The title is not simply a catchphrase. It is the harsh reality of a troubled world, led by grown-up “children” who are already mature or even old. Frightened “children” who are, at the same time, ferocious, astute - some are dangerously intelligent - afflicted with a well-nourished cocktail of moral deficiencies: irresponsible egoism, envy, uncontrolled greed, insane vanity and a sincere enthusiasm for lying - generally more lucrative than telling the truth. At a moral level, and at any given moment in history, there is not much difference between a caveman and a large number of government leaders. Such “leaders”, at base infantile and shortsighted, guide their peoples to happiness or disaster, with a predominance of the latter. Sometimes, a trivial, mediocre governor of limited “creativity” is found to be more useful to his people than a virulent “patriot” - Hitler, for example, and several others that I dare not mention, fearing covert revenge, full of “grandiose projects” in favor of their beloved country. At least the lackluster leader does not hinder the normal growth of his community and leaves neighboring countries to live in peace.
Ordinary individuals - the governed - are more restricted by moral standards, fear of the police or neighborhood gossip. They are concerned with upholding their promises. However, when transformed into government leaders, they re-write the moral code, adopting more “flexible” standards. This is justified by saying: - “We have reached a new threshold... Adopting an overview, looking into the future, it is necessary to sacrifice many ‘things’ previously considered as correct”. They rise in status but fall in character. Forced by a need (or mere economic convenience) to protect their subjects from external egoism, they also start to lie and hatch plots, bringing cunning to bear against cunning. They defend themselves in this manner: - “If I do not defend my country, even by lying and using fallacious reasoning, from this arrogant and untruthful mob of foreign enemies or false friends, nobody will. Not even God, in His divine loathing of international intrigues, will lift a finger to save the weakest peoples. Perhaps it is because He sees that suffering is the surest way to purify the soul, His only interest in mankind. If He did not protect the Jews during the Holocaust, He will certainly not protect the Iranians now from the approaching massacre, planned by the descendents of the survivors of the aforementioned Holocaust. We will back the likely winners, after all, we will profit from them! Nobody ever got rich by backing the weakest runner”.
I would like to ask you - the reader - if I am exaggerating with respect to that which has happened recently in the international arena? I do not think so. Whatever your “leaning” in the conflict (which has not yet reached the level of aggression) between the Israel-USA consortium and Iran, it cannot be denied that the Security Council has become a kind of Chamber of Commerce, where all votes have a price. A price, really, and I am not speaking figuratively. “Money, business”.
Even though a reasonable accord was reached - thanks to Turkey and Brazil - in which Iran agreed with the American proposal (put forward several months ago) of delivering, under the responsibility of a European country, a large portion of its nuclear fuel for enrichment to 20%, for clearly non-military purposes (in order to fabricate a bomb, enrichment would have to attain a level of 90%), the USA immediately requested a meeting of the Security Council for imposition of further sanctions, without giving Iran time to discuss or even think about these new requirements. It is the wish of the “heavyweight USA-Israel duo” (although I am not saying this explicitly), that Iran totally interrupt any advance in its development of nuclear technology, for either peaceful or military purposes. It is alleged that they fear that the current Iranian president could, within a few months or years, come to fabricate nuclear weapons, a privilege which, from the point of view of the “darned duo”, can only be and should only be the right of a few “superior countries” (including the aforementioned pair), which are already tremendously powerful in terms of conventional and atomic weapons. In justifying this inequality of treatment, the duo alleges that the current Iranian government is dictatorial and primitive, to the point of allowing the lashing of thieves in public squares, the stoning of adulterers and other really primitive practices, although such practices are still part of the ancestral (and even religious) Islamic tradition. Criticism of such customs is justified, but it is necessary to consider that here one is dealing with a culture that is not going to disappear overnight, even though it should disappear.
As this article does not intend to discuss the origins and variants of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Iran is a mere metastasis of the political cancer that has never been excised), I am going to limit myself to demonstrating that the Security Council is becoming a Chamber of Commerce.
