The Ruthless Truth blog

 

Bancor: The Name Of The Global Currency That A Shocking IMF Report Is Proposing

Sometimes there are things that are so shocking that you just do not want to report them unless they can be completely and totally documented.  Over the past few years, there have been many rumors about a coming global currency, but at times it has been difficult to pin down evidence that plans for such a currency are actually in the works.  Not anymore.  A paper entitled "Reserve Accumulation and International Monetary Stability" by the Strategy, Policy and Review Department of the IMF recommends that the world adopt a global currency called the "Bancor" and that a global central bank be established to administer that currency.  The report is dated April 13, 2010 and a full copy can be read here.  Unfortunately this is not hype and it is not a rumor.  This is a very serious proposal in an official document from one of the mega-powerful institutions that is actually running the world economy.  Anyone who follows the IMF knows that what the IMF wants, the IMF usually gets.  So could a global currency known as the "Bancor" be on the horizon?  That is now a legitimate question.

So where in the world did the name "Bancor" come from?  Well, it turns out that "Bancor" is the name of a hypothetical world currency unit once suggested by John Maynard Keynes.  Keynes was a world famous British economist who headed the World Banking Commission that created the IMF during the Breton Woods negotiations.

The Wikipedia entry for "Bancor" puts it this way….

The bancor was a World Currency Unit of clearing that was proposed by John Maynard Keynes, as leader of the British delegation and chairman of the World Bank commission, in the negotiations that established the Bretton Woods system, but has not been implemented.

The IMF report referenced above proposed naming the coming world currency unit the "Bancor" in honor of Keynes.

So what about Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)?  Over the past couple of years, SDRs have been touted as the coming global currency.  Well, the report does envision making SDRs "the principal reserve asset" as we move towards a global currency unit….

"As a complement to a multi-polar system, or even—more ambitiously—its logical end point, a greater role could be considered for the SDR."

However, the report also acknowledges that SDRs do have some serious limitations.  Since the value of SDRs are closely tied to national currencies, anything affecting those currencies will affect SDRs as well.

Right now, SDRs are made up of a basket of currencies.  The following is a breakdown of the components of an SDR….

*U.S. Dollar (44 percent)

*Euro (34 percent)

*Yen (11 percent)

*Pound (11 percent)

The IMF report recognizes that moving to SDRs is only a partial move away from the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency and urges the adoption of a currency unit that would be truly international.  The truth is that SDRs are clumsy and cumbersome.  For now, SDRs must still be reconverted back into a national currency before they can be used, and that really limits their usefulness according to the report….

"A limitation of the SDR as discussed previously is that it is not a currency. Both the SDR and SDR-denominated instruments need to be converted eventually to a national currency for most payments or interventions in foreign exchange markets, which adds to cumbersome use in transactions. And though an SDR-based system would move away from a dominant national currency, the SDR’s value remains heavily linked to the conditions and performance of the major component countries."

So what is the answer?

Well, the IMF report believes that the adoption of a true global currency administered by a global central bank is the answer.

The authors of the report believe that it would be ideal if the "Bancor" would immediately be used as currency by many nations throughout the world, but they also acknowledge that a more "realistic" approach would be for the "Bancor" to circulate alongside national currencies at first….

"One option is for bancor to be adopted by fiat as a common currency (like the euro was), an approach that would result immediately in widespread use and eliminate exchange rate volatility among adopters (comparable, for instance, to Cooper 1984, 2006 and the Economist, 1988). A somewhat less ambitious (and more realistic) option would be for bancor to circulate alongside national currencies, though it would need to be adopted by fiat by at least some (not necessarily systemic) countries in order for an exchange market to develop."

So who would print and administer the "Bancor"?

Well, a global central bank of course.  It would be something like the Federal Reserve, only completely outside the control of any particular national government….

"A global currency, bancor, issued by a global central bank (see Supplement 1, section V) would be designed as a stable store of value that is not tied exclusively to the conditions of any particular economy. As trade and finance continue to grow rapidly and global integration increases, the importance of this broader perspective is expected to continue growing."

In fact, at one point the IMF report specifically compares the proposed global central bank to the Federal Reserve….

"The global central bank could serve as a lender of last resort, providing needed systemic liquidity in the event of adverse shocks and more automatically than at present. Such liquidity was provided in the most recent crisis mainly by the U.S. Federal Reserve, which however may not always provide such liquidity."

So is that what we really need?

A world currency administered by an international central bank modeled after the Federal Reserve?

Not at all.

As I have written about previously, the Federal Reserve has devalued the U.S. dollar by over 95 percent since it was created and the U.S. government has accumulated the largest debt in the history of the world under this system.

So now we want to impose such a system on the entire globe?

