Tue Jan 1, 2013 1:16PM GMT
By Syed Sarwar Husain Rizvi
The word ‘sanctions’ being used repeatedly in the news went on to such an excess and extent against Iran that it (the word) has become automatically and firmly integrated with our thought-process as a necessary part to mean ‘sanctions’ exclusive for Iran (instead of any other country).”
The debacle of the news on Friday, December 21, 2012 being read with the preceding news of October 15, 2012 for making the so-called ‘sanctions’ on Iran tougher and toughest is shockingly painful to every man of intelligence quotient.
The shock has been perceived even by extra-sensory perception in view of its sweeping generality. The oft-quoted word, ‘sanctions’, is not ambiguously blurred to refrain us from visualizing its legality and legal applicability if analyzed by non-political eyes without any favor or disfavor. The New York Times (October 15, 2012) reported that The European Union (UN) toughened sanctions against Iran over its Nuclear Energy Program, banning trade in industries and making business-transactions more and more cumbersome.
Foreign Ministers of European Union in the joint meeting in Luxembourg expressed concern over the Nuclear Energy Program of Iran by saying, “Iran was acting in flagrant violation of its international obligations.’’ This came despite the chief of European Union’s foreign policy, Catherine Ashton, expressed ahead of the meeting: “We want to see a negotiated agreement, but we will continue to keep up pressure.’’ The present article attempts to explore and examine the legal texture and tenet of the alleged ‘sanctions’ to ascertain its maintainability for its present form and formidability.
The word ‘sanctions’ being used repeatedly in the news went on to such an excess and extent against Iran that it (the word) has become automatically and firmly integrated with our thought-process as a necessary part to mean ‘sanctions’ exclusive for Iran (instead of any other country). It is a sad state of affairs to feel that the word ‘sanctions’ was coined in English as if to be meant, to be used, to be applied and to be imposed on Iran necessarily irrespective of any convincing consideration.
One should not wrongly construe to mean here that no sanctions were ever imposed on any country (nation) other than Iran in view of my contended line of argument being put forth hereto. Let us examine the ratio and not incidental facts of fragile frivolousness. This situation of integrated meaning for the word ‘sanctions’ to carry on together with Iran can be easily proved by citing the principle of ‘persistence of eye-vision’, studied in optics. Under this principle the eyes visualize things different from the realities of standing facts, (and as such it makes watching movies in a cinema hall worthwhile due to this defect of eye-vision).
Likewise we awfully notice ‘persistence of malign mind’ as well. According to the first principle, eyes see differently from the realities of objects while, according to the second principle, the mind understands different things from realities of life on international scenarios of politics. Imposing sanctions after sanctions and making the sanctions tough and tougher on Iran by a handful of persons having vested interest of politics comes under the aforementioned second category of the second principle.
The present moment is ripe enough to analyze the word ‘sanctions’ from the very outset of its political application and its source of origin. The reason is obvious. Our ears are fed up to hear and to keep on hearing incessantly the news of sanctions on Iran without any maintainable basis at all. My attempt to trace the relevant attributes on the point will be similar to the ‘white paper’ of facts leading to the White House in search thereof. What are sanctions? When should they be imposed? What are genuine conditions to impose sanctions? Against whom should they be imposed under existing law?
The word ‘sanction/s’ has two opposite meanings for general acceptance; the first one is to approve something while the second one is punishment for something. Here in the present context the meaning of sanctions has been set-forth: A threatened penalty for disobeying a law. Words, no doubt, have two different meanings, but a word having two opposite meanings is rare of the rarest. The word ‘sanction/s’ has a Latin origin from the word ‘sanctio’ which means a decree or law which is inviolably sacred. It was borrowed in English from Latin in the middle of 15th century to mean unbreakable law or decree till the year 1635 , and thereafter it also contained the meaning to penalize one who breaks the law. By the last quarter of 18th century, the word ‘sanction/s’ meant also ‘to allow by law’. In the second half of 20th century, the word began to mean ‘to punish for breaking a law.’
For the first time traces of such sanctions can be seen in Article 11 (paragraph 1) under The Covenant of League of Nations:
“(In the event of war or threat of war the League should) take any
Action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the
Peace of Nations.”
This provision authorized the League for coercive measure to be taken by using force. However, states (of League) vehemently insisted that this would not make decisions binding by the League. This matter was taken up at the San Francisco Conference while establishing and forming UNO after World War II; and by a majority-vote it was decided that the Security Council would maintain its executive power for the simple reason that a strong executive-organ would be needed for securing peace of the world. The emphasis on the point was advocated mainly by the Chinese representative referring to the ‘Manchuria Crisis’ when the League remained a powerless mute spectator. In order to obliterate the shortcomings of The League Of Nations, The Charter of UN was designed and drafted by empowering the Security Council relevant Articles 41 & 42 of Chapter VII “to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of peace or act of aggression’’ and to take military action to ‘’restore international peace and security.’’