All those who accompany international news regarding the “Iranian threat” are reminded that China and Russia showed themselves to be against the use of further sanctions against Iran. Suddenly, on the eve of the voting session for further sanctions, China changed its stance. Why? Clarification is provided by the more courageous media, indicating that this abrupt turnaround occurred because the Israeli government explained in sobering detail to China that it intends to attack and destroy Iranian facilities used for extracting oil. With such a perspective, China would lose this precious source of oil for a long period. For this reason, Beijing thought that it would be more prudent to approve the new Security Council sanctions and maintain its supply of oil, which will not be affected by such sanctions. “Just business, nothing against Iran”. The sudden change of stance by the Chinese is thus explained.
Now, let us examine the Russian explanation. Everyone knows that Russia signed a contract with Iran for the sale of ground-to-air S-300 missiles. It was only necessary to deliver such missiles, which are solely a means of defense, destined to bring down aircraft and rockets in the event of an attack on the country. The Russian government, even after the Security Council decision to create further sanctions, stated that such ground-to-air missiles would be delivered, as they could not be classified as “offensive weapons” and that the contracts should be honored. There followed secret talks and Putin changed his stance, saying that the missiles would no longer be delivered. I do not know whether some kind of advance payment had been made.
Why did the Putin administration decide to change its mind? Because if Russia delivered the aforementioned defensive missiles to Iran, Sarkozy’s France (discreetly pro-Israel) would cease to provide Russia with something that is greatly desired in order to combat Chechen separatists: Mistral class amphibious assault ships, which can get very close to the beach, each vessel carrying 16 attack helicopters, 4 landing craft, 70 combat vehicles, 13 tanks and 450 soldiers. Such amphibious vessels even have 69 hospital beds. The sale of one Mistral class ship was already agreed and the sale of another four was being considered. Faced with perspective of losing the deal with the French, if he vetoed sanctions, or did not fulfill them, Putin changed his mind. “Sorry, business..”, he must have said to the Iranians, who will be less protected from aerial attacks against their most vital facilities. Foreseeing American support for a preemptive strike as inevitable (around thirty years ago, Israel bombed Saddam Hussein’s Osirak nuclear reactor) it is quite likely that the dose comes to be repeated. This time against Iran, effectively putting an end to any development in the nuclear field by this country, irrespective of whether it is for peaceful or military purposes.
Brazil courageously maintained its opposition to further sanctions, even losing money by adopting this stance. It insists on the existence of a principle that will never be able to be swept under the carpet (probably already well rumpled) of the Security Council meeting room, namely: if all nations have equal rights, there is no reason to impede the right of Iran to develop nuclear technology, as the five permanent members of the Security Council are already in possession of nuclear weapons and do not oppose the existence of such arsenals in India, Pakistan and Israel. The latter is an arch enemy of Iran and has not even taken the trouble to become a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, being “consequently” and “legally” able to fabricate nuclear weapons as it sees fit, free from inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The Brazilian government has undertaken to sell alcohol to Tehran, as well as food products, items that are not explicitly included in the embargo. Nevertheless, it will not manage to sell the alcohol because UNICA, the entity that represents ethanol producers, is aware that if alcohol is sold to Iran, it will be subject to reprisals in the form of tariffs imposed by the American government. Consequently, as a UNICA representative has already stated, not “a drop” will be sold. The ethanol producers will say: “We have nothing against the Iranians, its “just business”. Even those Brazilian companies interested in selling food products to the Iranians will tire of swimming against the financial current, given that export business dealings are performed by means of bank transactions and the “all-powerful duo” has already made it clear that banks maintaining transactions with Iran are on the black list. “Just business...”, the ethanol producers will say.
Of course, I have nothing against private companies always seeking the easiest pathway to do business. I also have nothing against Chambers of Commerce being used for business transactions. They were instituted for this very purpose. What is evidently wrong is seeing an extremely powerful global agency - the UN Security Council, created for another, supposedly more noble, purpose - in “competition” with real Chambers of Commerce. The intended goals of each institution are quite different. Ideally, the Security Council should address global friction, possibly leading to imminent armed conflict, taking a preponderantly moral standpoint, analyzing not only the economic interests of its members, but also their ethical opinions, avoiding or diminishing, as far as possible, any instances of injustice and abuse. Each “sanction” has an ethical component. It is not solely the result of an economic accounting exercise.
