......

em·pire
ˈemˌpī(ə)r/
noun
an extensive operation or sphere of activity controlled by one person or group

Which country has more foreign military bases than any country in world history?

Which country spends more on violence and domination than the rest of the world combined?

Which country has overthrown or attempted to overthrow some 60 governments, most of them democracies?

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

US Has No Authority Over Iran, or Anything Else

The US is a criminal state that illegally appoints itself as a world authority because it can, through power.  This is why international law must be strengthened, not undermined as US elites desire: to protect the world against violent criminal states, the chief example being the USA. 

I saw a moment of some PBS news segment last night.  Susan Rice was on, spewing egregious, Nazi-like "big lies" about Iran, Syria, and Israel, and the propagandist anchor was going along with all of it and adding more.  

If you watch things like that, you are being indoctrinated into siding with US criminality, and primed and propagandized into supporting a third US criminal invasion of Iran to control Iran's oil, and more criminal US aggression against Syria for more US Mid East hegemony, which means elite wealth and power.  (Rice even implied that the US is not funding proxy armies in Syria, even though it is doing so publicly - McCain publicly went to visit them and they later ate people's hearts.  This shows how little intelligence they grant the people who watch programs like this, and in fact they rely on this to get away with their crimes.)

Viewers of this criminal vomit are being led to view the US as some kind of world authority (it is not) that can itself decide which countries have which rights (it cannot), and use massively disproportionate violence against tiny countries to enrich the US elite at the expense of millions of human lives (it does.  That's what powerful criminal states do.).  You are being prepped to support more illegal US invasions for elite enrichment, as Hitler primed the German population into supporting his wars using the exact same rhetoric, such as that Germany needed to combat terror and defend itself and others.

Anyone can play that game, where you find or invent bad qualities about a country, or stage a fake attack by another country, and use these things as a pretext to invade it and either submit it to the will of the criminal state, or simply destroy it completely, or both.  

If there was a country stronger than the US, it could correctly say that the US must be invaded and subject to regime change or destroyed because the USA is the world's leading criminal state, which conquers and annexes territory by force, genocide, aggression, and ethnic cleansing, uses slavery, has the world's largest prison population, disproportionately imprisons black and Latino people, uses prison labor in a for-profit prison system that massively violates human rights, executes its own people at the fourth highest rate in the world while 90 percent of the world doesn't use capitol punishment, spends more money on means of violence than the rest of the world combined, sells more weapons than any other country by hundreds of billions of dollars, has more foreign military bases than any country in world history, uses chemical weapons against its own people, extra-judicially assassinates its own people, commits unequaled financial crime that destroys the world economy, bails out and further enriches the financial criminals by massive, forced taxation of the victims, convinces or coerces poor countries to take huge loans and then pay them back with massive interest, goes around the world preventing and destroying social gains and finding the cheapest sweatshop labor to exploit, harbors hundreds of terrorists (such as Orlando Bosch, who received a presidential pardon from Bush 1 (link), Louis Posada Carriles (link), and hundreds of others), refuses to extradite terrorists and other criminals, illegally aids terrorists such as when it created Al Qaeda, funded Al Qaeda in Kosovo, currently funds it in Syria, and other places, installed the Taliban in Afghanistan, funds terrorist proxy armies such as the Contras, the Suharto regime, and Israel, funds and supports genocide and ethnic cleansing such as against South Africa, East Timor, and the Palestinians, runs terrorist training camps such as the School of the Americas, imprisons and tortures innocent people infinitely in a worldwide system of gulags, runs an illegal worldwide assassination campaign, runs a worldwide torture and rendition campaign, is in continual violation of its obligations as a nuclear weapons country, carries out terrorist operations such as mining the harbors of Nicaragua, conducts terrorist bombings of civilian targets through the CIA, conducts terrorist operations with its armed forces, drops nuclear weapons on civilian cities, is the world's top violator in using chemical and other illegal weapons against civilians, supports chemical and other illegal weapons use against civilians, conducts and funds massacres of civilian villages, has bombed over 30 countries, illegally sells chemical and other illegal weapons to dictatorships and ethnic cleansers such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, sprayed 20 million gallons of chemical weapons over Vietnam, conducts illegal terrorist and genocidal economic sanctions against Iraq, Iran, Cuba, and others, killing millions of people, has overthrown or attempted to overthrow 55 governments since WW2, the majority of them democracies, and has invaded over 70 nations since 1776, resulting in the deaths of about 82 million people, and that this is aggression, the supreme international crime which encompasses the evil of all other crimes, which means that every time the US commits aggression it also commits genocide, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, illegal weapons use against civilians, and everything else. 