The truth is that a global currency (whether it be called the "Bancor" or given a different name entirely) would be a major blow to national sovereignty and would represent a major move towards global government.

Considering how disastrous the Federal Reserve system and other central banking systems around the world have been, why would anyone suggest that we go to a global central banking system modeled after the Federal Reserve?

Let us hope that the "Bancor" never sees the light of day.

However, the truth is that there are some very powerful interests that are absolutely determined to create a global currency and a global central bank for the global economy that we now live in.

It would be a major mistake to think that it can’t happen.

Share and Enjoy:

Bancor: The Name Of The Global Currency That A Shocking IMF Report Is Proposing

David Ker Thompson
CounterPunch
Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:59 EDT

© AP

Synopsis: Not all of us who are fighting in the streets here in Toronto are despondent, but a great many of us are. I am. We are experiencing in our neighborhoods what brown people have experienced for centuries around the world at our hands. It has come home to roost. I woke this morning from a dream of Kanada, and I was weeping uncontrollably. Our children are attacked by troops openly in the streets, openly in so-called "free speech zones." We chant, "the world is watching," but as we are beaten back from the neighborhoods in which we have lived for two hundred years by troops who may not even be Canadian, we see football on the TV’s. Is anyone watching us?
My ten-year-old was almost f****** killed when he was attacked by police in a free-speech zone. My fourteen-year-old and I were chased for two hours. Does anyone out there care? My friend in California recommends TOSCA-style action. Could we have TOCA here – take over Canada? I feel nothing but despair. My friends are being dragged off to left and right, and the world watches football. I began the weekend juggling for the troops, holding out flowers, but I end hunted and in tears, paranoid and sad. It feels like the end. We are still free, but barely holding on. Why do they hate us so much?
I include no paragraph breaks or aids for the reader. If you can’t be bothered to read this sort of thing because it’s too long, go back to your pictures. As an English teacher, I hate typos, but I’m too tired to polish this. All I can say is, we were there, we’ve seen it all.
——-
Toronto, June 26, Saturday: We’ve done family protests in Washington and London, amongst other places, and even mingled with some serious ruckus in Buenos Aires. Never have we experienced anything as terrible as in Toronto today, Saturday, a mile from the G20 perimeter walls. The Canadians – if these police/soldiers are even Canadian – are far and away the most vicious of any military we’ve ever experienced. My wife had scolded me for the risks I took yesterday (Friday) when I was on my own without the boys (at 6 o’clock today Sebastian typed in a simple google search: "G20 Toronto" and got a picture of me juggling as the number one entry – more on that some other time, together with my "I’m not a brave man but…" speech involving a red flower and me alone against a double-wall of riot police) and it was Eva-Lynn’s idea that we would take the children to the protests to experience the peaceful strong energy we always get at peace rallies. Though I have been a drifter much of my life, my people have lived in this neighborhood for two hundred years and been protestants the whole time. This is our home. By the time we got to Queen’s Park and walked between my wife’s two offices at the university, everything appeared to be over. People were walking away. It was very peaceful, with the sun coming out after a day’s rain. Like so many places downtown, there was a long line of police in riot gear here. They were stretched across Queen’s Park Crescent so that no one could go south. Queen’s Park Crescent is the university part of the big thoroughfare that becomes Avenue to the north and University to the south. It splits around the Ontario Legislative Building. My mother used to talk about this place since the Lieutenant Governor had a cottage near my grandmother’s in Georgian Bay and we thought it was funny that they rented the building from the university for a dollar a year. Pictures of my ancestors back in the early 1800′s hang in a wealthy church (the wealth comes from renting land to the Bay company) started by my great great great grandfather Robert Burns just a few hundred meters from here. "Fort Knox," Liam says now reading this, meaning Knox Church. Despite signed protests from the faculty last week, the university was closed at great expense on Wednesday by a president highly sympathetic to the current government (he has responded by attempting to close down all modern language departments at the university – more on that elsewhere). I saw my cousin Russ as we walked onto the main south lawn at the front of the building. He was coming out and he said it was boring and that nothing had happened. We didn’t pay the police much heed. The line of police was several men thick, and many more were in serried ranks behind. I don’t watch TV, but maybe you’ve seen the new generation of thick, absolutely impenetrable body armour these men wear. They sweat profusely and have little sucking tubes with liquid, which makes them seem cuddly and vulnerable, like vast suckling babes. They were eerily quiet always. For two weeks before this, police had been moving through the city making lots of military noises with voice commands and whistles to intimidate protestants before they even thought of protesting. But during everything I am about to relate, these police remained absolutely silent. Very spooky. There were just a few hundred protesters – far fewer than I’d been with yesterday. I was holding little Liam’s right hand and Eva-Lynn was holding his left. He’d been reluctant to come, and we were feeling pleased that he got to see something like this. People didn’t seem to be paying any particular attention to the police, though at one point there was a short spontaneous round of rhythmic clapping from our side. Just another good-vibe time on the peace lines like in any of the countries in which we’ve had long-term residence – Argentina, the U.S., England. Now Canada, we figured. A skinny little man in front of us had a small sign that said "Free Hugs." I asked Eva-Lynn if it would be okay if I went over and gave the man a hug. What happened in the next three seconds was like something out of a horror movie. I dropped Liam’s hand and took one step toward the free-hug man. There was a confused pounding sound like elephants running, and it took me a moment to figure out where it was coming from. I caught a quick glimpse of the hug man being struck and dragged, then in the next micro-second realized that the police had exploded at us without warning. Not the whole line, but a stout group of police came at full speed towards us. My wife thinks fifty or a hundred but I think it was less. The point is that the posse was several men thick and thus the men behind couldn’t have possibly known there was a small ten-year-old child in front of them, though the police in front certainly did. Once in motion, the men in back can’t alter direction based on sight lines. Luckily Liam is fast, and we just made it – I mean, just made it without being run over. With their huge exoskeletons, the men couldn’t run far. They paused for a moment, and then came at us again. But this time a cluster of cavalry broke in from our left. Have you ever been