NEW YORK - "If the governments of the
United States or the United Kingdom, who are
permanent members of the Security Council, commit
aggression, occupation and violation of
international law, which of the organs of the
United Nations can take them to account?"
The question came from Iranian President
Mahmud Ahmadinejad during his speech to the world
body's General Assembly on Tuesday. Instead of
merely defending his nation's nuclear
program, which the United
States and its European allies suspect is aimed at
building weapons, he questioned the very
legitimacy of the 15-member Security Council
itself.
"Can the council in which they are
privileged members address their violations? Has
this ever happened?" he asked. "If they have
differences with a nation or state, they drag it
to the Security Council as claimants, arrogate to
themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor,
judge and executioners. Is this a just order?"
Though the Iranian leader's questions
about the nature of international decision-making
mechanisms are not new, they certainly represent
the views and aspirations of the vast majority of
the 192-member UN General Assembly that does not
enjoy the privilege of implementing its decisions,
as do the members of the Security Council.
Ahmadinejad, whose nation's nuclear
program is being scrutinized by the council, said
the governments that benefited from nuclear energy
had themselves abused nuclear technology for
non-peaceful ends, including the production of
nuclear weapons.
"All our national
activities are transparent, peaceful and under the
watchful eyes of the International Atomic Energy
Agency," he said. "Why then are there objections
to our legally recognized rights?"
All
five permanent members of the Security Council -
the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom,
France and China - possess thousands of nuclear
weapons among them, and are unwilling to reduce or
dismantle their arsenals.
Earlier, in his
own speech to the General Assembly, US President
George W Bush reiterated the charge that Iran was
trying to build nuclear weapons and warned that it
"must abandon its nuclear ambitions".
However, in contrast to past statements,
Bush assumed a somewhat softer tone, adding that
he was willing to work on "a diplomatic solution"
to the Iranian nuclear program.
Bush did
not say that he wanted a "regime change" in
Tehran, but accused the Islamic Shi'ite government
of denying "liberty" to its citizens and using
national resources to "fund terrorism, fuel
extremism and pursue nuclear weapons".
"We
look to the day when you can live in freedom,"
said the US president, addressing the Iranian
people directly. "America and Iran can be good
friends [then] and close partners in the cause of
peace."
Last month, when Iran failed to
abide by a UN Security Council resolution calling
for suspension of activities related to uranium
enrichment, Washington tried hard to gather
support for possible sanctions against Tehran, but
failed.
In the past, both Russia and China
have expressed reservations about sanctions,
arguing that only diplomatic dialogue could
resolve the controversy surrounding the Iranian
nuclear program.
On Monday, France, a
permanent veto-wielding member of the council,
also signaled its opposition to sanctions when
President Jacques Chirac said he did not believe
that suspension of uranium enrichment should be a
precondition for dialogue with Iran.
But
he changed his mind a day after meeting with Bush,
saying: "We cannot have negotiations if we do not
have suspension of [uranium enrichment]
beforehand."
Recently, Bush, who considers
Iran part of an "axis of evil", described Iran's
failure to meet the Security Council deadline as
an act of "defiance" and warned Tehran of
"consequences".
Chirac's remarks before
the General Assembly suggested that France is not
fully in line with Washington regarding the Bush
administration's desire to see a change of
political leadership in Tehran.
"We do not
call regimes into question," he said. "We aim to
ensure security in accordance with international
law and with due regard for the sovereignty of all
countries."
France is part of the European
Union troika, along with Germany and Britain, that
tried to use a package of economic incentives in
return for the suspension of Tehran's uranium
enrichment, but in vain.
Though critical
of Iran's refusal to stop enrichment-related
activities, the Vienna-based International Atomic
Energy Agency has so far been unable to
substantiate the US and European suspicions about
the military nature of Iran's nuclear program.
Unlike India, Pakistan and Israel, three
unofficial nuclear-armed states, Iran has ratified
the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and thus is
bound to abide by its rules. Iran justifies its
nuclear program because the treaty allows
non-nuclear weapons states to pursue nuclear
technology for peaceful purposes.
As
expected, Bush's speech before the General
Assembly was laden with the themes of "terrorism",
"freedom" and "democracy". He defended his
administration's policy on the Middle East and
claimed that democracy was gaining ground in the
region.
"From Beirut to Baghdad, people
are making the choice for freedom," he said. "The
nations gathered in this chamber must make a
choice as well ... We will stand with the
moderates and reformers."
Reacting to the
speech, critics described Bush's claims for
success in the "war on terror" and advances in
democracy as superficial and hollow.
"Fine
words are cheap," said Noam Chomsky, a leading
scholar and critic of US foreign policy. "What the
Bush administration has done, more
characteristically, is to destroy hope, bring
prosperity to a few and terror to the many."
On Tuesday, as Bush was on his way to the
world body's headquarters, thousands of New
Yorkers assembled a few blocks away shouting
slogans demanding an end to the US occupation of
Iraq.
"Hey, hey, ho, ho, Bush regime has
got to go," shouted the crowds, with placards and
banners demanding unconditional withdrawal of US
troops from Iraq.
"We want an immediate
end to this war," said Susan Chenelle of the
national anti-war coalition United for Peace and
Justice, which organized the rally. "This is a
protest against Bush's 'freedom agenda' because we
believe that occupying other countries is not the
path to freedom."
While Bush spoke of
freedom and democracy, leaders of some key
developing nations emphasized that the issue of
war and peace could not be separated from efforts
to address the inequalities between and within
nations.
"The true path to peace is shared
development," said Brazilian President Luiz Inacio
Lula da Silva. "If we do not want war to go
global, justice must go global."
Speaking
on behalf of China and the G77, the largest bloc
of developing nations at the UN, South African
President Thabo Mbeki lashed out at rich nations
for failing to take responsibility to eradicate
hunger, disease and poverty from the world.
"Although the rich and powerful know the
miserable life circumstances of the poor," said
Mbeki, "their attitude and response resemble that
of the biblical Cain, who killed his brother,
Abel. When the Lord asked him, 'Where is Abel,
your brother?' he replied: 'I don't know. Am I my
brother's keeper?'"