And this would be the short list. 

So, yes, if there were a more powerful country than the US, it could use these as reasons to invade the US and overthrow the government, or destroy the country.  These reasons are far better than anything the US has ever invented as cover for doing this to so many countries and peoples.  

So while anyone can play the game of finding faults with some country to use as reasons to carry out criminal acts, only the most powerful states can illegally go through with it, repeatedly, and continue to get away with it, or allow clients to do so.
            

The US is not a legal world authority.  It (as well as the UN Security Council, lead by the US) has zero authority over Iran's sovereign rights as guaranteed under international law by the UN and and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  The entire purpose of such laws is to protect the rights of the weak against the strong, and so that we all know that states like the US are not allowed to make or change these rules, and claims of anything different are simply lies.

As for complying with international law:  

Not only does Iran cooperate with international nuclear inspectors and is not pursuing nuclear weapons, as confirmed by the UN and all 16 US intelligence agencies, but the US, the criminal imperialist country trying to put all the attention on Iran to create a pretext and drum up support for a third US invasion, is in violation of international law regarding atomic weapons, as are the US's biggest allies, Saudi Arabia (which receives hundreds of millions of dollars worth of illegal weapons, and billions in other weapons, including the biggest weapons shipment of all time, $60 billion, under Obama) and Israel, which is the single biggest recipient of US aid, increased under Obama to 13 million dollars a day, or 4.5 billion per year, all of which is illegal under both US and international law. 

For documentation illustrating that what the US is doing to Iran in trying to stop its peaceful nuclear program is simply illegal use of force by a powerful criminal state, here are excerpts from:

Iran Has a Right to Enrich—And America Already Recognized It


November 19, 2013

As first pointed out by this author in 2004, the Ford administration recognized Iran’s right to uranium enrichment, fuel reprocessing, and related technologies.
President Ford then instructed the U.S. negotiators to offer Iran uranium enrichment and reprocessing facilities. Specifically, National Security Decision Memorandum 292, dated 22 April 1975, stated that the U.S. shall "permit U.S. materials to be fabricated into fuel in Iran for use in its own reactors and for pass-through to third countries with whom we have Agreements."
[Therefore, even] if Iran does need U.S. recognition of its rights to uranium enrichment and reprocessing of spent fuel—Iran claims it does not—the U.S. has already “granted” such rights and the associated technologies to Iran. That was, of course, when Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, an ally of the United States who had been put back in power by the CIA coup of 1953, was Iran’s ruler.
Legal aspects
Item 1 of Article IV of the NPT states that
Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.
The article implies all aspect of nuclear fuel technology, including uranium enrichment. Of about 190 countries that have signed the NPT, there is not a single country, aside from the United States, Britain, France, and Israel—and the last one is not even a NPT signatory—that has claimed the rights to be anything other than inalienable.
However, as the author argued in an article in 2007, Iran does not even need the blessing of the NPT—or the U.S. for that matter—for its right to uranium enrichment. Neither the United Nations Security Council nor any other international organization has the authority to take away any nation's sovereign rights. Iran has such rights to exploit its natural uranium deposits, and to diversify its energy sources, including the use of nuclear energy, both of which imply that Iran has the fundamental right to uranium enrichment. These rights were not bestowed upon Iran by international agreements and treaties. The NPT simply reaffirmed such rights. These are the same rights that the US, France, China, Britain, and the then Soviet Union invoked before the NPT ever existed, in order to develop their nuclear weapons and nuclear industries. One may put this another way: these rights precede the NPT. They are also the same rights that Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan and North Korea declared after the NPT, in order to develop their nuclear arsenals. Thus, contrary to what Wendy Sherman claimed, the Security Council does not have the authority to take such rights away.
It might be argued that Article 103 of the UN Charter does give the UNSC such rights. This Article states, “In the event of a conflict between the obligation of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.” Thus, one might argue that, because Iran's rights under the NPT have conflict with the UN Charter, the Charter prevails. However,as described in the author’s 2007 article, Iran's rights to peaceful nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment, are not treaty-based rights; they are sovereign rights. Article IV(1) of the NPT simply recognized this right; it did not grant it to Iran. So the argument based on Article 103 is erroneous.
Professor Daniel Joyner of University of Alabama School of Law, a widely recognized authority on international law and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, puts this in another way: "Article 103 of the UN Charter is inapposite and inapplicable to this question.”
Dapo Akande of St. Peter’s College, University of Oxford, in his wonderful article, Sir Gerald G. Fitzmaurice (1901-1982), the distinguished legal scholar and a Judge of the International Court of Justice, has stated that
The Security Council, even when acting genuinely for the preservation or restoration of peace and security, has a scope of action limited by the State's sovereignty and the fundamental rights without which the sovereignty cannot be exercised.
The Security Council must not violate jus cogens (Peremptory Norm) prohibitions, a fundamental principle of international law that acts as a norm from which no derogation is ever permitted.
What is the relevance of jus cogens prohibitions to Iran's case? An important aspect of the UN Charter, explicitly recognized by Article 2 of the Charter, is the principle of Equal Sovereignty. Article 2 states that, “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.” The principle of Equal Sovereignty is a jus cogens matter and, hence, cannot be violated. Thus, even if the Security Council can demand that Iran suspend its enrichment program—i.e., suspend Article IV(1) of the NPT for Iran—it must do so for all other Member States of the NPT as well. But by not suspending Article IV(1) rights of all Member States of the NPT, except Iran's, the UNSC has violated the jus cogens prohibition.
Thus, it is clear that Iran has sovereign rights to uranium enrichment and the U.S. has, indeed, recognized such rights in the past.
I highly recommend reading the full article, linked above. 

Further:
If the Iranian government decides it is in its security interests to attain nuclear weapons, it has the legal right under Article 10 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty to withdraw:
Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.
But Iran has not chosen to withdraw, and in accordance with its obligations under the NPT, is continuing to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has the sole authority under the treaty to ascertain states parties’ commitments on non-acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Some basic realities regarding nuclear proliferation, international law and U.S. hypocrisy in the Middle East, reading in part:
Fact: Iran does not possess [has never possessed, and has never tested] a nuclear weapon.
Fact: Iran has the right, according to international law, to develop nuclear energy for civilian use.
Fact: Iran’s nuclear energy program is regularly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Fact: Iran has never started a war.
Fact: The United States possesses 10,600 nuclear warheads in its stockpile, 7,982 of which are deployed and 2,700 of which are in a contingency stockpile. The total number of nuclear warheads that have been built from 1951 to present is 67,500.
Fact: The United States is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons. It did so when it incinerated hundreds of thousands of Japanese people living in the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Neither city had any military significance.
Fact: The United States has spent $7 trillion on nuclear weapons. The U.S. military budget for 2012 alone is about equal to Iran’s entire Gross National Product.
Fact: Israel, the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid (about $3 billion in 2011, now $4.5 billion in 2013), unlike Iran, possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons.
Fact: Israel, unlike Iran, refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into Israel to monitor its nuclear program.  [Saudi Arabia, another huge US client, has not ratified the treaty, and has been pursuing nuclear weapons since the eighties and has now obtained and is keeping them in Pakistan.] 
http://compliancecampaign.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/iran-and-the-usa-who-really-violates-international-obligations/

And I would add:

Fact: The USA does not allow IAEA inspections of all its nuclear facilities.

Fact: The USA has invaded over 70 nations since 1776, killing some 82 million people.

Fact: The US is also in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) for nuclear weapons and energy use. In the history of the treaty, the US has refused to negotiate for complete disarmament and verification per treaty terms and actively plans to use nuclear weapons, including first-strike use against “enemies” who may only become threats in the future.