hunted by horsemen? Pretty primal, I’ll tell you. There are women on the beasts, too, like trussed valkyries. The policemen in the front had clearly seen that they were attacking a small child and they came on at full speed anyway without the slightest warning. I just couldn’t get this out of my head. They had looked right at my little boy and attacked him. Seconds later a man went down under a horse and I thought he was killed but he came up staggering on his feet – I know for sure he will have two paw prints on his back because I saw the horse double-touch him. I think the horses were not as vicious as their masters and this one was just trying to get off the man while the other riders shoved the poor beast from behind. The horse probably saved this guy’s life. Many people went down with injuries, but many of the people who were struck kept running and were not dragged off. The injuries tended to be blunt compression type from shields and truncheons, not open bloody wounds, which I guess would be bad publicity. Lots of people were hit. We got Liam out to safety north through the campus but he is in serious shock. He was very nearly trampled and possibly killed by the police having lulled us into complacency. In London or in Washington, the police will form lines to protect certain areas. You can go up and talk to them. Some will talk, some will ignore you. But we’ve never been attacked as a family in any country without warning before. My wife left to get Liam back to safety, and then – incredibly – agreed to let me stay with Sebastian, our firstborn. Life had changed in an instant. New rules, a new era. Sebastian and I remained absolutely focused from this point on. Now that we understood the pattern – police attack without warning, we were able to stay and protest for our right to stay peacefully in our neighborhood as our people have for two centuries. Until July I am still a professor at the university. This is surely my land, perhaps less surely my campus, but these are my people and this is my family. Who are these outside agitators coming into our space? Do we even know if these are Canadian troops? Are they police or troops? They might be from any of the G20 countries. Despite the fact that we were all unarmed and each police officer – if that’s what they are – had thousands of dollars in protective padding presumably paid for by the exceptionally onerous Canadian taxes we are forced to pay, they had trouble getting us because they were afraid to leave their groups. Even with my bad knee, I could outrun the foot posses, and most of us could dodge the cavalry behind trees and shrubs because the dark riders were afraid to leave their group. We had medical people with us who were tending the wounded, but no doctors. One of my students, not from the university but from a private high school called The Dragon Academy, came up in a kerchief holding eggs and said hi. I told him to remind me which class I’d taught him at the school. "Law," he said. We both grinned at the irony and bolted for cover. We fell gradually back past the legislative building. Sebastian and I penguined to the center of the group while we learned the strategy. Every three or four minutes a foot posse would attack from the front and the cavalry would flank us. They got us back past the bridge after an hour. In the first run I’d bolted with Liam. But I gradually figured out how dangerous it was to everyone else if you ran, and I was able to help the more experienced people calm and slow the faster runners so we weren’t all killed in a stampede. I kept calling, "they can’t run as fast as us. Just fall back at a medium pace." But the strategy was complex, because you had to do something different with the dark riders. I suspect they weren’t using tear gas because of the horses, which were making runs through the middle of our group. Word came back that they were using some kind of bean bullet, and there were popping noises, but I didn’t see this. With my fourteen-year-old kid and fifty-year-old right knee, I kept back from the front lines. Some of our people had worse legs than me, and it was perilous for such folk. Some people were saying that this was supposed to have been a thing called a "free speech zone," but we all laughed at that. In Queen’s Park the police got around and came running at us from the east across the park near the London Plane Tree under which I’ve held many a class to discuss Plato and Socrates. I think the police hadn’t got their horses around to that side quick enough, or maybe the horses were jittery in amongst the trees, because it was mostly foot soldiers now doing their longest run. Bet that made them heat up in those suits. We tried to sprint up to Harbord but saw we weren’t going to make it. Sebastian and I chickened out to the left down some arches of the university. At that point, a lot of people were following me. I felt bad leading so many into retreat, but after we went west through the long tunnel of arches in back campus we turned right, to the north, and came out again on Harbord. The bravest of us must have held them off at that critical point where Harbord meets the park. I wonder how many we lost at that pass, which will henceforth be a sacred space for me. Feeling bad that I’d led a retreat, I helped slow us down and a few of us got the rest who were fleeing toward Robarts Library (not to mention the pictures of my ancestors at Spadina and Harbord!) and we turned back. This bunched us up protectively on Harbord, then when we were all together we headed north yelling to each other to get to safety on Bloor. We went up Devonshire near the Munk Centre, past the meteorological building where during the war my mother did work to help England fight the Nazis (Munk people have recently taken it over and this week hastily taken down their signs about "continuing the global conversation" – Munk is a famous polluter and supporter of the university) and we spilled onto Bloor. Hundreds of police piled up from the south, but once we got to Bloor and the plain light of the setting sun and people could see police attacking unarmed citizens, the police slunk off and hid. I never saw them again. They’re all too afraid to show themselves in small groups, and between here and Dundas Square not a single one showed his face, though for a fortnight we’ve seen nothing but them roving the city in gangs. We were nice to all the individual security guards keeping watch over their little buildings all the way to Yonge. With just sidearms and sticks, they seemed by this point sort of cute and picturesque. We bantered with them as we walked (or limped, in my case). After brief uncertainty about whether we’d take over Yonge and Bloor and make our last stand there, we moved south down Yonge, following a trail of smashed windows from much earlier in the day (not smashed by our group – though I don’t judge the people who did it; there was a method to their madness I’ll comment on elsewhere). I wanted to hold up at Dundas Square, but the front of the group had moved on. I could no longer walk, and I had to get my fourteen-year-old home, or maybe he had to get me home. Believe me, he will never be the same.
Even if you’re a law-and-order person who believes that safety is more important than freedom and that every protestant should be locked up, I want to stress that we were in a place far from where we thought there would be any problems, precisely because my wife wanted to make sure our children were in a safe place. We had not the slightest warning that a group of armed men would attack our ten-year-old. How can you continue to believe in the government when this can happen?