Nuclear enrichment-program for peaceful purpose can never be characterized as a threat to peace in the eyes of justice. Sanctions under the pretentious threat of peace in disguise for ulterior political motive are against the spirit of relevant provision of the Charter. Meaningfully, Article 51 has overriding effect over all the provisions of the Charter.
‘Sanctions’ are a device to boycott someone by many others. The boycotted person or nation is always in minority (necessarily) while boycotters are in majority. This boycott under the name of “sanctions” does not and cannot anticipate that the boycotted nation or person is faulty. The reason is simple and obvious. All prophets from Adam to Moses, and Moses to Christ were boycotted by the majority without them being of any fault. Since the vested interest of the majority could not tally with those of the prophets, the majority of people boycotted them to compel prophets to accept the tune of the faulty terms of majority.
This is no different from the present scenario of political ‘sanctions’. Is there any judicial body on Earth to decide justifiably the veracity of imposed sanctions on Iran without any blend of political poison? The issue of ‘sanctions’ is out of the jurisdiction of International Court of Justice, and any law-knowing person will not refute it. All the pretentious postures of imposing sanction on Iran are under the disguised slogan of securing peace by restraining Iran from its nuclear program.
First and foremost, contingent measure while imposing such sanctions on Iran ought to have a condition precedent that nations other than Iran having giant series and piles of nuclear arsenal of mass destruction be also asked to shrink their arsenals as well. Israel has very big arsenal and one of four nuclear armed countries without caring to sign the ‘Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty’ (NPT). Even the US Congress, through its office of Technology Assessment, has recorded that Israel has undeclared chemical warfare-capabilities along with offensive biological warfare Program. (Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risks, US Congress Office of Technology Assessment – dated August 1993, OTA-ISC-559, Retrieved on December 9, 2008.)
It is tentatively assessed that Israel has more than 500 nuclear weapons including ‘thermonuclear weapons in the megaton range’ apart from neutron bombs, suitcase nukes and tactical nuclear weapons; and Israel can manufacture its nuclear weapons at the ‘Nagev Nuclear Research Centre’ during urgent need of destruction against a country. It has ‘Jericho inter-continental ballistic missiles ‘with a range of 11,500 km, capable of providing a second strike option. It also has ‘submarine-launched nuclear-capable- cruise missiles which can be launched from Israeli Dolphin-Class Submarines. Bill Richardson, the 2008 democratic nominee for American President and Governor of New Mexico in 2003, said in 1998, “I have no doubt that Israel has worked on both chemical and biological offensive things for a long time……There is no doubt that they have stuff for years.”
Israel has disturbed peace on Earth from the very outset of its birth by repeated attacks and mass killing of innocent civilians; nevertheless international bodies (the European Union or the UN or others) are not least caring to adopt any measure to check it for peace. Contrary to that, Iran never attacked any nation for spreading its power except for defending itself whenever attacked. Iran has not committed any act of terrorism, and not a single terrorist could be labeled Iranian because Iran and Iranians treat terrorism as a sinful inhuman activity irrespective of anything and everything.
The generosity of Iran went so high that Iran helped Iraq by a variety of essential commodities for the sustenance of Iraqi-civilians as an aftermath-compassion at the end of the war, although Iraq had attacked Iran. No one helps people of a belligerent state, but Iran helped for human peace nonetheless. The EU and UN keep on tightening sanction against Iran, leaving Israel scot-free. Why so? Devils and tyrant rulers are always condemned by all, and likewise its supporters equally deserve to be condemned without any ‘if and but’. International bodies (UN & EU) are losing the sanctity of trust, reposed in the hearts of people on Earth because of favoring Israel in the present context.
The fallacy is remarkably glaring now that human destruction is carried out in the sweet name of ‘PEACE’. The whole Charter of UN has been designed for peace apart from using the words ‘tolerance, unity and security’ commencing from its preamble to its last part. Article 2 (1) provides for sovereign equality for all its member-nations. Imposing sanctions on concocted frivolous excuses on Iran (leaving other enriched countries of heavy nuclear proliferation) is a discriminative debacle contravening the spirit of Article 2(1) of UN Charter. American drones entering into the airspace of Iran and violate the provision of Article 2(4). The imposed ‘sanctions’ on Iran are against the spirit of Article 62 of the Charter in as much as it hits the economy of Iran affecting its civilians and their progress adversely; and as such it also violates the provision of ‘social progress and better standard of life’ chalked out in the concluding part of the Preamble of UN Charter.
Iran is bravely struggling against the resulting ‘economic war’ to meet with punitive measure, targeting its vital oil income and access to global financial systems in a balanced way. Financial and economic blockades have been the policy of US towards Iran since more than three decades by setting pace for EU. Sweden has been trying to prevent European Union from imposing further sanctions on Iran. According to a Foreign Ministry official, the Stockholm Embassies of Germany, France and Britain lodged a complaint at the Swedish Foreign Ministry in this regard; but Swedish officials replied that sanctions only harm the Iranian people and do not change the government’s decisions. Let this simple thing enter into the minds of the members of the EU, US and UN for cool understanding to proceed with lifting the sanctions from now at least in the interest of prevailing peace on Earth.