16th NAM Summit: Support for Iranian Nuclear Energy Program

The group of 120 developing nations – Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) – held its summit in Teheran (Iran) recently. It claimed the participation by such a large number of nations in the summit proved that the United States had failed to isolate it from the rest of the world.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh attended the summit, which was preceded by crucial bilateral talks with Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The NAM Summit was merely an attempt by Iran to garner legitimacy for a regime that is getting increasingly unpopular at home and isolated globally. As is typical of many autocracies, the Islamic Republic has grown addicted to grandiose international gatherings to reclaim some of its lost sheen and prestige. This is unlikely to work as foreign approbation is never a substitute for legitimacy at home.

The Indian performance at the NAM summit was particularly disturbing. UN Secretary General and the Egyptian President stood up for their convictions but Prime Minister Manmohan Singh failed to even articulate a coherent position based on the imperatives of Indian national interest. This was not really surprising as increasingly Indian domestic political demands have imposing significant costs on the management of India's external relations. India has very little in common with the majority of the members of NAM, and New Delhi is forced to extol the virtues of NAM. The world has changed, Indian foreign policy priorities have changed and yet some of the best and brightest in the Indian foreign policy establishment want to resurrect non-alignment.

Despite what some might suggest, NAM was only of limited utility to India even during the heydays of the Cold War. It became overtly hostile to the West as it lined up to support Moscow on issue after issue during the Cold War. For India, this much touted Third World solidarity was of little use during major times of crises. Yet New Delhi persists with its fascination with NAM even as the leaders of Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Sudan continue to add luster to the glowing credentials of NAM.

Joint Statement

The Teheran Summit ended by issuing a statement. Different topics like collective peace and security, antiterrorism campaign, nuclear issue and emphasis on rights of countries within the framework of nuclear non-proliferation treaty NPT and stressing elimination of nuclear weapons, the need for changing the current structure of the UN, preservation of the right of sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries, non-interference in internal affairs of other countries, the issue of Palestine and mechanisms for world management were discussed at Teheran Summit.

The final statement of the summit contains important chapters including political and economic crises of the world, the issue of Palestine, the right of use of peaceful nuclear energy as well as lasting world peace. The statement, as the outcome of expert discussions in the meeting of experts and foreign ministers participating in the NAM summit, highlights the shaping of a just, comprehensive, transparent and effective system for a joint international management with the participation of all countries within the framework of their interests.

Situation in Middle East

Occupation of Palestine and the Zionist regime's continuous crimes which is one of the main reasons of the critical situation in the Middle East was the other axis of Teheran summit statement. In this regard, the statement underlines that a solution to this crisis requires putting end to occupation, restoration of the indispensible right of self-determination for the Palestinian people and establishment of an independent state with the holy Quds as capital.

Emphasis on global elimination of nuclear weapons, participation of countries in global governance and unanimity on resolving regional crises especially Syria are among important issues which were raised on the first day of Teheran summit by Iran.

Pointing to the nuclear issue, the statement describes production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons as a serious threat to humanity noting, “Nuclear-armed countries should fulfill their commitments within the framework of article 6 of NPT within a specific time.”

The content of Teheran statement shows that the Teheran Summit pays attention to the present and future but it stresses the fundamental principles of NAM.

This comprehensive glance shows that although the initial approach of the movement in the international arena was political, today it has noticed different aspects of participation in world management which means opportunity for cooperation and use of various economic, commercial capacities and cultural interactions among NAM members.

In fact, the NAM is looking for opportunities to play an independent role in decision-making and world policy-making.

Western Media Hype

The successful holding of the NAM summit showed that unlike the western media hype, Iran not only was not isolated and passive but made the NAM atmosphere dynamic and turned it into the scene of expressing various viewpoints resulting in effective and comprehensive results through positive thinking.

The Teheran convergence showed that the NAM members with their ample capacities and possibilities play their real role to counter challenges like insecurity, war and hegemony; since the world nations are still thirsty for justice, peace and security and disgust domineering powers.

From this viewpoint the NAM is also a symbol of global efforts to achieve peace, security and development in the world. There is no doubt that in view of the multitude of the NAM members which comprise two third of the world countries, the movement deserves an international role on the basis of NAM thoughts. Certainly achieving this goal in the present world is in need of a new management and international structure.

A realistic glance at the causes of the world issues shows that many problems such as wars, insecurity, poverty and the like stem from excessive ambition and monopoly of hegemonic powers that are seeking to dominate the world wealth and resources. This monopoly has spread to scientific domain like access to peaceful nuclear technology.

