In Case You Missed It: "The UN Charter Contemplates for both the Expulsion and Suspension of a Country that in Fact Violates those Rules"
UANI CEO, Ambassador Mark D. Wallace, Discusses UANI's Call to Suspend Iran's UN Privileges on Canada's Sun News Network
August 15, 2012
AMBASSADOR MARK D. WALLACE, UANI CEO: Here's the premise and it's a pretty basic premise. If any of us were members of a club, fraternity, or institution and we violated the principles and rules of that institution over and over again, what institution in the world today would allow us to maintain membership and good standing?
And in the case of Iran they have violated the principles of the UN charter. They have violated the rules of the charter and they violated Security Council resolutions for years and years and years. And the UN charter contemplates for both the expulsion and suspension of a country that in fact violates those rules.
There's precedent for it. In 1974 the credentials committee looked into suspending apartheid South Africa. So we think it's a right time as the world is uniting in opposition to Iran's behavior. ... we should take action at least to call out Iran and put them under the microscope as to why they aren't fulfilling their UN obligations
****
WALLACE: You talked about previously about Canada doing its very important work in walking out of, for example, the Durban conference, which is what you are referencing, I presume. And that was a really important statement.
Now look, we all understand the shortcomings of the UN. Is the likelihood of a full two-thirds vote of the General Assembly and a full Security Council vote, which is required to expel Iran from the UN., is that likely to succeed? No, I don't think it is, but I think we should call out, particularly in this day and age, those countries that are willing to stand with this oppressive regime and call for this action. Test it and see who would support them.
Will Russia and China, who have been so adamantly opposed to sanctions and other actions, stand with Iran? We should call them out on it and take the action because the same optical effect when Canada led that delegation out of Durban, that it would not stand for a horrible racist conference--it's the same symbolic effect by calling them out, having this vote, and seeing who would stand with Iran. I would imagine the countries will be fewer and fewer, and for every time you have an action like that, the global noose tightens around the Iranian neck and it makes it much harder to continue their very, very intractable behavior.
****
WALLACE: Well as you know ... nobody likes taking on a portfolio that is a difficult challenge and potentially a loser. But I think that there are certain diplomats out there, I think I was one of them, I think Ambassador Bolton was one of them , that sometimes it's okay to lose and by saying lose is by sponsoring a resolution to suspend Iran by way of example and by losing you win. Because fewer and fewer countries will stand with Iran and Iran will feel that pressure, and with each year where you repeat the resolution it gets harder and harder for Iran to be isolated and isolated and isolated in the international community.
You're right; many diplomats would not want to encourage an action that is a difficult process and likely a loser. Some of us would absolutely call it out and be willing to lose to call out those that are standing with this regime. I think it would be illuminating. Right now you only see the Iranians standing with Assad. Hopefully at some point only one or two countries will stand with the Iranians. A year or two ago the Assad regime would've had much more support than it does now.
Click
here to watch the full interview.
Click
here to read Ambassador Wallace, Ambassador John Bolton, and UANI President, Ambassador Kristen Silverberg's
Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, "Iran Doesn't Belong in the U.N. or IMF."
No comments:
Post a Comment