Last week, thousands of angry demonstrators attacked
United Nations headquarters in Beirut in an outpouring of grief, anger, and
frustration at yet another Qana massacre.
Although not a demonstrator herself, refugee Sawsan Ali from southern Lebanon
wished the UN would "disappear because its presence is as useless as its non-presence."
"The UN never helped us. It always favors Israel with all its atrocities,
and bows down in front of the U.S. and Israeli will. It is a UN for the strong
nations, not small and peaceful countries like ours."
Meanwhile, back at UN headquarters in New York, Bonkers Bolton prevented the
Security Council from condemning Israel for it atrocious actions, while strong-arming
it into passing Resolution
"Acting under Article 40 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the
"1. Calls upon Iran without further delay to take
the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors in its resolution GOV/2006/14,
which are essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose
of its nuclear program and to resolve outstanding questions;
"2. Demands, in this context, that Iran shall
suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research
and development, to be verified by the IAEA…."
What does that mean – acting under Article 40?
Well, in this case it means the Board of Directors of the International Atomic
Energy Agency has asked the Security Council to determine under Article 39 that
Iran's refusal to re-suspend certain IAEA Safeguarded activities constitutes
a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression."
Understandably, the Security Council has refused to make such a determination,
and has, instead, invoked Article 40:
"In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security
Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures
provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with
such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional
measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of
the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure
to comply with such provisional measures."
The Security Council went on to underline "the necessity of the
IAEA continuing its work to clarify all outstanding issues relating to Iran's
nuclear program, and calls upon Iran to act in accordance with the provisions
of the Additional Protocol and to implement without delay all transparency measures
as the IAEA may request in support of its ongoing investigations."
In other words, the Security Council has once again refused to make
the determination that Bonkers Bolton has been demanding.
So, once again, Bonkers repeated
the false allegations he had previously made about Iran's IAEA Safeguarded
programs and repeated the false claim that the Security Council actually had
actually made the determination he had been demanding.
"Four months have passed since the Security Council called upon Iran
to fully and verifiably suspend its nuclear programs, and nearly two months
have passed since the EU3-plus-three made its generous offer inviting Iran to
enter into negotiations and avoid further Security Council Action.
"Let us not forget that this diplomatic activity was preceded by more
than three years of Iranian noncompliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty and its IAEA Safeguards Agreement.
"Sadly, Iran has consistently and brazenly defied the international
community by continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the continued intransigence
and defiance of the Iranian leadership demands a strong response from this Council.
"The resolution before us today does just that.
"Mr. President, we are pleased the Council has taken clear and firm action
in passing this resolution. The pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran constitutes
a direct threat to international peace and security and demands a clear statement
from the Council in the form of a tough resolution."
What did the Iranians have to say
about Bolton's outrageous strong-arm tactics?
"Today's proposed action by this Council – which is the culmination
of those efforts aimed at making the suspension of uranium enrichment mandatory
– violates the fundamental principles of international law, the Nonproliferation
Treaty, and IAEA Board resolutions. It also runs counter to the views of the
majority of UN member states, which the Security Council is obliged to represent.
"The sole reason for pushing the Council to take action, as highlighted
in the proposed resolution, is that Iran decided, after over two years of negotiations,
to resume the exercise of its inalienable right to nuclear technology for peaceful
purposes, by partially reopening its fully safeguarded facilities and ending
a voluntary suspension."