 

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/211172-G20-Protesters-Seeing-It-All-in-Toronto-Still-Free-Barely-Holding-On

Five Hundred Arrested at G20

by Rady Ananda

Global Research, June 28, 2010

- 2010-06-27

 

The Law Union of Ontario Movement Defence Committee [MDC] has issued an appeal for broad political support for the G20 arrestees, estimated at nearly 500. Not arrested were members of the supposed anarchist group, Black Bloc, which is suspected of being a police psyops group ordered to start the G20 riot yesterday. Among the protestors, two professional journalists were also reportedly beaten and one arrested.

“The Toronto Police and the ISU appear to have lost control of their ‘prisoner processing center’, denying arrestees meaningful and timely access to counsel while beating and arresting those peacefully protesting their detention outside,” the MDC said in its press release today.

As of 9 am Sunday, the Integrated Security Unit reports that at least 480 people have been arrested on charges including “breach of peace, obstruct police, assault, assault peace officer, cause disturbance, incite riot, mischief, and participate in an unlawful assembly.”

Police attacked at least two professional news journalists during yesterday’s melee. Jesse Rosenfeld of The Guardian was reportedly arrested and beaten late Saturday night. In his last report filed with British news outfit, Rosenfeld wrote:

“[A]cross the country indigenous communities continue to resist government expropriation and environmental destruction of their land for mineral and resource extraction.

“Meanwhile Canada intends to use the G20 to expand the free trade of these mineral and resource commodities….

“[W]hile the Canadian state is using draconian colonial tools to present a veneer of representative legitimacy on the international stage, the streets of Toronto on Thursday asserted an alternative to the top-down style of forcing international consensus.”

Canadian police also beat Jesse Freeston of The Real News Network. Anchor Paul Jay questioned authorities about the incident:

http://www.youtube.com/v/D7OA920pbv8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1
While security for the event cost in the range of $1 billion, police were nowhere to be found when the ‘Black Bloc’ began smashing windows and burning police cars, according to several on scene reports.

One blogger noted that “the police car may have been abandoned there by the Toronto Police as a distraction (or as an excuse for agent provocateurs to act violently).”

Terry Burrows in a Global Research report asserts, “As events unfold, it is becoming increasingly clear that the ‘Black Bloc’ are undercover police operatives engaged in purposeful provocations to eclipse and invalidate legitimate G20 citizen protest by starting a riot.”