Support for Iran’s Nuclear Energy Program

The final communiqué expressed support for Iran’s nuclear energy program, rejected the United States’ unilateral sanctions against the Islamic Republic, and called for greater efforts to support the Palestinian cause. The need to combat Islamophobia and racism throughout the world as well as global nuclear disarmament were some of the other key issues mentioned in the document.

In the closing ceremony, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hailed the resolution as “effective and historic” and expressed his gratitude to all of the participants of the summit, which he said had a very important message for the entire world.

Impact of US Sanctions

Iran, has understandably highlighted Western interference in West Asia as part and parcel of a “global oppression system”. The next NAM summit will be hosted in 2015 by another staunchly revolutionary country, Venezuela, which means that the institution could remain entrenched in a firmly anti-American mould in the foreseeable future. Venezuela is the leader of the Bolivarian revolution in Latin America against US hegemony. As the host with presiding power, it can influence the overall direction and focus of the NAM by placing American neo-colonialism as the central concern in all meetings and forums of the institution.

Iran has hit out at the US, saying the holding of the 16th NAM Summit in Teheran proves the "failure" of America's "threat and sanction" policy against the oil-rich country. The anti-Iran policies of the US-led Western nations are doomed for failure.

The presence of heads of states and high ranking delegations of NAM member countries in Teheran as important "under such critical conditions arising from developments in the Middle East and North Africa and its coincidence with Islamic awakening movement" in the region.

Need of Hour

NAM’s members should reinterpret its contours in the context of a multipolar world. Moreover, NAM will have to move beyond verbal condemnations of Western “humanitarian interventions” and invasions and devise grand strategies for self-protection as a group from nefarious designs emanating from all powerful quarters, including not only the US but also potentially China or other great powers. In addition, to win wider public approval and to revitalize grassroots support, NAM has to adopt standards of accountability of member states towards their respective societies.

An international institution that keeps hitting out at foreign aggression, but which is blind to internal democratic deficiencies among its own member states, cannot have a solid social base, which matters in a world where nonstate actors are so pivotal. NAM’s future lies in the hands of expectant younger generations in demographically bulging parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Delivering economic and political justice to these people must never slip from the radar of state elites gathering in Teheran with the intent of panning the tyranny of great powers.

The Teheran Summit was an occasion for deep introspection among its 120 member states about the identity of the group and its mission in a multipolar world.

Referendum in Syria on New Constitution

Syrians have voted on a new draft constitution aimed at quelling the country’s uprising by ending the ruling Baath Party’s five-decade domination of power, but the Opposition announced a boycott and clashes were reported across the country. The move could keep President Bashar al-Assad in power until 2028. The result is viewed as a foregone conclusion.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin issued a strong warning to the West against military intervention in Syria, its longtime ally, but US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made clear there was no enthusiasm in Washington for war.
The International Red Cross and Syrian Arab Red Crescent were still negotiating with Syrian authorities and the opposition in an effort to get aid into strife-torn areas of the embattled city of Homs, where conditions were said to be grim.
The country has 14.6 million eligible voters who were asked to cast ballots on whether they approve or reject the recently drafted constitution in more than 14,000 polling stations around the country.
In regions like the restive central city of Homs, where shelling by government forces has left hundreds dead, or the northwestern province of Idlib and the southern region of Daraa where rebels clash frequently with the security forces, turnout is likely to be minimal.
Antigovernment Protests
More than 5000 people have been killed in Syria's violent crackdown against protesters, the UN rights chief has told the Security Council, recommending that the regime of President Al-Assad be referred to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
Foreign journalists were taken by the Information Ministry to the Damascus neighborhood of Rukneddine and the Damascus suburb of Barzeh that witnessed antigovernment protests in the past months. Few voters were at the polling stations in either area.
Earlier this month, President Al-Assad called for a referendum on the new constitution — which allows for at least a theoretical opening of the country’s political system — as an effort to placate critics and end the 11-month uprising against his rule.
Creating Multiparty System
The new charter would create a multiparty system in Syria, which has been ruled by the Arab Socialist Baath Party since a 1963 coup. It also states that the president, who has been a member of the Assad family since 1970, can only be in office for a maximum of two seven-year terms.
Such changes were unthinkable a year ago, but after the uprising began in March and Assad’s crackdown that killed thousands of people, the vast majority of opposition groups say they accept nothing less than Assad abandoning power.
The two main umbrella opposition groups, the Syrian National Council and the National Coordination Body for Democratic Change in Syria, have called for a boycott. Some groups have also called for a general strike to coincide with the referendum.
In the capital Damascus, where Assad retains support among religious minorities and the business class, many said they were eager to vote.
Party Pluralism
According to a civil servant, “This is a good constitution. It calls for party pluralism and the president can only hold the post for two terms. These did not exist in the past.”
In Barzeh, which recently witnessed intense antigovernment protests, about 20 percent of the shops were closed, apparently in compliance with the calls for a strike. Turnout was very low at a polling station in the area, with a person coming every few minutes to cast a ballot. In Rukneddine, turnout was also low. People cast ballots as they arrived with no need to stand in line.
UN Resolution
The UN General Assembly has already voted 137 to 12 to approve a resolution calling for an immediate halt to President Al-Assad's violent crackdown on dissent.
China, Russia and Iran were among the nations that opposed the text put forward by Egypt and other Arab states that condemned "widespread and systematic violations of human rights" in Syria.
Seventeen UN member states abstained from voting on the resolution, which came just days after Russia and China joined forces to use their veto power to derail a similar text in the UN Security Council.
The International Red Cross and Syrian Arab Red Crescent were still negotiating with Syrian authorities and the opposition in an effort to get aid into strife-torn areas of the embattled city of Homs, where conditions were said to be grim.
Assessment
The only way to resolve the situation in Syria is through a Syrian-led political process, and that means dialog. The Western nations instead switch gears and turn into regime change mode, discouraging dialog, discouraging dialogue within Syria, discouraging dialog between the Arab League and Syria. This is very dangerous.
In fact they make no secret of the fact that they want regime change. In numerous statements you can trace their policy, which cannot be conducive to a political process.
No one wants to see a repeat of Libya in Syria, or of the war in Iraq, which went against a decision by the UN Security Council. Any decision on Syria will require the support and shared responsibility of Moscow to make it legitimate. One suggestion is for Russia to guarantee the interests and security of the minorities in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, who fear reprisals by the Sunni majority if Al-Assad government (a privileged minority) were to fall. This would be a way for Russia to take a morally correct and a politically promising stance.

