Putting "Alien" Back Into "Inalienable Rights"
[One of my op-eds at Modern Republic]
“How can Iran's peaceful nuclear program be considered in the Security Council while Iran has carried out its obligations, and cooperated to the fullest extent possible, far more than it is obliged to in accordance with its treaty obligations, namely the NPT and the Safeguard Agreement? Isn't it simply because the IAEA could not find any diversion from lawful and peaceful purposes? How could one expect the IAEA to prove a negative fact?”
So spoke H.E. Mr. Manouchehr Mottaki, Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran before the United Nations Security Council, in March of last year. Each one of us, probably, has experienced, as an individual, what Iran is experiencing, and Iraq experienced, when one follows the rules, but doesn’t gain what was expected as a consequence of playing the game by the rules. It is called the rule of law. It means that, so long as we all agree on and assent to the principles involved, we will all be treated according to those principles, and nothing else.
In the situation with Iran and their program of developing nuclear power – not nuclear weapons – one feels as if there are other rules, unspoken, a hidden agenda, operating in the background. This is exactly what the rule of law replaces. There are no other rules in play but the ones that we all agree on. There are no underlying assumptions that determine the legality of some action; the explicit, stated, agreed on principles are all that determine – and define – “legality.” Nothing else.
So, if Iran is following those rules – I am not in a position to say what those rules are, much less to say whether Iran is following them or not – then the matter is settled by definition. There is no need to dig deeper. If their was no penalty, and the running back broke the plane of the goal line while in possession of the ball, it doesn’t matter what his intent was, what his motives, his background, the fact that he fumbled on the previous play or committed a personal foul in the first quarter.
The United States of America is a great country in part because we trace our founding to documents that explicitly state the principles upon which we conduct our lives together with one another, and as a nation with other nations. If there is any truth to President Bush’s claim that ‘the terrorists’ hate us because they hate our freedom, it is the freedom defined by those documents and the principles explicated there.
Mr. Manouchehr Mottaki speaks the language of principles. They of course aren’t the same principles as our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, but they are recognized and respected principles nonetheless – our beloved documents don’t frame every and all good principles that exist. So, he claims that “in order to achieve the politically motivated and unlawful goal of depriving Iran from its inalienable right to nuclear technology, attempts have been made to manufacture evidence.” And that “the Security Council is being abused to take an unlawful, unnecessary and unjustifiable action against the peaceful nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran which presents no threat to international peace and security and falls therefore outside the Council’s Charter-based mandate.” Whether or not one believes Mr. Mottaki, that is the question, but it can’t be denied that he is speaking the language of our own Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, and therefore evidence is indeed called for, and that evidence must be judged according to the principles agreed up previously. He is speaking the language of inalienable rights, law, and justice. That shouldn’t be surprising; he is speaking before the United Nations Security Council, which is itself founded on, and bound by, principles and laws. This is a language that an American can understand, because it is the language of our identity as Americans.
We drown out such voices to our own detriment. We ignore such voices to our own peril. By drowning out such voices, we risk dulling our own ears to the principles by which we live as Americans, in which we take pride, and by which we experience peace, with one another, and with other nations. It is to lose our hearing for that same language, for principles spoken by our very own fellow Americans, our neighbors, and therefore, and by definition, ourselves.
“How can Iran's peaceful nuclear program be considered in the Security Council while Iran has carried out its obligations, and cooperated to the fullest extent possible, far more than it is obliged to in accordance with its treaty obligations, namely the NPT and the Safeguard Agreement? Isn't it simply because the IAEA could not find any diversion from lawful and peaceful purposes? How could one expect the IAEA to prove a negative fact?”
So spoke H.E. Mr. Manouchehr Mottaki, Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran before the United Nations Security Council, in March of last year. Each one of us, probably, has experienced, as an individual, what Iran is experiencing, and Iraq experienced, when one follows the rules, but doesn’t gain what was expected as a consequence of playing the game by the rules. It is called the rule of law. It means that, so long as we all agree on and assent to the principles involved, we will all be treated according to those principles, and nothing else.
In the situation with Iran and their program of developing nuclear power – not nuclear weapons – one feels as if there are other rules, unspoken, a hidden agenda, operating in the background. This is exactly what the rule of law replaces. There are no other rules in play but the ones that we all agree on. There are no underlying assumptions that determine the legality of some action; the explicit, stated, agreed on principles are all that determine – and define – “legality.” Nothing else.
So, if Iran is following those rules – I am not in a position to say what those rules are, much less to say whether Iran is following them or not – then the matter is settled by definition. There is no need to dig deeper. If their was no penalty, and the running back broke the plane of the goal line while in possession of the ball, it doesn’t matter what his intent was, what his motives, his background, the fact that he fumbled on the previous play or committed a personal foul in the first quarter.
The United States of America is a great country in part because we trace our founding to documents that explicitly state the principles upon which we conduct our lives together with one another, and as a nation with other nations. If there is any truth to President Bush’s claim that ‘the terrorists’ hate us because they hate our freedom, it is the freedom defined by those documents and the principles explicated there.
Mr. Manouchehr Mottaki speaks the language of principles. They of course aren’t the same principles as our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, but they are recognized and respected principles nonetheless – our beloved documents don’t frame every and all good principles that exist. So, he claims that “in order to achieve the politically motivated and unlawful goal of depriving Iran from its inalienable right to nuclear technology, attempts have been made to manufacture evidence.” And that “the Security Council is being abused to take an unlawful, unnecessary and unjustifiable action against the peaceful nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran which presents no threat to international peace and security and falls therefore outside the Council’s Charter-based mandate.” Whether or not one believes Mr. Mottaki, that is the question, but it can’t be denied that he is speaking the language of our own Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, and therefore evidence is indeed called for, and that evidence must be judged according to the principles agreed up previously. He is speaking the language of inalienable rights, law, and justice. That shouldn’t be surprising; he is speaking before the United Nations Security Council, which is itself founded on, and bound by, principles and laws. This is a language that an American can understand, because it is the language of our identity as Americans.
We drown out such voices to our own detriment. We ignore such voices to our own peril. By drowning out such voices, we risk dulling our own ears to the principles by which we live as Americans, in which we take pride, and by which we experience peace, with one another, and with other nations. It is to lose our hearing for that same language, for principles spoken by our very own fellow Americans, our neighbors, and therefore, and by definition, ourselves.
Comments