One camera caught a Black Bloc member changing his clothes after the riot, revealing a clean-cut man with a military style haircut:

http://www.youtube.com/v/Lw5fmzI0wus&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1

The Globe and Mail published photos of Black Bloc members wreaking havoc. Burrows notes the new, military style shoes:

Whether or not Black Bloc is a group of paid police provocateurs, at least one corporate media station in Canada, CTV News, assured its audience that the bulk of protestors behaved peacefully, calling it a party atmosphere. In response to police brutality, protesters sang O Canada, hoping to shame police into good behavior.

Regardless of the violence, the message of resistance against G20’s predatory capitalism which is destroying the biosphere and indigenous cultures penetrated the media, as this report reveals:

“Activists and community organizers represented rank-and-file labour, migrant justice, indigenous solidarity, anti-police brutality, ecological justice, anti-war, anti-occupation, queer and trans justice, anti-poverty, anti-capitalist, feminist, anarchist, and many more struggles and campaigns. We are united together, learning from each other and inspired by each other. We are rooted in our communities.”

Rady Ananda is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Rady Ananda

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19940

 

more from Global Research –

Afghanistan: NATO casualties double in first of half of 2010

- 2010-06-28

Clinton In Azerbaijan: Testing Waters For Attack On Iran

Will Iran attack Azerbaijan and Tbilisi in case of an air-strike?

- 2010-06-28

Lieberman’s ‘peace’ plan: Strip Palestinians of citizenship

Blueprint requires pure Jewish state

- by Jonathan Cook – 2010-06-28

G20 Police State: Toronto is burning! Or is it?

- by Judy Rebick – 2010-06-27

Mass Arrests, the Security State and the Toronto G20 Summit

- by Socialist Project – 2010-06-27

G20 police let rioters run amok and then struck back hard at all activists

- by David Langille – 2010-06-27

Through the Wormhole: The Secret State’s Mad Scheme to Control the Internet

- by Tom Burghardt – 2010-06-27

Israel’s Foreign Minister Lieberman’s "Blueprint for a Resolution"

- 2010-06-27

The Mysterious Death of Dr David Kelly: Damning New Evidence Points to a Cover-up by Tony Blair’s Government

- by Miles Goslett, Stephen Frost – 2010-06-27

Leader of Death Squads Wins Colombian Election

A "Role Model" for Latin America

- by Prof. James Petras – 2010-06-27

Pervasive state terror undermining the electorate’s capacity to exercise a free and independent choice.

The Toronto G20 Riot Fraud: Undercover Police engaged in Purposeful Provocation

At Tax Payers’ Expense

- by Terry Burrows – 2010-06-27

Identical Boots Exposed Undercover Police Provocateurs

by Kourosh Ziabari

Global Research, June 11, 2010

 

  Although the United Nations Security Council, which some politicians believe is one of the most undemocratic organizations in the world, voted in favor of a fourth round of sanctions against Iran over its uranium enrichment program, the global public opinions are well aware of the fact that 15 countries, 5 of which are entitled to remain in an unquestionable monopoly and dominance, cannot in reality represent the interests of the international community.

The Security Council, which since its establishment has made discriminatory decisions against the world countries, especially the non-aligned nations who typically try to escape from the hegemony of superpowers, is notorious for its habitual exercise of double standards and it’s clear to everyone that its resolutions are more often than not futile, ineffective, biased and unbinding.

Since 1948, the Security Council has adopted 223 resolutions in condemnation of Israel ‘s violations of international law, including the occupation of Palestinian lands, unilateral incursions into the Lebanese and Syrian soils, developing nuclear weapons, deporting the Palestinian citizens from their homes and building illegal settlements in the West Bank . Interestingly, the Israeli regime did not pay attention to any of these resolutions and the UNSC never pursued its demands to hold Tel Aviv accountable for its continued, flagrant defiance of international regulations.

For instance, the UNSC resolution 487 demanded Israel to put its nuclear facilities under the comprehensive safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Israel never heeded the call and the UNSC never sued Israel for its inattentiveness to the resolution.

As another example, the Security Council adopted six consequent resolutions in the wake of 1982 Lebanon War, calling on Israel to cease its military activities and withdraw its forces from the Lebanese territory, but Israel refused to accept the resolutions until the resolution 517 was adopted in which Tel Aviv was strongly censured for its failure to obey the UNSC resolutions since March 1982.

The criminal state of Israel , since its establishment, attacked all of its neighboring countries on various occasions and incited UNSC resolutions; however, these resolutions never went beyond political statements which were the least spontaneous reactions to Israel ‘s brutality in the Middle East . On March 21, 1968, Israel fought the Battle of Karameh by attacking the Karameh district of Jordan, killing 40 to 84 Jordanians and 100 to 200 Palestinians. The massive attacked was followed by UNSC resolution 248 in which the "flagrant violation of the UN Charter" was strongly condemned by all of the UNSC members, even the United States; however, this verbal condemnation was the sole reaction of the Security Council to Israel’s violence.

