Our Advertisers Represent Some Of The Most Unique Products & Services On Earth!


Why Is 5 Bigger Than 118?
Exclusive to Rense.com

By Kourosh Ziabari
Independent Journalist In Iran

The Non-Aligned Movement is an international organization of 118 countries who have declared their ideological opposition to any sort of foreign intervention, hegemony, colonialism, domination, aggression and imperialism. The member states of NAM constitute 55% of the world population and represent two-thirds of the UN members. Fundamentally, the criteria of membership in NAM is "independence" and inclination to self-determination. As a result, the members of Non-Aligned Movement come from four corners of the world with various cultural, lingual, religious and racial backgrounds and a common principle which is opposition to imperialistic inequality.
In practice, NAM works as a global coalition of nations who share common objectives and ideals. They haven't come together randomly nor have they been imposed on the other nations and countries unfairly. Despite being in majority, they never endeavored to dictate their own will to the international community since they understand that the term "international community" does not solely encompass the U.S. and Israel.
Another international body is the 15-member United Nations Security Council which is seen to be the foremost organ within the UN system that is capable of deciding the destiny of wars and conflicts, maintaining the global peace and taking care of member states not to violate the international regulations (however, it won't be that important if they violate the international regulations themselves! Which international body has the authority to survey the performance of the UNSC members and their adherence to international regulations?)
The establishment of peacekeeping missions, implementation of sanctions and authorization of military actions are the main powers UNSC holds in order to exercise whenever "necessary".
China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States have teamed up on the grounds of their successful victory in the World War II. They consequently shaped a circle of friends which tended to be called the Security Council. Whenever these friends come to a conclusion regarding an international problem or crisis collectively, they make a joint decision which is called "resolution" and the other countries are obliged to give in to the resolution irrevocably.
These five countries (the permanent members of Security Council) possess an authority which is called the right of veto. It means that once you persuade or dissuade one of these Big Fives through bribery and enticement, the destiny of our world would have the potentiality to change drastically. Simply speaking, there are five countries who decide for some 193 countries and this is exactly the "equality" the Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to!: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
Surprisingly, the right of veto which the permanent members of UNSC hold ­ in order to impose their own will on the other nations - is also reflected in the paragraph 1 of the UN Charter's Article 2: "the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members".
"The sovereign equality of" all the members of the United Nations denotes that 5 is equal to or bigger than any other three-digit number; whether it's the number of UN Members or NAM members.
During the past 5 years, Iran has been under the incessant threats of military strike by the U.S. and Israel over its nuclear program. This is exactly what the paragraph 4 of the Article 2 expresses: "all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
In August 2006, the former chief of Pakistan's Military Intelligence, Major General Hameed Gul "predicted" that America would definitely attack Iran and Syria simultaneously in October, according to a Global Research report.
Even the progressive American journalist Juan Cole had believed the propagandistic lie. He wrote in April 2006 "surely the present US regime will attack Iran. I certainly pray that they do not use nuclear weapons."
In a September 2006 article, American progressive politician, Paul Craig Roberts suggested that the Bush administration had planned to attack Iran unilaterally: "The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East."
While campaigning for the presidential elections, Hillary Clinton told the ABC's Good Morning America that the U.S. has the capability to obliterate Iran: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran."
In June 2008, an Israeli deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz warned that Israel will definitely attack Iran if it does not halt its nuclear program: "If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it."
In a July 2008 report, UK's Times Online quoted an unidentified "senior" Pentagon official who was almost sure that a military strike against Iran would take place in months: "President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down".
The same month, John Bolton gave an interview to the Daily Telegraph in which he predicted that "Israel will attack Iran before new U.S. president sworn in." This was one of the most famous and interesting "predifalsifiction"s regarding an imminent Israeli strike against Iran.
Over the past 5 years, such brutal statements have been made by the American and Israeli officials recurrently, subjecting Iran to the most lethal and relentless psychological operations ever carried out. Although these hawkish statements violated the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights to immeasurable extents, nobody could even ring a simple alarm to caution against the growing Iranophobia manufactured by AIPAC and the rest of Zionist lobbies which direct the foreign policy of the United State.
The Non-Aligned Movement about which we talked earlier has reiterated several times (as the IAEA did) that Iran's nuclear program is aimed at civilian purposes and does not have anything to do with military applications. The 118-country bloc has backed Iran's nuclear program in numerous statements and announced that repeated threats of military strike violate the international regulations.
In their March 3 statement read out in the meeting of IAEA's board of governors, they expressed their support of Iran's nuclear program categorically.
"States' choices and decisions, including those of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear technology and its fuel policies must be respected", the statement reads.
"NAM strongly believes that all safeguards and verification issues, including those related to Iran, should be resolved within the IAEA framework, and be based on technical and legal grounds. NAM further emphasizes that the Agency should continue its work to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue within its mandate under the Statute of the IAEA", it continued.
The Non-Aligned Movement also emphasized the rectitude of Iran's nuclear program: "NAM also takes note that the Director General has stated once again that the Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."
Anyway, the equations of power within the international frameworks demand that bullying powers disregard the interests of the rest of the world and misrepresent a great majority which wants to have its own say. It doesn't matter that a coalition of 118 countries wants to back Iran's civilian nuclear program and oppose to militarism.
What really matters is the inclination of the Big Fives. They can launch attacks, impose sanctions and stage psychological operations whenever they desire. That's why we should believe that politically, 5 is far bigger than 118, and there isn't any argument to reject this categorical conclusion.
Donate to Rense.com
Support Free And Honest
Journalism At Rense.com
Subscribe To RenseRadio!
Enormous Online Archives,
MP3s, Streaming Audio Files, 
Highest Quality Live Programs


This Site Served by TheHostPros