Well, you have probably been wondering what prompted
the Chief of the Armed Forces General Staff, General Yury Baluevsky, to announce
last week that Russia was re-thinking its national security policy and that
"We have no plans to attack anyone. But we consider it necessary for
all our partners in the world community to clearly understand that to defend
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military
force will be used – preemptively – including the use of nuclear weapons."
Perhaps it was the presentation just days before of a 150-page manifesto to
the Pentagon in Washington and to NATO's Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer,
to be discussed at a NATO summit – to which Russia has "observer"
status – in Bucharest in April.
An important conclusion of the manifesto is reported
"The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the [NATO] quiver of escalation
as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction."
The authors of the manifesto are reported to be (a) General John Shalikashvili,
the former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Supreme NATO
Supreme Commander, (b) German General Klaus Naumann, former Chairman of NATO's
Military Committee, (c) General Henk van den Breemen, former Chief of Staff
the Netherland's armed forces, (d) Admiral Jacques Lanxade, former French armed
forces Chief of Staff, and (e) Lord Inge, former Chief of Staff of the British
The NATO grand pooh-bahs have reportedly called for an overhaul of NATO decision-taking
methods, and an end to "obstruction" of its decisions by the European Union
and other international organizations.
In particular, NATO will henceforth use force whenever "immediate action is
needed to protect large numbers of human beings," even if not authorized
by the United Nations Security Council.
You see, ever since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, that pesky
Security Council – with Russia and China having veto power – keeps getting in
the way of the establishment by the neo-crazies of an American Hegemony.
In 1997, as a consequence of the positive reports made to the Security Council
by the International Atomic Energy Agency and by the UN Special Commission on
the destruction of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" programs,
Russia and China attempted to get the Security Council to lift the sanctions
imposed in 1991.
However, President Clinton made it clear that he didn't care whether Iraq had
certifiably destroyed all its WMD or not, he would never
allow the Security Council sanctions to be lifted so long as Saddam Hussein
was in power. Then he bombed Baghdad.
And, as we now know,
Lord Goldsmith, Prime Minister Blair's Attorney General, issued a formal opinion
in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, that UN
Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force
against Iraq, that a second resolution – which would be adamantly opposed by
Russia and China – would be necessary.
Finally we come to UNSCR
1747 of 24 March, 2007, which began with the Security Council first
"Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons, the need for all States Party to that Treaty to comply fully
with all their obligations, and recalling the right of States Party, in conformity
with Articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use
of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination,"
but then proceeding to deny Iran all its NPT rights.
Furthermore, the Security Council "called" upon all States to deny
Iran any and all items on the UN Register on Conventional Arms!
Here's what Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki had
to say [.pdf] when he was allowed to address the Security Council, after
– of course – UNSCR 1747 had already passed.
"This is the fourth time in the last 12 months that in an unwarranted
move, orchestrated by a few of its permanent members, the Security Council is
being abused to take an unlawful, unnecessary and unjustifiable action against
the peaceful nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which presents
no threat to international peace and security and falls therefore outside the
Council's Charter-based mandate.
"In order to give this scheme a semblance of international legitimacy,
its initiators first manipulated the IAEA Board of Governor and – as they acknowledged
themselves – "coerced" some of its members to vote against Iran in
the Board, and then have taken advantage of their substantial economic and political
power to pressure and manipulate the Security Council to adopt three unwarranted
resolutions within 8 months.
"Undoubtedly, those resolutions cannot indicate universal acceptance,
particularly when the heads of state of nearly two thirds of UN members, who
belong to the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of the Islamic Conference,
supported Iran's positions as recently as September 2006 and expressed concern
about policies pursued inside the Security Council.
"As an organ of an international Organization created by States, the Security
Council is bound by law, and Member States have every right to insist that the
Council keep within the powers that they accorded it under the Charter of the
"The Security Council must exercise those powers consistently with the purposes
and principles of the Charter.
"Equally, the measures it takes must be consistent with the purposes
and principles of the United Nations and with other international law. Members
of the Security Council do not have the right to undermine the Council's credibility.
"I ask you: Does the adoption of the present Resolution strengthen
international peace and security? Does it augment the credibility of important
international mechanisms such as the NPT, the IAEA and even this very Council?
"Does it enhance the confidence of countries and developing nations
that they can attain their rights through these mechanisms and instruments?
"Certainly, the answer to all these questions is no."
Obviously the neo-crazies can never effect regime change in Iran – much less
establish an American Hegemony – if they have to comply with such terms and
But, in 1999 the Security Council would not authorize President Clinton
and Prime Minister Blair to attack Kosovo, so they
turned to NATO.
Then, in 2001, because Russia and China did not object, the Security Council
did authorize the NATO-led International
Security Assistance Force to invade Afghanistan and depose the Taliban, which
had been protecting al-Qaeda.
Of course, things in Afghanistan have since gone from bad to worse for NATO,
What to do?
Well, put an end to "obstruction" by the United Nations and other pesky international
organizations. Unleash NATO. Make "first use of nuclear weapons" the
NATO "ultimate instrument."
That ought to do it.