Fact: The US is also in violation for refusing Iran their right for nuclear energy development in every act but their empty rhetoric. The US aggresses against Iran, with official policy for nuclear weapons first-strike use having language specifically targeting Iran. This, despite all 16 US intelligence agencies in agreement there is no evidence of Iran developing nuclear weapons, and IAEA’s agreement there is no documented evidence with them either.

Fact: The US is in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The deadline for complete elimination for these weapons passed in 2007; the US requested and received an extension until 2012. The US plans to not fulfill this treaty until 2023, and does not submit to full inspections. Only this last provision is defensible under treaty terms.

Fact: The US tortures (and here); including their own citizens. The US has a history of refusing International Red Cross inspections to verify compliance of international torture law.

Fact: The USA has repeatedly been the only country in the world (other than Palau) to reject UN resolutions for a fissile material cutoff treaty (or Fissban): In November 2004 the UN committee on disarmament voted in favour of a verifiable Fissban. The vote was 147 to one (United States), with two abstentions: Israel and Britain. In 2005 a vote in the full General Assembly was 179 to two, Israel and Britain again abstaining. The United States was joined by Palau.

Fact: "In 2006, ElBaradei’s Fissban proposal had to date been accepted by only one state, to my knowledge: Iran, in February, in an interview with Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator. The Bush administration rejects a verifiable Fissban — and stands nearly alone." - Chomsky

Fact: None of the nuclear states has lived up to its obligation to disarm, but the United States is far in the lead in violating it.


Here is Noam Chomsky, from 2006, on these issues:

A near-meltdown seems to be imminent over Iran and its nuclear programmes.

[But] before 1979, when the Shah was in power, Washington strongly supported these programmes.  Today the standard claim is that Iran has no need for nuclear power, and therefore must be pursuing a secret weapons programme. "For a major oil producer such as Iran, nuclear energy is a wasteful use of resources," Henry Kissinger wrote in the Washington Post last year.

Thirty years ago, however, when Kissinger was secretary of state for President Gerald Ford, he held that "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran’s economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals". Last year Dafna Linzer of the Washington Post asked Kissinger about his reversal of opinion. Kissinger responded with his usual engaging frankness: "They were an allied country."

In 1976 the Ford administration "endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Teheran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium — the two pathways to a nuclear bomb", Linzer wrote. The top planners of the Bush administration, who are now denouncing these programmes, were then in key national security posts: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

Iranians are surely not as willing as the West to discard history to the rubbish heap. They know that the United States, along with its allies, has been tormenting Iranians for more than 50 years, ever since a US-UK military coup overthrew the parliamentary government and installed the Shah, who ruled with an iron hand until a popular uprising expelled him in 1979.

The Reagan administration then supported Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran, providing him with military and other aid that helped him slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iranians (along with Iraqi Kurds). Then came President Clinton’s harsh sanctions, followed by Bush’s threats to attack Iran — themselves a serious breach of the UN charter.

Last month the Bush administration conditionally agreed to join its European allies in direct talks with Iran, but refused to withdraw the threat of attack, rendering virtually meaningless any negotiations offer that comes, in effect, at gunpoint. Recent history provides further reason for scepticism about Washington’s intentions.

In May 2003, according to Flynt Leverett, then a senior official in Bush’s National Security Council, the reformist government of Mohammad Khatami proposed "an agenda for a diplomatic process that was intended to resolve on a comprehensive basis all of the bilateral differences between the United States and Iran".

Included were "weapons of mass destruction, a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the future of Lebanon’s Hizbullah organisation and cooperation with the UN nuclear safeguards agency", the Financial Times reported last month. The Bush administration refused, and reprimanded the Swiss diplomat who conveyed the offer.

A year later the European Union and Iran struck a bargain: Iran would temporarily suspend uranium enrichment, and in return Europe would provide assurances that the United States and Israel would not attack Iran. Under US pressure, Europe backed off, and Iran renewed its enrichment processes.

Iran’s nuclear programmes, as far as is known, fall within its rights under article four of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which grants non-nuclear states the right to produce fuel for nuclear energy. The Bush administration argues that article four should be strengthened, and I think that makes sense.