Instability in Syria: West Asia Crisis Continues

Russia won a promise from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on February 7 to bring an end to bloodshed in Syria, but Western and Arab nations acted to isolate Assad further after activists and rebels said his forces killed over 100 in the city of Homs. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, representing a rare ally on a trip to the Syrian capital – Damascus –other states are shunning, said Russia now wanted to resolve Syria's crisis in line with an Arab plan. Moscow and Beijing vetoed in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
The Russian mediation failed to slow a rush by countries that denounced the Russian-Chinese veto three days ago to corner Syria diplomatically and cripple Assad with sanctions in hopes of toppling him and encouraging reforms to avert chaos in a region straddling major fault lines of Middle East conflict.
Earlier on February 5, Russia and China joined forces in a double veto to knock down a Western-Arab UNSC Resolution backing an Arab League plan for President Al-Assad to step aside. The other 13 council members voted in favor of the resolution, which would have said that the council "fully supports" the Arab League plan aimed at ending 11 months of bloodshed as Syria has sought to crush an anti-Assad uprising.
Both Moscow and Beijing do not agree with the Arab League’s approach, which was supported by the US and its West European allies. The opponents of the resolution wanted a consensus to be arrived at before taking it to the Security Council which was not possible. The two Asian giants fear that once they approve of the UN intervention to resolve the crisis in Syria, a sovereign nation, tomorrow the method can be used against them also. But they are not justified in going against the will of the Syrian masses. As the world has seen, dictators like Al-Assad have no regard for people’s aspirations for democracy. They can kill any number of people to perpetuate their autocratic rule. What happened in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen is before all of us to see.
At present, Russia and China both believe they were deceived into abstaining rather than using their veto. Although Moscow has sought to distance itself from the brutalities of the Assad regime, which is now using heavy weapons against protesters, the February 4 veto is a shot in the arm for Damascus. But the US approach, which has included strident calls for President Assad to go, does not open a path for an urgent political solution to the violence either. One of the problems is that the opposition to the regime is severely fragmented.
In November 2011, the Arab League has suspended Syria until President Al-Assad implements an Arab deal to end violence against protesters, and called for sanctions and transition talks with the opposition. The League has long been seen by tens of millions of people throughout West Asia and North Africa as toothless and a puppet of the despots, dictators, and absolute monarchs who comprise the majority of its governments. This time 18 of the 22 members voted for the proposal at an emergency meeting in Cairo, with three — Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon — voting against and Iraq abstaining.
Killings of Innocent People
Syrian forces unleashed a barrage of mortars and artillery on the battered city of Homs, sending terrified residents fleeing into basements and killing more than 300 people in what appeared to be the bloodiest episode in the nearly 11-month-old uprising. However, the Syrian Government denied the assault. It said the reports were part of a “hysterical campaign” of incitement by armed groups against Syria.
There were signs that the bombardment in Homs, Syria's third largest city, was in response to moves by army defectors to solidify their control in several neighborhoods. There were reports that defectors set up new checkpoints in several areas, and two activists from Homs said defectors attacked a military checkpoint in the Khaldiyeh District and captured 17 soldiers. The activists spoke on condition of anonymity to protect themselves from retaliation.
Ongoing Protests
Undoubtedly, the worst news of all is that this probably means that Syria is heading down into the same kind of hell that Lebanon went through in its fifteen-year civil war (1975-90).