When the Security Council clearly perceives that the vote has been expressed solely in Exchange for an economic advantage on the part of the voting country - as has frequently been the case - such a vote would be invalidated or at least demoralized by public opinion. The so-called “economic deterrent vote” needs to disappear in decisions made by the Security Council. The rationale adopted as a basis for the vote of each member should be obligatorily published and widely disseminated, with a view to ensuring that international public opinion, as well as that of each country, is fully aware of the degree of intellectual honesty of its UN representatives and respective heads of state.
The reader can imagine what kind of justification would be put forward, in all sincerity, as a basis for voting at the present time. The representative of China would say: “Mr. Secretary General: I am really against further sanctions against Iran, but China needs Iranian oil. As it is highly likely - almost guaranteed - that bombing raids will be carried out by Israel or the United states on the oil facilities of this important supplier (and in this case, China will be without oil for a long time), I find myself obliged, for practical reasons, to vote in favor of further sanctions. This is my vote, Mr. Secretary”.
As far as the vote of the Russian representative is concerned, he would say the following: “Mr. Secretary: like China, I am also against further sanctions, which will only increase the suffering of the Iranian population and, indirectly, that of Gaza, deprived of almost everything. Nevertheless, my country is already counting on the acquisition of amphibious ships manufactured in France that will be very useful for combating Chechen separatists. And we have not been able to identify another potential supplier. The fact is that, if I do not support further sanctions, the Sarkozy administration will go back on its commitment and no longer sell us the ships, thus impeding our struggle against Chechen terror. With the French vessels in mind, I vote in favor of further sanctions. I would like to add that Russia has undertaken to sell ground-to-air missiles to Iran, for defense against any aircraft or missiles that come to attack the country in question. I am going to try to fulfill our contractual obligations; however, if France requires that I breach the agreement, I will breach it, because the amphibious ships are more important to Russia than any rights or wrongs against such a country as Iran, highly disliked”.
Some other countries that support sanctions would certainly say something similar, citing pending transactions.
It could be said that it is the responsibility of the International Court of Justice and not the Security Council to conduct a judicial analysis of unresolved disputes. However, it is the case that, according to the statutes of the aforementioned court, solely States - and the Palestinians do not constitute a State - can make claims against expulsion, with no compensation, from an area that has been occupied for almost two millennia. The root of the animosity that exists between Israel and Iran lies in the Palestinian issue, without any chance of being formally resolved by a Court. Hence the need for the Security Council to decide on the issue of sanctions, taking moral criteria of justice or injustice into account.
I have no real prejudice against any race. I consider them to be more or less equal in terms of innate natural capabilities and character trends. There is the same degree of variation regarding individual moral standpoints within each race. There are excellent individuals, authentic human gems, in all peoples. There are also astute gangsters in the guise of politicians. The problem is associated with good or bad luck in choosing the “bosses” and the kinds of trauma suffered, in the recent and/or remote past, and not forgotten by each people.
I am no admirer of Ahmadinejad - who all too often has a habit of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, which will likely be the death of him - but I cannot ignore the fact that Iran has been the only country that rolled up its sleeves to defend, with a crazy kind of courage, the Palestinians, a people who have been tormented and expelled, without any blame on their part for imperial Roman injustice committed two thousand years ago.
Some readers may consider the opinions expressed in this article as ingenuous. “Ingenuous”, bearing in mind the real world, at the present time. But is it not a fact that civilization has grown attempting to implement “ingenuity”? There was a time when discussions focused on whether women had a “soul”. If they had such a thing, there was not guarantee that they had sufficient sense to choose a candidate during elections. They could not vote. Become judges? No chance! Besides this, Indians were not considered to be complete human beings -and so on.
Sooner or later, with a view to preserving its theoretical mission (ever more criticized in practice), the Security Council will have to step up to a higher level, no longer acting like a Chamber of Commerce. Those well-versed in International Law exist in their hundreds; however, it seems that they are afraid of freely expressing their negative impressions. They do not wish to put their academic careers at risk.
(14-6-2010)