When the NPT came into force in 1970 there was a considerable gap between producing fuel for energy and for nuclear weapons. But advances in technology have narrowed the gap. However, any such revision of article four would have to ensure unimpeded access for non-military use, in accord with the initial NPT bargain between declared nuclear powers and the non-nuclear states.

In 2003 a reasonable proposal to this end was put forward by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency: that all production and processing of weapon-usable material be under international control, with "assurance that legitimate would-be users could get their supplies". That should be the first step, he proposed, toward fully implementing the 1993 UN resolution for a fissile material cutoff treaty (or Fissban).

ElBaradei’s proposal has to date been accepted by only one state, to my knowledge: Iran, in February, in an interview with Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator. The Bush administration rejects a verifiable Fissban — and stands nearly alone. In November 2004 the UN committee on disarmament voted in favour of a verifiable Fissban. The vote was 147 to one (United States), with two abstentions: Israel and Britain. Last year a vote in the full General Assembly was 179 to two, Israel and Britain again abstaining. The United States was joined by Palau.

There are ways to mitigate and probably end these crises. The first is to call off the very credible US and Israeli threats that virtually urge Iran to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent. A second step would be to join the rest of the world in accepting a verifiable Fissban treaty, as well as ElBaradei’s proposal, or something similar.

A third step would be to live up to article six of the NPT, which obligates the nuclear states to take "good-faith" efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons, a binding legal obligation, as the world court determined. None of the nuclear states has lived up to that obligation, but the United States is far in the lead in violating it.

Even steps in these directions would mitigate the upcoming crisis with Iran. Above all, it is important to heed the words of Mohamed ElBaradei: "There is no military solution to this situation. It is inconceivable. The only durable solution is a negotiated solution." And it is within reach.


All this is proof that the US is okay with any country having nukes or nuclear energy, including Iraq and Iran, if that country is subordinate to the US and will only use its WMDs for US-approved aggression, as Iraq used its chemical weapons supplied by the US and other allies, along with intelligence and diplomatic cover, to illegally attack and invade Iran, killing millions of Iranians, and was also using materials provided by the US and other allies to develop nuclear weapons.

One more (somewhat related) thought to add:

In the minds of highly indoctrinated US citizens, WW2 gives the US the right to control the world, have nuclear weapons, and basically the ability to be right in committing any act, no matter how illegal, asymmetrical, abhorrent, genocidal, aggressive, or murderous, because since the US acted (in myth, not reality) justly in one war, that means it is just in all the wars it starts, and everything else it does.  (This claim is reliant on complete ignorance.)  

Through the 1980s, Iran sacrificed far more of its citizens (over a million, possibly 2 million) than the US sacrificed in WW2 (418,000), to protect its civilian population and the world against an invasion by the Axis of Evil made up of the USA (fresh off spreading 20 million gallons of weaponized chemical agents over Vietnam), several European countries, and Saddam Hussein, who combined their forces and went on a criminally aggressive warpath which would have spread even more death, destruction, genocide, and mass chemical weapons attacks throughout the region and world, if not for the massive and heroic Iranian sacrifice.

The US/Euro/Iraqi Axis of Evil used terrible chemical weapons supplied by the US and Europe and deployed by Iraq, with intelligence and diplomatic cover provided by the USA, to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Kurds.

Iran has never attacked another country, and yet the incredibly evil US calls Iran part of an axis of evil.  This is an example of a pickpocket getting caught stealing someone's wallet, then yelling, "Thief!  Thief!"

So while the US sacrificed about one third of one percent of it's population in WW2 (a minuscule amount compared to countries like Lithuania and Poland), Iran sacrificed about 5% of its population to stop the US/Euro/Iraqi Axis of Evil chemical slaughter rampage in the 1980s.  

Yet I have never heard anyone say that this war, justly fought by Iran against a conglomeration of massive, predatory, evil powers, gives Iran the right to do...... anything at all.

The self-flattery, self-deception, indoctrination, hypocrisy, violence, blood-lust, and uncritical double-standards of US citizens and their elite imperial military rulers are amazing to witness.  

And are utter bullshit.  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Be relevant!