The headline in the Washington Post announces:
Iran could use U.N. talks as cover to build bomb, Ban Ki-moon says
The article opens:
The United Nations must be decisive and swift in judging whether diplomacy can resolve world concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday, or invite the risk that Iran, like North Korea, will use talks as a cover to build a bomb.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Ban said he wants to accelerate diplomatic talks with Iran and give them new urgency.
Now, to be fair, if you continue reading the article, the Post offers no evidence that Ki-moon actually said that. They do not quote him on it. Now, when the media say somebody said something but don’t actually quote the person on it, that is always a red flag. The media in their propaganda often employ, well, let’s just call it “creative paraphrasing”. It’s possible Ki-moon did say something like, “Iran could use U.N. talks as cover to build bomb”, but I highly doubt it.
Here is what the Post quotes Ki-moon actually saying:
“We should not give much more time to the Iranians, and we should not waste time,” Ban said. “We have seen what happened with the DPRK [North Korea].” … “It ended up that they [were] secretly, quietly, without any obligations, without any pressure, making progress,” Ban said.
Now, that does imply that Iran could use pursue a nuclear weapon while talks (or talk of talks) continue indefinitely. But he didn’t actually say that. A couple points:
One, he says we shouldn’t give “much more time to the Iranians”. More time for what? To comply with the U.N.’s illegal resolutions demanding it cease enriching uranium? To bow down to Washington and accept its ultimatum, backed by illegal threats to use force, that they must surrender their rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which they are party? To agree to accept the U.S.’s preconditions for negotiations that defeat the purpose of negotiating?
Two, the Post didn’t provide the actual transcript of the interview, so was Ki-moon actually making this link? Did his “We have seen what happened with the DPRK” comment actually follow immediately his “we should not waste time” comment?
Three, if so, did the U.N. Secretary General intend for the public to draw the conclusion from his association that Iran could presently be working on manufacturing a nuclear weapon?
Because Ban Ki-moon certainly knows better. He is perfectly well aware of the fact that according to the U.S.’s own intelligence community, Iran today has no nuclear weapons program, and that according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the international nuclear watchdog agency, which is actively monitoring and inspecting Iran’s nuclear program, there is “no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon programme in Iran” (emphasis added).
So if the Post is actually offering a reasonable paraphrasing of what he said, what other conclusion may we draw but that Ban Ki-moon has allowed himself to become a propagandist for the U.S. and Israel?
This wouldn’t be surprising. Recall how IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano positioned himself to be just that in order to receive the U.S.’s backing for his appointment to that office. From a leaked cable, we know that he assured the U.S. that while he had to “make concessions” to the international community to give the appearance of being “fair-minded and independent”, he was in fact “solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.” The cable added: “More candidly, Amano noted the importance of maintaining a certain “constructive ambiguity” about his plans, at least until he took over for DG ElBaradei in December.” Another cable showed that Amano had assured the U.S. that “saw his primary role as implementing safeguards and UNSC [United Nations Security Council]/Board resolutions”–even though the UNSC resolutions are ultra vires (the Council had no authority to make them). A third cable noted “the very high degree of convergence between his priorities and our own agenda at the IAEA”, adding that, “The coming transition period provides a further window for us to shape Amano’s thinking before his agenda collides with the IAEA Secretariat bureaucracy.”
Ban Ki-moon seems to be following in Amano’s footsteps in that regard.
