves on the national board of Jewish Voice for Peace. Her most recent book is "Understanding Palestine and Israel" (2025). Her other books include: "Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer" (2008) and "Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power" (2005).
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.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.