http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2007/octubre/juev25/43imperiales-i.html
More imperialist excesses?
BY ELSA CLARO -Special for Granma International-
GEORGE W. Bush's recent statement referring to the possible eruption
of World War III if Iran is allowed "the knowledge" to develop nuclear
weapons has been taken as a barely disguised threat.
It has been repeated so many times in Washington that Iran wants to
produce a nuclear arsenal that, at this point, they have come to
believe their own story. This wouldn't be the first or only time.
There is still talk about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq four
years after the occupation and long after it was proven that the Bush
administration and the Blair government in London lied in order to
justify the war. It was so much so that the conspiracy between that
duo with the then-president of Spain, Jos=E9 Mar=EDa Aznar was, or is, so
intimate that it predated the latter summoning them to the Azores to
oblige the European Union to accept the decision of two of its members
who were supporting the United States and its aggressive acts planned
beyond the confines of the United Nations and behind the backs of the
European allies.
It is possible that such precedents prompted Vladimir Putin to say in
Tehran that U.S. dreams of creating a unipolar world were not
realistic, as demonstrated by the adventures undertaken in Afghanistan
and Iraq where there is today less order, less gratitude on the part
of citizens, or possibilities for a good future.
The Russian president's statement was made in the Iranian capital
where he attended a meeting of heads of state of countries bordering
the Caspian Sea, currently the location of one of the world's largest
oil reserves. The leaders of those countries are seeking consensus
among themselves as to the limits of the territories belonging to each
one and becoming aware that the fragmentation being pushed by the
transnationals is not to their advantage in terms of this natural
resource .
This meeting of Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan
is considered highly significant given that its final declaration
includes statements such as: "Our armed forces do not have the
objective of attacking other countries of the Caspian Sea area," and
emphasizes that in no circumstances will use of the area as a
launching pad for aggressive or punitive actions against third
countries be permitted.
This last statement comes in relation to alleged public statements by
observers that Azerbaijan, whose leaders have a close relationship
with the United States and agreements with several U.S. oil companies,
could serve as a base for future aggression against Iran. This is Vice
President Richard Cheney's favorite idea, according to various sources
and one among many related speculations.
Others are asserting that it will be Israel who commits a possible
attack or takes charge of creating provocations, thus unleashing a
problem that will serve as "justification" for a U.S. military
intervention. The war on Lebanon and recent Israeli aircraft
incursions into Syria are being perceived as Zionist rehearsals aimed
at the other objective of Iran, always among several of the many
nurtured by the Bush administration's anti-Iran verbal offensive,
which has reached the point of evoking a confrontation of global
dimensions without explaining why or how it might erupt, and not even
who would be involved, despite the emphasis afforded the issue.
During his visit to Tehran, Putin said that no matter how large or how
strong a world power might be, it will not "be able to solve the
world's problems by itself; its financial, economic, material and
political resources would not be adequate." Referring to the
possibility of attacks on Iran, the leader said this would be a
serious error. First, the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq as soon as
possible, given that as long as U.S. forces remain, the government in
Baghdad cannot develop its own capacities.
Putin's statements during this trip and in subsequent meetings in
Russia are in line with what he has been saying since last January
when, speaking at the International Conference on Security Policy in
Munich, he asserted strongly and coherently the unacceptability of an
exclusive and egocentric foreign policy, given the nature of the
threats facing the contemporary world.
He repeated those ideas to Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates, just
weeks ago when the U.S. secretary of state and Defense Department
leader visited Moscow to address the issue of a missile shield,
leaving the hosts unhappy with the lack of acceptable options.
The unilateral actions taken by Bush invite suspicion of the negative
bias projected by the White House when discussing Iran's peaceful
nuclear program, drawing the Europeans into its expansionist ideas.
(Remember that the French foreign minister stated recently that the
irremediable had to be accepted.)
These recent events and previous ones were cited by the Russian leader
when speaking of the urgency of expanding and strengthening the
leadership of the United Nations and at the same time honoring
international law, which has for some time been underestimated,
ignored and disrespected.
The five dignitaries meeting in Tehran went on record in support of
Iran's civil development nuclear program and the right of any other
country to do the same, as long as it complies with international
agreements governing this type of activity, as Iran is doing. Perhaps
because of this, Vladimir Putin also alluded to the necessity of
strictly respecting national sovereignty and improving efforts
directed at agreement rather than confrontation.
Some commentators have suggested that Russia might abandon its
cooperation with Iran in the area of nuclear development as a result
of U.S. pressure but, on the contrary, it was announced during the
meeting that Moscow will finish the Busher nuclear plant in southern
Iran as planned.
This important statement and its not inconsiderable consequences may
not be enough to put a brake on the longstanding U.S. intention of
launching an attack on Iran "as punishment" for having interfered with
its economic and military objectives, and in order to leave the
country impoverished and toppled from its position as a regional power
respected by nationalist social movements throughout the Middle East.
No doubt the agreements reached represent an unexpected and troubling
thorn in the empire's side, as indicated by Bush's shrill references
to a third world war that he can only unleash if nobody deters him in
one of his classic moments of obstinacy.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
HOOROO
UNCLE WALLY
.
|