In December 1968, Israel Defense Forces raided the Beirut International Airport , destroying 13 civilian airplanes belonging to Lebanon ‘s national flag-carrier Middle East Airlines. The assault was followed by UNSC resolution 262 which condemned Israel once again. The resolution cautioned Israel to retreat from repeating such actions to avoid being punished more severely; however, the further steps never were taken, even when Israel repeated the same criminal actions.

In 1985, Israel staged an air raid on Tunisia to target the Palestinian Liberation Organization headquarters in the country. The resolution condemned Israel and demanded that Tel Aviv refrain from further such attacks. It also noted that Tunisia had the right to repatriations considering the loss of life and material damage caused.

Having killed thousands of civilians since its creation, the criminal record of Israeli regime is clear to the world and every conscious man testifies that this brutal regime deserves the strongest measures to be taken against.

United Nations Security Council never went beyond propagandistic declarations regarding the unlawful and inhuman actions of Tel Aviv, its killing of innocent civilians and violation of international humanitarian law. If it were not the pressure of international community, UNSC even would have not issued these flimsy and ineffective resolutions against Israel .

UNSC never passed any resolution to impose sanctions against Israel even though the transgressions and felonies of Israel are so blatant and conspicuous that nobody can deny the claim that Israel is the most violence and vicious regime in the world, an identical and indistinguishable duplicate of the apartheid regime of South Africa .

The recent resolution of the Security Council against Iran was a clear exercise of double standards by this prejudiced international body and should be answered by the Islamic Republic of Iran categorically. The hypocritical stance of China and Russia regarding Iran ‘s nuclear program and the astounding accompaniment of independent nations such as Gabon , Nigeria , Uganda , Bosnia and Herzegovina and Mexico with the fallacious, deceptive trajectory of the big 5 leave no room for the continued diplomacy and peaceful interaction by Iran .

Iran has so far demonstrated a constructive and productive cooperation with IAEA, G5+1 and European Union, keeping all the doors open for negotiation and reconciliation; however, the time for diplomacy has come to an end. Now that the coalition of superpowers, including China and Russia, have taken a confrontational stance against Iran and want to go through a unilateralistic path, Iran should change its tactic and one of the best solutions it can adopt is to withdraw from IAEA. If Pakistan , India and Israel can enjoy international impunity to develop nuclear weapons simply because they are not IAEA signatories, Iran can have equally the right to progress its peaceful nuclear program by withdrawing from a treaty which had ratified voluntarily.

Global Research Articles by Kourosh Ziabari

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19668

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, June 11, 2010

"A sitting duck is a defenceless victim, an easy target, vulnerable to attack"

The UN Security Council voted on June 9 the imposition of a fourth round of sweeping sanctions against The Islamic Republic of Iran, which include an expanded arms embargo as well "tougher financial controls".

In a bitter irony, this resolution was passed within days of the United Nations Security Council’s outright refusal to adopt a motion condemning Israel for its attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters.

It also followed the holding of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) conference in Washington under UN auspices, which called for the establishment, in its final resolution, of  a nuclear free Middle East as well as the dismantling of Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal. Israel is considered to be the World’s sixth nuclear power, with, according to Jane Defense, between 100 and 300 nuclear warheads. ( Analysts: Israel viewed as world’s 6th nuclear power, Israel News, Ynetnews, April 10, 2010). Iran in contrast has no known nuclear weapons capabilities.

UNSC Resolution 1929 is based on a fundamental falsehood. It upholds the notion that Iran is an upcoming nuclear power and a threat to global security. It also provides a green light to the US-NATO-Israel military alliance to threaten Iran with a pre-emptive punitive nuclear attack, using the UN Security Council as  rubber stamp.  

The Security Council exercises double standards in the application of sanctions: Whereas Iran is the target of punitive threats, Israel’s extensive nuclear arsenal, is either ignored or tacitly accepted by "the international community". For Washington, Israel’s nukes are an instrument of peace in the Middle East.

Moreover, whereas all fingers are pointed at Iran which does not possess nuclear weapons, five so-called "non-nuclear" European states including Belgium, Holland, Germany, Italy and Turkey not only possess strategic nuclear weapons under national command, these warheads are deployed and targeted at Iran. 

