Subject: Celebreate Huaycaltia's 25th anniversary Sat May 29th and help a
great organization
Dear Friends,
I recently joined Centro Latino for Literacy as Executive Director. Centro
Latino teaches Latino immigrants to read and write, giving them the
essential skills and confidence to participate more fully and independently
in society. There are over 200,000 non-literate Latino immigrants in Los
Angeles County alone (over 2 million in the US)
Please read attached news letter for highlights of this organization's work
and join me in celebrating Huayucaltia's 25th music anniversary on Saturday,
May 29th at 7:00 p.m at the John Anson Ford Amphatheatre. Advanced tickets
($30) are available from Centro Latino through May 22nd and your purchase
will provide a $5 donation to the organization's Spanish literacy programs.
You can request tickets at events@centrolatinoliteracy.org
Gracias y hasta muy pronto!
Mari
***
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/20-5
Can a Security Council 'Coalition of the Unwilling' Defy Washington's
Sanctions Crusade?
Sanctions that don't work vs. diplomacy that does
by Phyllis Bennis
Common Dreams: May 20m 2010
The U.S. crusade for new UN sanctions against Iran has been underway for a
long time. But the new intensity, the new scurrying around to make sure
China and Russia are on board, and the new scramble for an immediate public
announcement all reflect Washington's frustration with the new agreement
with Iran brokered by Turkey and Brazil. That agreement requires Iran to
send about half of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey in return for somewhat
higher-enriched prepared fuel rods for use in its medical reactor, which is
pretty close to what the U.S. and its allies were demanding of Iran just
months ago.
So the harsh U.S. response - condemning the agreement as "just words,"
demanding that Iran make even more concessions, implying that only a
complete and utter Iranian surrender would suffice - makes it clear that
U.S. policy towards Iran isn't about an actual nuclear weapons threat, but
about power politics. There's no question the United States is really mad:
Reports are circulating around the UN that Washington is up to its old
habits of issuing implicit threats against the two upstart diplomatic
powers. Brazil has been angling for a permanent Security Council seat and
Turkey has long been trying to join the European Union. No dice on either
one, U.S. diplomats seem to be hinting.
New UN sanctions are not going to stop Iran's nuclear enrichment, still
legal under the NPT and still under UN nuclear inspections. Instead, like
economic sanctions against any country with a repressive government, they're
far more likely to impact the civilian population. The Brazil-Turkey
initiative, on the other hand, actually takes major steps towards
transferring much of Iran's enriched uranium out of the country, increasing
international oversight of its nuclear power program and, if allowed to go
forward without U.S. interference, could well lead to a significant
diminution of Iran's future enrichment. If that were really the goal of the
U.S. anti-Iran mobilization, you'd think Washington would be pleased.
Instead, many in Congress and the Obama administration appear to be working
as hard as they can to undermine the Brazil-Turkey initiative, even though
(or maybe because) it might lead to a resolution of the current crisis.
New UN sanctions could derail the new tripartite agreement. But there's one
thing that could prevent that danger: a renewed level of independence in the
UN Security Council. U.S. pressure seems to have won promises from Russia
and China that they won't veto a harsh new sanctions regime - but that's not
the same as a promise to vote for the sanctions.
If current council members Brazil and Turkey can convince some of their
allies to resist U.S. pressure, abstentions by Russia and China (and maybe
even France?) could allow a new "coalition of the unwilling" to prevent the
sanctions because not enough countries voted for them.
Led by Turkey and Brazil, non-permanent Council members (whom the U.S. and
the other veto-holders rarely consult on Iran policy) could stop a sanctions
move in its tracks. Can President Lula and Prime Minister Erdogan convince a
country like Japan, which has more reason than most countries to want to
abolish nukes, to vote against useless sanctions and instead give the new
diplomatic initiative time to work? Might other council members (Lebanon,
Mexico, Austria, Gabon, Bosnia, Nigeria) be persuaded that a new round of
sanctions will do nothing to stop Iran's enrichment, but will undermine the
new initiative that might do just that?
The UN Security Council said no to U.S.-British pressure in late 2002 and
early 2003, when Washington and London tried to coerce Council members to
endorse Bush's war in Iraq. That time, Germany, France, and Russia led the
opposition, and the "Uncommitted Six" (Guinea, Cameroon, Angola, Pakistan,
Chile and again, Mexico) refused. The Six said no and finally, on February
15, 2003, the world "said no to war" in massive protests in 665 cities
around the world. Washington and London backed down and announced they were
giving up their campaign for a UN endorsement.
The Security Council stood defiant once before to try to stop a U.S. war.
Maybe it can do so again, so that U.S.-led UN sanctions don't destroy the
best diplomatic solution we've seen for a very dangerous crisis.
Phyllis Bennis is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Her books
include Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer,
Understanding the U.S.-Iran Crisis: A Primer, and most recently Ending the
Iraq War: A Primer. If you want to receive her talking points and articles
on a regular basis, click here and choose "New Internationalism."
No comments:
Post a Comment