The grotesque fraud of international pseudo-governmental bodies
Can someone explain what gives the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council any legal authority over Iran’s nuclear program? India developed nuclear weapons. Pakistan developed nuclear weapons. Israel developed nuclear weapons (though without publicly admitting it). North Korea developed nuclear weapons. I don’t remember that IAEA and the UN issuing lot of resolutions against those countries.
Of course I’m not saying that the Iranian nuclear weapons program is not a threat. I think it is a terrible threat, and I think that the only way the threat can be stopped is through the use of military force by the U.S. or Israel to destroy or degrade Iran’s nuclear program. But that’s not my point here. My point is, what gives the UN or the IAEA or the “international community” any legal power over Iran?
Below is a UN document that illustrates the UN’s (as it seems to me) illegitimate interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, as well as its impotence. In July 2006, after three years of expressing “concerns,” the Security Council finally declared that Iran would face diplomatic and economic sanctions if it did not suspend its nuclear enrichment related activities. Of course Iran did not suspend those activities, and of course the UN did nothing about it. And now, three years later, after many similar such warnings, and many similar refusals, there have still been no sanctions.
Resolution 1696 (2006) Adopted by Vote of 14—1 ( Qatar),As I said, the UN’s demands on Iran are (as far as I can tell) without legitimate authority, and its warnings are an exercise in impotence. That’s because the UN is not a real political entity with real power and real accountability to any real people. Nor can it acquire such power unless it becomes sovereign, which would mean world government, which must never happen. Therefore the only way that a serious threat such as the development of Iranian nuclear weapons can be stopped is by a sovereign nation—or an alliance of such nations—acting in its own interests. Only a sovereign nation has the right to warn a potential aggressor that it must cease its aggression, and only an armed nation has the ability to make warnings that count.
A. Zarkov writes:
Mr. Auster asks: “Can someone explain what gives the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council any legal authority over Iran’s nuclear program?” The short answer is Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The four countries not a party to the treaty are: Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Notice that Iran is a party to the treaty, and that’s what gives the UN some authority over Iran’s nuclear development program. Of course Iran is free to withdraw from the treaty, but I suspect they don’t want to because it confers some advantage to them to stay in it.LA replies:
Thanks for the information. So the UN and the IAEA do have legal authority to require Iran not to develop nuclear weapons, and to investigate it to make sure it’s not doing so. But unfortunately this doesn’t change the basic picture I outlined, since the UN lacks the will and ability to enforce the treaty. It doesn’t even seek to punish Iran by diplomatic and economic sanctions, even though Iran has been blatantly violating the treaty for years. The treaty therefore is meaningless. Nations may sign a treaty, and an international body like the UN may have paper authority to enforce it, but not real authority, because it’s not a real political entity. Indeed the ultimate goal of the movement of which the UN is the highest expression is to eliminate real political entities, nation-states, because nation-states exercise power and make all kind of discriminations that bring inequality and injustice into the world. The aim is a world of equality and peace, without separate nation-states and their mutual power struggles. But the problem is that without nations-states capable of waging power struggles, there is no power that can enforce treaties and combat aggression. Yes, the UN could become a world government. But a government constituted of member states that have turned themselves into non-entities in the act of forming that world government will still lack the ability to act. Even countries that are still sovereign will not act unless their interests are at stake. Let’s say that there was a central African country practicing genocide against a minority tribe. The UN calls on its member states to use force to stop this genocide. But where would the will to fight and die come from? UN soldiers from Canada or Jordan will no motive to kill and die to protect central Africans. Only actual national states representing actual people and having relevant concrete interests and responsibilities will have the will to enforce anything.LA writes:
By way of partial excuse for my not knowing that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is what gives the “international community” the power to demand that Iran stop its nuclear weapon development, of perhaps hundreds of news and opinion articles I’ve read about the Iran nuclear issue over the last several years, I don’t remember one mentioning the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As we see with journalism generally, the underlying structural or legal information needed to understand an issue is not given; it’s assumed that everyone already knows about it—this, in a society where ignorance of the most basic matters is widespread and never judged! Or else it’s assumed that people simply don’t need to know.October 19
Ken Hechtman from Canada, VFR’s own window into the mind of the left, writes:
You wrote:LA replies:
By “it,” in “it’s going to happen,” I assume Mr. Hechtman means a true global army under the command of a true global government with the means and will to fight real wars against local oppressors. I don’t agree. I think the inherent problems of such an army will prevent its ever coming into being, though the left will keep trying.Ken Hechtman writes:
I don’t see a true global army happening any time soon. For the foreseeable future, the UN will need to borrow troops from national governments the same way it always has. What I think will change is that some national governments will become more willing to lend their troops to such missions. They won’t think of it as “acting outside their national interests.” They’re going to believe stopping genocides and state failures is in everyone’s national interest.October 20
Mark P. writes:
Ken Hechtman is smoking way too much of his medical marijuana if he thinks that “lending” military forces is somehow going to continue. Eventually, people will stop caring.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 18, 2009 04:11 PM | Send