Resolution 1929 (June 9, 2010): 

“7. Decides that Iran shall not acquire an interest in any commercial activity in another State involving uranium mining, production or use of nuclear materials and technology  as listed in INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 1, in particular uranium-enrichment and reprocessing activities, all heavy-water activities or technology-related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, and further decides that all States shall prohibit such investment in territories under their jurisdiction by Iran, its nationals, and entities incorporated in Iran or subject to its jurisdiction, or by persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them;

“8. Decides that all States shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Iran, from or through their territories or by their nationals or individuals subject to their jurisdiction, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in their territories, of any battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems …. , decides further that all States shall prevent the provision to Iran by their nationals or from or through their territories of technical training, financial resources or services, advice, other services or assistance related to the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of such arms and related materiel, and, in this context, calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint over the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture and use of all other arms and related materiel;" (Security Council Imposes Additional Sanctions on Iran, Voting 12 in Favour to 2 Against, with 1 Abstention, Includes complete text of UNSC Resolution 1929, UN News, June 9, 2010, emphasis added, )

The Arms Embargo. Implications for Russia and China

Both the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China have caved in to US pressures and voted in favor of a resolution, which is not only detrimental to Iran’s security, but which seriously weakens and undermines their strategic role as potential competing World powers on the Eurasian geopolitical chessboard.

The resolution strikes at the very heart of the structure of military alliances. It prevents Russia and China to sell both strategic and conventional weapons and military technology to their de facto ally: Iran. In fact, that was one of major objectives of Resolution 1929, which Washington is intent upon enforcing.

At the same time, by barring Iran from purchasing conventional military equipment, the resolution prevents Iran from defending itself from a US-NATO-Israel attack. 

The resolution, were it to be fully enforced, would not only invalidate ongoing bilateral military cooperation agreements with Iran, it  would create a wedge in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

It would also significantly weaken trade and investment relations between Iran and its Russian and Chinese partners. The financial and banking provisions in the resolution also point to Washington’s resolve to not only isolate Iran but also to destabilize its financial system.

Washington is intent upon enforcing this resolution. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has appointed  Robert Einhorn, Special Advisor for Nonproliferation and Arms Control, as U.S. coordinator for the implementation of the sanctions regime directed against both Iran and North Korea:.

"U.S. President Barack Obama hailed the resolution, saying it will put in place the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government and send an "unmistakable message" to Tehran about the international community’s commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons."(Clinton appoints coordinator for sanctions against Iran, DPRK, Xinhua, June 10, 2010

"We expect every country to aggressively implement Resolution 1929" said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley.  Were China and Russia to decide not to abide by the resolution’s provisions, particularly those relating to weapons sales to Iran (art. 8), Washington would use this as an opportunity to engage in an increasingly confrontational diplomacy in relation to Beijing and Moscow.

The resolution is also intended to establish a US led hegemony in the production and export of advanced weapons systems. It is is heavy blow, almost a  "death sentence", for China and Russia’s lucrative international weapons trade, which competes with the US, UK, France, Germany and Israel. In the post-Soviet era, the arms trade has become a central component of Russia’s fragile economy. The potential repercussions on Russia’s balance of payments are far-reaching.

Disabling Iran’s Missile Defence System

UN Security Council resolutions are an integral part of US foreign policy. They are on the drawing board of Washington’s think tanks, including the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Heritage Foundation. In this regard, it is worth noting that the substance of article 8 of UNSC Resolution 1929 (June 9, 2010  was contained in a January 2010 report of the Heritage Foundation, which calls for "blocking arms sales to Iran" including Russia’s S-300 missiles:

"Washington and its allies should make every effort to deprive Iran of foreign arms transfers, particularly the impending sale of Russian S-300 surface to air missiles, which could provoke Israel to strike sooner rather than later. Stronger multinational efforts also need to be made to prevent Iran from trans­ferring arms to Hezbollah and Palestinian terror­ist groups, which pose a threat not only to Israel, but to stability in Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan. On November 3, Israeli naval forces intercepted the Francop, an Antigua-flagged cargo ship that was transporting about 500 tons of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah, via Syria.[22] The U.S. should press other allies to join in giving greater assistance to Israeli efforts to intercept Iranian arms flows, particularly to Hezbollah and Hamas." (James Phillips,  An Israeli Preventive Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Sites: Implications for the U.S,  The Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC, January 2010)

Did Moscow assess the implications of the proposed arms embargo?

Immediately following the adoption of the UNSC resolution on June 9th, several Russian press reports indicated that the sale of Russian S-300 missiles to Iran would be frozen, despite assurances by foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that the UNSC resolution would not affect the air-defence deal..(Russia says in talks with Iran on new nuclear plants, Haaretz, June 10, 2010) These contradictory statements suggest that there are significant divisions within the Russian leadership, without which  Russia would have duly exercised its veto power in the UN Security Council.

