They want us to practice aggression and perfect antagonism. Kamand Kojouri
What do nations care about the cost of war, if by spending a few hundred millions in steel and gunpowder they can gain a thousand millions in diamonds and cocoa? W.E.B. DuBois
We are only just beginning to understand the power of love because we are just beginning to understand the weakness of force and aggression. B.F. Skinner
The greater the gap between self-perception and reality, the more aggression is unleashed on those who point out the discrepancy. Stefan Molyneux
There are no humane methods of warfare, there is no such thing as civilized warfare; all warfare is inhuman, all warfare is barbaric; the first blast of the bugles of war ever sounds for the time being the funeral knell of human progress. James Connolly
Likewise the proud do not have mercy because they despise others and look upon them as evil, taking it for granted that these people deserve to suffer whatever they have to suffer. Thomas Aquinas
The evidence of history is that no advance which can be applied to the killing of other human beings goes unused. Malcolm Potts
Venom doesn’t always declare itself in aggressions; sometimes it’s hidden in the calm of indifference, in the choices we justify, in the harm we cause without raising our voice. Renuka Goria
As of this writing, the presidency of the UN Security Council transitions from the US to Bahrain, a stark shift in appearance more than in fact as Bahrain in the early stages of its Council tenure has proven itself to be a consistent (if not always enthusiastic) ally of US positions, including with regard to the war in Iran.
The US presidency in March got off to an auspicious beginning with Russia and China refusing to initially endorse the US program of work for March (over the JCPOA) and the US beginning its presidency not with a discussion on Iran but with a Melania Trump-led discussion on “Children, technology and education in conflict.”
To some of us, it seemed a bit convenient that the aggression against Iran was held more or less at the same time the US assumed the presidency of the Council. Without plunging into conspiracies, it was apparent that the March presidency gave the US leverage over how meetings on Iran were to be conducted, including the briefers and the designated slots when the US Ambassador or DC Secretaries would deliver their remarks.
What was stunning to me, though not entirely surprising, is how much of March’s Iran-focused discussions were about Iran’s transgressions not those related to the war-of-choice waged by Israel and the US. Evidence of this took the form of Resolution 2817 submitted by Bahrain under the US presidency (https://docs.un.org/en/s/res/2817(2026) and focused on the illegality of attacks by Iran on Jordan and Gulf Coast States.
This is fair enough on its face. Iran has launched attacks on its neighbors and apparently not always with precision. But even a cursory reading of the resolution text calls its exclusions into account, leaving the reader to wonder if Bahrain and some other Council members actually believe that this particular iteration of needless warfare was initiated by Iran itself.
Indeed, there is no mention in the resolution of US or Israeli aggression, no mention of the massive aggression now being perpetrated against Lebanon by Israel, no acknowledgement of the perpetually dubious claims that Iran is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon, no mention of Iran’s right of self-defense, a right which is invoked over and over to justify Israeli abuses against Palestinians, Lebanese and others. Moreover, there is no mention of the US bases which have for some time formed a “ring” around Iran, bases which are threatening enough in peacetime but which are manifestly more threatening once aggression from the administrator of those bases commences.
Some have claimed that not all of these bases were being utilized in the Iran attacks and thus should be exempt from being targeted. Again fair enough to a point. But questioning Iran’s targeting strategy while also (by words or silence) defending the war-of-choice waged by the US and Israel is, for me, a bar far too high, as is the constant reshuffling of the cards hoping to the find the one which can explain with any validity the justification for this particular incarnation of aggressive intent.
I am no fan of Iran’s government as I am not a fan of many others. But the juxtaposition of a Security Council which, on the one hand, denies Iran’s right to self-defense while granting plenary indulgence to Israel to commit whatever crimes it feels the need to commit against both Gazans and the sovereign territories of other states is more than I am able to accept. It is also more than the credibility of the UN can bear. at this pivotal moment in its history. An institution which refuses to uphold its own core principles has endangered and possibly even forfeited more of its authority and credibility than it might currently be able to recognize.
It is not as though the current crop of Council members is unable to muster up indignation at violations of IHL and the UN Charter. During discussions on Ukraine, Council members take Russia to task in a manner markedly at variance with the more “kid gloves” treatment given to Israel and/or the US. I have no issue with such treatment of Russia though much of the rhetoric often seems more political than principled, par for the course in a Chamber where diplomats are conferring positions crafted elsewhere. But the tonal gaps between Ukraine and Gaza (and now Iran) are startling for at least some of us who frequent the Council chamber. That the US ensures such a chasm where Israel is concerned is both apparent and emblematic of the UN’s decline in the eyes of much of the global public.
When the Trump Administration started sending its own people to New York over a year ago, it was clear that the UN was headed into rougher waters. Part of this was of the UN’s making but part of it was the need to respond to threats by the “host country” to restrict payment of dues and diplomatic visas while seeking to reduce the footprint of the UN in multiple contexts, as part of a move to “return the UN to its core mission” which is to stop war and armed conflict.
There was and still is a kernel of truth to this. The UN has engaged in seemingly endless policy meetings and pledging conferences geared towards funding the humanitarian and development consequences of un-prevented and/or unresolved armed conflicts. The US is right to point out this linkage and insist that a more robust conflict prevention capacity would yield financial and credibility benefits across the UN system and, even more, offer relief to millions of long-suffering conflict victims.
The US, however, is wrong for not owning up to its own fingerprints on some of the gravest, conflict-related horrors facing nations and peoples around the globe. This isn’t the place to explore how a national psyche absolves national leaders of self-reflection, let alone responsibility. But this is the place to remind the US (and certainly not only the US) that its vast military expenditures and protective vetoes, its bullying and disinformation campaigns often behind the scenes, its predisposition at times to blatant “wolf in sheep’s clothing” sabotage has not made the world safer or more trustworthy. At times such actions merely reinforce the view that international law is a luxury that the well-armed and well-financed nations of the world need only invoke when it serves their narrow purposes.
Even in this time of often inept and tone-deaf governance, there is much that still emanates from my country which serves a human interest more than a national one and which can still elicit pride in the actions of a range of national stakeholders. But it is also the case that we are living through a time where trust across nations and cultures is low and aggression itself is increasingly normalized – in our foreign policy, in our use of language, in our willingness to see others as competitors to neutralize rather than as partners in positive, cooperative endeavors, even in swaths of our religious life seemingly unaffected by the devotional profundities of Ramadan, Passover and Christian Holy Week. And despite the collaborative rhetoric routinely emanating from UN sources, we have largely allowed the same to fester within our own structures, enabling states to attempt to justify what ought to be unjustifiable, acts of aggression leveled against nations and peoples with little or no accountability or remorse.
Bahrain began its formal presidency on Thursday with events exploring ways of enhancing relations between the UN and both the Gulf Cooperation Council and League of Arab States. Here’s hoping that any fresh collaborative commitments extend to some of the other items on the Council agenda for April including the event on the 27th devoted to “maritime security.” The status of the Strait of Hormuz will no doubt dominate that session regardless of how aggression against and by Iran over the next three weeks evolves. The stake here are clearly high and continuing to rise.
gapwblog 