Another deadline, another farce and another façade of force. Passed July 31, United Nations Resolution 1696 calls for Iran to cease its uranium enrichment program and allow verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency, an arm of the United Nations. It sets a deadline of Aug. 31 for Iran to comply.
The response was unequivocal–“Iran will continue its uranium enrichment. We want to produce our own nuclear fuel,” stated Iran’s Chief Nuclear Negotiator Ali Larijani. “We will never stop it.” Disheartening, to be sure, but certainly not surprising.
What else could have been expected? The United Nations continues to beat the dead horse of passing resolutions against Iran, ranging from demanding the release of American hostages in 1979 to the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s to the aforementioned Resolution 1696. Iran has vociferously rejected each. Why, then, does the international community continue to deceive itself, believing that toothless, ambiguous and carefully worded requests will actually result in any change in the theocratic regime’s intentions and behavior?
The answer most likely lies in two places, the first being “post-Iraq syndrome.” The United States’ stock among the United Nations’ assembled nations suffered a catastrophic blow from its attempted bullying of the United Nations into justifying the invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent override when the U.N. Security Council refused to do so. As the bombs started falling, continental Europe led the world in raising an indignant cry and wagging a finger at the United States for blackballing the international body. The foreign policy of continental Europe was, and still is, firmly grounded in the belief that all such international quarrels should be brought in front of and resolved by a multilateral body, the United Nations being the best such example.
Any nation acting against this belief was worthy of international condemnation. The European diplomats are no fools and fully expected Iran to reject Resolution, 1696 forthwith; this certainty, however, was outweighed by the obligation Europe placed on itself in the debate over Iraq. After talking the talk on Iraq, Europe felt the pressure to walk the walk on Iran, hence the complete waste of time known as Resolution 1696. The United States felt that it must make up lost ground for its unilateralism and therefore somewhat reluctantly co-sponsored the resolution, though John Bolton, America’s ambassador to the United Nations and unabashed critic of the same body, was rumored to have held his nose as he signed the document.
The other and significantly more shameful factor was the fatigue of the direct multi-party talks with Iran, specifically regarding the cessation of enrichment. The shelf life of multilateral talks with an openly hostile government is limited by domestic appetite for the issue and the often erratic behavior of the offending nation. One need only look at the six-party talks with North Korea over its similar nuclear aspirations to understand that such a loose coalition is inevitably worn down by self-interest and attitudes toward the pariah.
Japan and the United States took a fairly hardline approach to the regime of Kim Jong Il, while China, Russia and South Korea wanted a softer line. The debate of carrots versus sticks often is what tears apart these talks, which is exactly what the offender wants as it is allowed to go back to its old ways without being accused of being completely recalcitrant. It is a similar situation with Iran-Europe offers deal after deal to the Iranian government, the U.S. waffles between incentives and sanctions, and China and Russia are openly hostile to any action against Iran as they have vested business interests in Iranian nuclear capability. Russia, for instance, just inked a deal with Iran, agreeing to build two light-water reactors, which are admittedly harder to turn toward weapon fabrication, while nominally agreeing with the other parties that a nuclear Iran is a threat to stability in the region. All this self-interest means that a persevering and unified opinion toward Iranian nuclear capability is extremely tough to form and maintain.
This does not mean that they should relent and retreat as they have. Though a satisfactory solution through such a forum is quite difficult, it does work.
During the 1980s Muammar Gaddafi, the dictator of Libya, sponsored terrorism and developed biological and chemical weapons. He was sanctioned, threatened and cajoled by the United Nations, all to no avail. In May of this year, however, Libya officially renounced its state sponsorship of terrorist groups, scrapped all biological and chemical weapons programs, and gave U.N. weapons inspectors complete and unfettered access to all sites of interest in the country. In return the sanctions were lifted, foreign investment in Libya boomed and Quadafi was welcomed back into the fold. All this was a result of tireless back-room pressure by various European nations. They presented a united front and never faltered.
The major powers should do the same with Iran. U.N. resolutions should only occur when the Security Council is willing to place sanctions against Iran, i.e. China and Russia abstain from voting. In the meantime, the major powers should continue to offer carrots and sticks to the theocracy.
Perseverance is paramount.
John Jose is a first-year finance and international studies double major. He can be reached at [email protected].