Russia’s S-300 Surface to Air Missile

Without Russian military aid, Iran is a "sitting duck". Its air defence system depends on continued Russian military cooperation. Moreover, without Iran, Russia would be constrained to selling military equipment to countries in the US-NATO orbit. (See Russia to offset loss of Iran arms sales with Iraqi, Afghan deals, Russia, RIA Novosti, June 11, 2010)

Pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran

The World is at dangerous crossroads.  The real threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel alliance. The UN Security Council directly serves the interests of the Western military alliance. The Security Council resolution grants a de facto "green light" to wage a pre-emptive war against Iran, which has been on the Pentagon’s drawing board since 2004.

"An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in "a state of readiness" since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006). In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney ordered USSTRATCOM to draft a "contingency plan", which would  "include a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005).

Under the Obama administration, the threats have become increasingly pervasive and far more explicit than under the NeoCons. In October 2009, The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) organized an Event at Washington’s Wohlstetter Conference Center on "Should Israel Attack Iran?":  

"Iran’s nuclear weapons development continues apace, threatening the security of its neighbors and the international community. According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, more than 60 percent of the American public believes preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons warrants military action. Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Daniel Ayalon, emphasized on September 21 that Israel has “not taken any option off the table” when it comes to countering the Iranian threat. The same day, Israel’s top general, chief of staff Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi, made it clear that he would not rule out a military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations, repeating that "Israel has the right to defend itself and all options are on the table." As the debate intensifies over how to respond most effectively to Iran’s provocations, it is timely to explore the strategic and legal parameters of a potential Israeli strike against the Islamic Republic and provide some thorough analysis about implications for the United States. (American Enterprise Institute, Should Israel Attack Iran?, October 2009, emphasis added)

From a military standpoint, Israel could not undertake a unilateral attack on Iran without the active coordination of the Pentagon:.

"As President Obama extends “an open hand”, seeking direct talks with Tehran in his attempt to halt its nuclear programme, Mrs Clinton appeared [June 2009] ready to unnerve the Iranian leadership with talk of a pre-emptive strike “the way that we did attack Iraq”. She said that she was trying to put herself in the shoes of the Iranian leadership, but added that Tehran “might have some other enemies that would do that [deliver a pre-emptive strike] to them”. It was a clear reference to Israel, where Binyamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, has talked about the possibility of military action to halt Iran’s nuclear programme — something he views as a threat to the Jewish state. ( Don’t discount Israel pre-emptive strike, Hillary Clinton warns Iran, Times Online, June 8, 2009, emphasis added)

In April 2010 the message was crystal clear:  Washington "would use atomic weapons only in ‘extreme circumstances’ and would not attack non-nuclear states, but singled out "outliers" Iran and North Korea as exceptions." ( Iran to Take US to UN Over Obama’s Threat to Use Nuclear Weapons against Iran, AlJazeera, April 11, 2010). Defence Secretary Robert Gates explained in a television interview "that Washington was making exceptions of Tehran and Pyongyang because they had defied repeated UN Security Council ultimatums over their nuclear programmes." (Ibid).

UN "Green Light" for a World War Three Scenario?

Is this latest Security Council resolution "the green light" which Washington has been seeking?

The substance of the Security Council resolution is also directed at Iran allies: China and Russia. 

Ironically, while China and Russia failed to exercise their veto power, they are nonetheless the object of veiled US threats. China is surrounded by US military facilities. US missiles in Poland and the Caucasus are pointed towards Russian cities. More recently, the Obama administration has called for the extension of the sanctions regime directed against Russia’s ally, Belarus.

Washington has also announced that "The Pentagon is preparing to embark on a mini-building boom in Central Asia, which would include the construction of strategic US facilities military "in all five Central Asian states, including Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan." (See  Defense Dollars Building Boom: Pentagon Looks to Construct New Military Bases in Central Asia, Eurasianet, June 6, 2010). These various military cooperation agreements with former Soviet republics are not only intent upon weakening the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the CSTO, they are part of the US-NATO strategic encirclement of Russia and China.

What this latest resolution suggests is that Washington and its NATO allies not only control the UN Security Council, they ultimately also call the shots on foreign policy in Moscow and Beijing.

This Security Council resolution should dispel the myth of competing super powers. Both China and Russia are an appendage of the New World Orde

As far as international diplomacy is concerned, both China and Russia are "Paper Tigers", with no teeth. "’Paper Tiger’ [纸老虎 (zhǐ lǎohǔ)], meaning something that seems as threatening as a tiger, but is really harmless."

Both China and Russia are the victims of  their own failed decisions within the United Nations Security Council.

An attack on Iran would immediately lead to military escalation. Syria and Lebanon would also be targeted. The entire Middle East Central Asian region would flare up, a situation which could potentially evolve towards a World War III scenario.

In a very real sense, the US-NATO-Israel military adventure threatens the future of humanity.

Michel Chossudovsky is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19670