The Syrian protests began as a brave attempt to emulate the non-violent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. The Assad regime would kill people, of course, but if the protesters stood fast and refused to kill back, ultimately the regime’s support would just drain away. Non-violence was doubly important in the Syrian case, because if it were a violent revolution various minorities would feel gravely threatened.
However, the non-violent strategy has foundered on the rock of Syria’s sectarian and ethnic divisions. Sunni deserters from the Army started fighting back, and all the other communities took fright. Now it’s a civil war in which the regime has the heavy weapons but the Sunni Arabs have the numbers.
India’s Decision
By going along with the vetoed UNSC Resolution on Syria, India primarily expressed its disappointment with the continued prevarication by the Assad government in implementing the political package of reforms it promised late last year and over several incidents of armed assault on peaceful protesting congregations since discontent engulfed the country in 2011.
Hardeep Puri, India's permanent representative in the United Nations, read with his explanation of vote, showed that New Delhi was upset at the winding up of the Arab League's observer mission in Syria but it differed widely from the Arab League's prescriptions, reflected in the draft resolution. Unlike the Arab League and the draft resolution, India did not ask for multiparty elections in a time frame or the freedom of movement sought all over the country for a wide range of actors from AL observers to the international media and humanitarian organizations.
India has demonstrated its capacity to take a clear stand on any regional or global issue. It is not a question of going along with the US and the rest of the West. India has to play its own independent role to protect its interests in West Asia.
Need of the Hour
Syria is just as complex a society as Lebanon, although we can still hope that the war does not go on as long. And it’s entirely possible that the Assad regime, whose senior ranks are mostly drawn from the Alawite minority (only 10 percent of the population), has deliberately chosen civil war. Better that than surrender power and expose the Alawites to the vengeance they fear from all those whom they have ruled for the past 40 years.
The Western countries have only themselves to blame for alienating what could have been powerful and influential allies in this terrible and protracted crisis. Russia's unwillingness to go along with a US-led process stems, in large measure, from its anger at western conduct over Libya. The UNSC Resolution of March 2011 imposed only a no-fly zone but served, in reality, as a cover for North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)'s aim of violent regime change in Syria.
The Syrian National Council (SNC) is at odds with both the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the National Coordination Committee (NCC). Moreover, with the regime in Syria drawn from the 10 per cent Alawite Shia minority, Sunni extremist groups have jumped into the fray. The P-5 and Arab League, along with India, Brazil and South Africa, must go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan of action that can end the violence and set the stage for a Syrian-led political solution.
Country’s Brief Facts
Modern Syria gained its independence from France in 1946 but has lived through periods of political instability driven by the conflicting interests of these various groups. From 1958-61 it united with Nasser's Egypt, but an army coup restored independence before the Alawite-controlled pan-Arab Baath (Renaissance) party took control in 1963. It rules to this day.
The Baath government has seen authoritarian rule at home and a strong anti-Israeli policy abroad, particularly under former President Hafez al-Assad. In 1967 Syria lost the Golan Heights to the Israelis, while civil war in neighboring Lebanon allowed it to extend its political and military influence in the region.
Syria pulled its forces out of Lebanon in 2005, having come under intense international pressure to do so after the assassination of Lebanese former premier Rafik Hariri. A UN report implicated Syrian and pro-Syria Lebanese officials in the killing.
The government has dealt harshly with domestic opposition. Tens of thousands are reported to have been killed in the crackdown on the 1982 uprising of the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama. In 2011 security forces used tanks, gunfire and mass arrests to try crush anti-government street protests inspired by the Arab Spring that toppled the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt.

