- The Non-Aligned Movement is an international organization
of 118 countries who have declared their ideological opposition to any
sort of foreign intervention, hegemony, colonialism, domination, aggression
and imperialism. The member states of NAM constitute 55% of the world population
and represent two-thirds of the UN members. Fundamentally, the criteria
of membership in NAM is "independence" and inclination to self-determination.
As a result, the members of Non-Aligned Movement come from four corners
of the world with various cultural, lingual, religious and racial backgrounds
and a common principle which is opposition to imperialistic inequality.
-
- In practice, NAM works as a global coalition of nations
who share common objectives and ideals. They haven't come together randomly
nor have they been imposed on the other nations and countries unfairly.
Despite being in majority, they never endeavored to dictate their own will
to the international community since they understand that the term "international
community" does not solely encompass the U.S. and Israel.
-
- Another international body is the 15-member United Nations
Security Council which is seen to be the foremost organ within the UN system
that is capable of deciding the destiny of wars and conflicts, maintaining
the global peace and taking care of member states not to violate the international
regulations (however, it won't be that important if they violate the international
regulations themselves! Which international body has the authority to survey
the performance of the UNSC members and their adherence to international
regulations?)
-
- The establishment of peacekeeping missions, implementation
of sanctions and authorization of military actions are the main powers
UNSC holds in order to exercise whenever "necessary".
-
- China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and the United
States have teamed up on the grounds of their successful victory in the
World War II. They consequently shaped a circle of friends which tended
to be called the Security Council. Whenever these friends come to a conclusion
regarding an international problem or crisis collectively, they make a
joint decision which is called "resolution" and the other countries
are obliged to give in to the resolution irrevocably.
-
- These five countries (the permanent members of Security
Council) possess an authority which is called the right of veto. It means
that once you persuade or dissuade one of these Big Fives through bribery
and enticement, the destiny of our world would have the potentiality to
change drastically. Simply speaking, there are five countries who decide
for some 193 countries and this is exactly the "equality" the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to!: "All human beings
are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason
and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
-
- Surprisingly, the right of veto which the permanent members
of UNSC hold in order to impose their own will on the other nations
- is also reflected in the paragraph 1 of the UN Charter's Article 2: "the
Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all
its Members".
-
- "The sovereign equality of" all the members
of the United Nations denotes that 5 is equal to or bigger than any other
three-digit number; whether it's the number of UN Members or NAM members.
-
- During the past 5 years, Iran has been under the incessant
threats of military strike by the U.S. and Israel over its nuclear program.
This is exactly what the paragraph 4 of the Article 2 expresses: "all
Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat
or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence
of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of
the United Nations."
-
- In August 2006, the former chief of Pakistan's Military
Intelligence, Major General Hameed Gul "predicted" that America
would definitely attack Iran and Syria simultaneously in October, according
to a Global Research report.
-
- Even the progressive American journalist Juan Cole had
believed the propagandistic lie. He wrote in April 2006 "surely the
present US regime will attack Iran. I certainly pray that they do not use
nuclear weapons."
-
- In a September 2006 article, American progressive politician,
Paul Craig Roberts suggested that the Bush administration had planned to
attack Iran unilaterally: "The neoconservative Bush administration
will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only
way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli)
hegemony in the Middle East."
-
- While campaigning for the presidential elections, Hillary
Clinton told the ABC's Good Morning America that the U.S. has the capability
to obliterate Iran: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president,
we will attack Iran."
-
- In June 2008, an Israeli deputy Prime Minister Shaul
Mofaz warned that Israel will definitely attack Iran if it does not halt
its nuclear program: "If Iran continues with its program for developing
nuclear weapons, we will attack it."
-
- In a July 2008 report, UK's Times Online quoted an unidentified
"senior" Pentagon official who was almost sure that a military
strike against Iran would take place in months: "President George
W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve
a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations
with Tehran break down".
-
- The same month, John Bolton gave an interview to the
Daily Telegraph in which he predicted that "Israel will attack Iran
before new U.S. president sworn in." This was one of the most famous
and interesting "predifalsifiction"s regarding an imminent Israeli
strike against Iran.
-
- Over the past 5 years, such brutal statements have been
made by the American and Israeli officials recurrently, subjecting Iran
to the most lethal and relentless psychological operations ever carried
out. Although these hawkish statements violated the UN Charter and Universal
Declaration of Human Rights to immeasurable extents, nobody could even
ring a simple alarm to caution against the growing Iranophobia manufactured
by AIPAC and the rest of Zionist lobbies which direct the foreign policy
of the United State.
-
- The Non-Aligned Movement about which we talked earlier
has reiterated several times (as the IAEA did) that Iran's nuclear program
is aimed at civilian purposes and does not have anything to do with military
applications. The 118-country bloc has backed Iran's nuclear program in
numerous statements and announced that repeated threats of military strike
violate the international regulations.
-
- In their March 3 statement read out in the meeting of
IAEA's board of governors, they expressed their support of Iran's nuclear
program categorically.
-
- "States' choices and decisions, including those
of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear
technology and its fuel policies must be respected", the statement
reads.
-
- "NAM strongly believes that all safeguards and verification
issues, including those related to Iran, should be resolved within the
IAEA framework, and be based on technical and legal grounds. NAM further
emphasizes that the Agency should continue its work to resolve the Iranian
nuclear issue within its mandate under the Statute of the IAEA", it
continued.
-
- The Non-Aligned Movement also emphasized the rectitude
of Iran's nuclear program: "NAM also takes note that the Director
General has stated once again that the Agency has been able to continue
to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."
-
- Anyway, the equations of power within the international
frameworks demand that bullying powers disregard the interests of the rest
of the world and misrepresent a great majority which wants to have its
own say. It doesn't matter that a coalition of 118 countries wants to back
Iran's civilian nuclear program and oppose to militarism.
-
- What really matters is the inclination of the Big Fives.
They can launch attacks, impose sanctions and stage psychological operations
whenever they desire. That's why we should believe that politically, 5
is far bigger than 118, and there isn't any argument to reject this categorical
conclusion.
|
