Well, you have probably been wondering what prompted the Chief of the Armed Forces General Staff, General Yury Baluevsky, to announce last week that Russia was re-thinking its national security policy and that although
"We have no plans to attack anyone. But we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military force will be used – preemptively – including the use of nuclear weapons."
Perhaps it was the presentation just days before of a 150-page manifesto to the Pentagon in Washington and to NATO’s Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, to be discussed at a NATO summit – to which Russia has "observer" status – in Bucharest in April.
An important conclusion of the manifesto is reported to be
“The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the [NATO] quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.”
The authors of the manifesto are reported to be (a) General John Shalikashvili, the former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Supreme NATO Supreme Commander, (b) German General Klaus Naumann, former Chairman of NATO’s Military Committee, (c) General Henk van den Breemen, former Chief of Staff the Netherland’s armed forces, (d) Admiral Jacques Lanxade, former French armed forces Chief of Staff, and (e) Lord Inge, former Chief of Staff of the British General Staff.
The NATO grand pooh-bahs have reportedly called for an overhaul of NATO decision-taking methods, and an end to “obstruction” of its decisions by the European Union and other international organizations.
In particular, NATO will henceforth use force whenever “immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings,” even if not authorized by the United Nations Security Council.
You see, ever since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, that pesky Security Council – with Russia and China having veto power – keeps getting in the way of the establishment by the neo-crazies of an American Hegemony.
In 1997, as a consequence of the positive reports made to the Security Council by the International Atomic Energy Agency and by the UN Special Commission on the destruction of Iraq’s "weapons of mass destruction" programs, Russia and China attempted to get the Security Council to lift the sanctions imposed in 1991.
However, President Clinton made it clear that he didn’t care whether Iraq had certifiably destroyed all its WMD or not, he would never allow the Security Council sanctions to be lifted so long as Saddam Hussein was in power. Then he bombed Baghdad.
And, as we now know, Lord Goldsmith, Prime Minister Blair’s Attorney General, issued a formal opinion in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force against Iraq, that a second resolution – which would be adamantly opposed by Russia and China – would be necessary.
Finally we come to UNSCR 1747 of 24 March, 2007, which began with the Security Council first
"Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the need for all States Party to that Treaty to comply fully with all their obligations, and recalling the right of States Party, in conformity with Articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination,"
but then proceeding to deny Iran all its NPT rights.
Furthermore, the Security Council "called" upon all States to deny Iran any and all items on the UN Register on Conventional Arms!
Here’s what Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki had to say [.pdf] when he was allowed to address the Security Council, after – of course – UNSCR 1747 had already passed.
"This is the fourth time in the last 12 months that in an unwarranted move, orchestrated by a few of its permanent members, the Security Council is being abused to take an unlawful, unnecessary and unjustifiable action against the peaceful nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which presents no threat to international peace and security and falls therefore outside the Council’s Charter-based mandate.
"In order to give this scheme a semblance of international legitimacy, its initiators first manipulated the IAEA Board of Governor and – as they acknowledged themselves – "coerced" some of its members to vote against Iran in the Board, and then have taken advantage of their substantial economic and political power to pressure and manipulate the Security Council to adopt three unwarranted resolutions within 8 months.
"Undoubtedly, those resolutions cannot indicate universal acceptance, particularly when the heads of state of nearly two thirds of UN members, who belong to the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, supported Iran’s positions as recently as September 2006 and expressed concern about policies pursued inside the Security Council.
“As an organ of an international Organization created by States, the Security Council is bound by law, and Member States have every right to insist that the Council keep within the powers that they accorded it under the Charter of the United Nations.
“The Security Council must exercise those powers consistently with the purposes and principles of the Charter.
"Equally, the measures it takes must be consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations and with other international law. Members of the Security Council do not have the right to undermine the Council’s credibility.
"I ask you: Does the adoption of the present Resolution strengthen international peace and security? Does it augment the credibility of important international mechanisms such as the NPT, the IAEA and even this very Council?
"Does it enhance the confidence of countries and developing nations that they can attain their rights through these mechanisms and instruments?
"Certainly, the answer to all these questions is no."
Obviously the neo-crazies can never effect regime change in Iran – much less establish an American Hegemony – if they have to comply with such terms and conditions.
But, in 1999 the Security Council would not authorize President Clinton and Prime Minister Blair to attack Kosovo, so they turned to NATO.
Then, in 2001, because Russia and China did not object, the Security Council did authorize the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force to invade Afghanistan and depose the Taliban, which had been protecting al-Qaeda.
Of course, things in Afghanistan have since gone from bad to worse for NATO, much worse.
What to do?
Well, put an end to “obstruction” by the United Nations and other pesky international organizations. Unleash NATO. Make "first use of nuclear weapons" the NATO "ultimate instrument."
That ought to do it.