Arab League Suspends Syria

The Arab League has suspended Syria until President Bashar al-Assad implements an Arab deal to end violence against protesters, and called for sanctions and transition talks with the opposition. The League has long been seen by tens of millions of people throughout West Asia and North Africa as toothless and a puppet of the despots, dictators, and absolute monarchs who comprise the majority of its governments. This time 18 of the 22 members voted for the proposal at an emergency meeting in Cairo, with three — Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon — voting against and Iraq abstaining. The immediate cause of the vote is the failure by Damascus to abide by its own November 2 assent to an earlier League plan to end the violence, which the United Nations estimates has caused more than 3,500 deaths since the protests began in March.
A statement, read by Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassem Al-Thani, said the Arab League decided “to suspend Syrian delegations’ activities in Arab League meetings” if it continued to stall the Arab plan and to implement “economic and political sanctions against the Syrian Government.” It also called for the withdrawal of Arab ambassadors from Damascus, but left the decision to each Arab state.
The statement warned that Arab League Secretary General Nabil al-Arabi would contact international organizations concerned with human rights, “including the United Nations,” if the bloodshed continued. It called for a meeting in Cairo with Syrian opposition groups in three days to “agree a unified vision for the coming transitional period in Syria.”
A week of deadly violence in city of Homs had overshadowed the meeting, in which Arab ministers appeared divided on what measure to take but eventually voted by majority on the final statement.
Assad’s regime agreed on November 2 to an Arab road map, which called for the release of detainees, the withdrawal of the army from urban areas and free movement for observers and the media, as well as negotiations with the opposition.
Instead, human rights groups say the regime has intensified its crackdown on dissent, especially in flashpoint Homs, killing at least 125 people in the city since signing onto the League’s deal.
Saudi Arabia, which is extremely hostile to Iranian influence in Syria and to democracy in the region, advocates encouraging Sunni Islamist forces, and this would also marginalize moderate Syrian Sunnis. This suits North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members very well. Those Western powers whose leaders, facing severe domestic problems and needing some high-profile foreign adventurism, suborned the United Nations Security Council into voting for the violent and destructive intervention against Muammar Gaddhafi know that Russia and China will rightly veto any such resolution on Syria; but now the West can look uninvolved and can expect little criticism for its silence over continuing state brutality in Bahrain and Yemen.
Growing Death Toll
The UN human rights office said that more than 3,500 people have been killed in the Syrian regime's brutal crackdown on dissent, deploring the slaughter that went on despite a peace plan. The brutal crackdown on the dissent in Syria has so far claimed the lives of more than 3,500 Syrians.
More than 60 people are reported to have been killed by military and security forces since Syria signed the peace plan sponsored by the league of Arab states, including at least 19 on Eid al-Adha.
The Arab roadmap calls for an end to violence, the release of those detained, the withdrawal of the army from urban areas and free movement for observers and the media, as well as talks between the regime and opposition.
EU Extends Sanctions
European Union (EU) governments agreed have to extend sanctions against Syria to 18 more individuals associated with its violent crackdown on dissent, but signaled that Western military action against the government was unlikely for now.
EU foreign ministers, meeting in Brussels, also sought to increase economic pressure on President Bashar al-Assad by approving plans to stop Syria accessing funds from EU’s European Investment Bank (EIB).
The EU has already placed sanctions on 56 Syrians and 19 organizations in its effort to get Assad to halt his bloody crackdown on the eight-month uprising, and has banned the import into the EU of Syrian crude oil.
EU leaders warned last month that Syria could face new sanctions if there was no halt to the violence, in which the United Nations says more than 3,500 protesters have died. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said there was a good case for further extending EU measures, which from 15 November will affect 74 individuals and 19 firms and entities.
Syria’s Reaction
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said that the government in Damascus will not budge despite its suspension from the Arab League, which he warned was a “dangerous step.” Muallem’s comments come after the Arab League announced a fresh meeting on Syria and as global pressure, including a threat of new sanctions, intensified on President Bashar al-Assad’s regime over its lethal crackdown on protests. “The decision of the Arab League to suspend Syria... represents a dangerous step,” Muallem added.
The foreign minister said: “Today there is a crisis in Syria which pays the price of its strong positions. Syria will not budge and will emerge stronger... And plots against Syria will fail,” said the minister. Muallem said Syria’s government was not concerned about the likelihood of foreign military intervention in the country, due to the opposition of China and Russia. He added: “Syria is not Libya. The Libyan scenario will not be repeated; what is happening in Syria is different from what happened in Libya and the Syrian people should not worry.”