UN Security Council refuses to call for sailors’ release

posted at 7:06 pm on March 29, 2007 by Allahpundit

It won’t say it “deplores” Iran’s hostage-taking, either.

But hey. They care.

The UN Security Council has agreed a statement voicing “grave concern” at Iran’s capture of 15 British sailors…

The statement is a watered-down version as the UK wanted it to “deplore” Iran’s detention of the Britons and call for their immediate release…

The UK failed to win support for a stronger statement deploring Iran’s actions following opposition led by Russia…

In full, it said: “Members of the Security Council expressed grave concern at the capture by the Revolutionary Guard and the continuing detention by the government of Iran of 15 United Kingdom naval personnel and appealed to the government of Iran to allow consular access in terms of the relevant international laws.”

That’s the bad news. The worse news is that it’s Russia that’s going to bat for them, which suggests that the rift between the two over the Bushehr reactor has been healed and Iran’s bombmaking program is back on course.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Typical useless U.N.

Fuel up the B-2s!

Tony737 on March 29, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Well… lets see…

Taking these sailors was an act of war….

Against Britain…

Who is a NATO ally…

By treaty NATO should be getting involved… as NATO.

Romeo13 on March 29, 2007 at 7:12 PM

Hugh Hewitt had a very interesting interview with Newt at Townhall.
Newt has the cajones to act on the world stage.

HH: Now let’s get to the first major issue of the day, which is Iran. Mr. Speaker, if the United Kingdom feels obliged to use force, if diplomacy fails to get their people back, will you applaud?

NG: I think there are two very simple steps that should be taken. The first is to use a covert operation, or a special forces operation to knock out the only gasoline producing refinery in Iran. There’s only one. And the second is to simply intercede by Naval force, and block any tankers from bringing gasoline to Iran…

HH: Would you do, would you urge them…

NG: And say to the Iranians, you know, you can keep the sailors as long as you want, but in about 30 days, everybody in your country will be walking.

HH: So how long would you give them, to give them that ultimatum, the Iranians?

NG: I would literally do that. I would say to them, I would right now say to them privately, within the next week, your refinery will no longer work. And within the following week, there will be no tankers arriving. Now if you would like to avoid being humiliated publicly, we recommend you calmly and quietly give them back now. But frankly, if you’d prefer to show the planet that you’re tiny and we’re not, we’re prepared to simply cut off your economy, and allow you to go back to walking and using oxen to pull carts, because you will have no gasoline left.

HH: I agree with that 100%. Would your recommendation to the United States President be the same if Iran seized our forces?

NG: Absolutely. I mean, the reason I say that, it is the least violent, least direct thing you can do. It uses our greatest strength…you know, the mismatch in Naval power is absolute. And so you don’t have to send troops into Iran. Everybody on the left is waiting for conservatives to say things that allow them to run amok and parade in San Francisco, and claim that we’re warmongers. I want to avoid war by intelligently using our power to eliminate the option of sustaining an economy, so that the Iranian dictatorship will be shown to be the hollow dictatorship it is, so the people of Iran decide they’d like to have a decent government with real electricity and real gasoline, so they overthrow it. And I want to do that without risking a single American life, or being engaged in a single direct confrontation. And Naval power lets you do that.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/7057beba-c66b-4a5f-a8fe-d8da01fe61db

Speakup on March 29, 2007 at 7:12 PM

And Nancy Pelosi snubs our allies and salutes Iran!

Pelosi Refusing to Support British on Iran?

It’s hard to believe, but that’s what we’re hearing from Capitol Hill. A resolution has been proposed in the House of Representatives that condemns Iran for the seizure of British sailors and marines, expresses support for our British allies. It’s hard to see anything controversial in that. But apparently, the resolution has languished all week while Pelosi refuses to allow it to come to the floor.

LINK

Topsecretk9 on March 29, 2007 at 7:13 PM

I bet Tony Blair is really regretting cutting the British Navy’s budget right about now.

Iblis on March 29, 2007 at 7:18 PM

Do even supporters of the U.N. think that it is anything but a joke at this point?

Resolute on March 29, 2007 at 7:18 PM

P*SSIES!!!!!!!!!

Wonder what happens if we kidnap 15 Revolutionary Guardsmen?

Defector01 on March 29, 2007 at 7:19 PM

Beyond useless, and doing more harm than good, the UN is a Bizarro World version of itself that somehow is intruding into this dimension.

US out of the UN. UN out of the US.

Let’s have done with it once and for all.

Citizen Duck on March 29, 2007 at 7:19 PM

C’mon, it only took them six days. Next comes the strongly worded letter.

JammieWearingFool on March 29, 2007 at 7:20 PM

One more reason to bulldoze U.N. Headquarters right into the river. Useless Nations indeed. Tell me why again we’re still involved with that worthless cesspool of bureaucratic corruption?

ReubenJCogburn on March 29, 2007 at 7:23 PM

Release the hostages now, or we’ll more harsh language.

Silly English Keenigits.

Kini on March 29, 2007 at 7:24 PM

Defector01 on March 29, 2007 at 7:19 PM

Screw the guards, let’s start plucking out members of the Iranian parliament.

thedecider on March 29, 2007 at 7:26 PM

So,when do we sink the Persian Fleet? When do we kick the emissar down the well?

Kid from Brooklyn on March 29, 2007 at 7:33 PM

grave concern

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Easy there, Tigers? This Security Council is getting pretty aggressive. I think we need a timeout. You guys should take a few deep breaths and count to ten, before you say something mean.

Troy Rasmussen on March 29, 2007 at 7:34 PM

Russia sees a difference between the crazy mullahs and the folks that slaughtered their children in Beslan? How’s that for nuance!

I’m really leaning toward that Newt solution.

SailorDave on March 29, 2007 at 7:36 PM

Speakup on March 29, 2007 at 7:12 PM

Thanks for posting that – that’s exactly what should be done. Cut ‘em off and cause their economy to implode.

I might go farther than just blockading tankers, maybe blockade any shipping into Iran. They’ll fall apart in a hurry.

As far as the UN goes, it really is time for us to get out of there and to kick them out of NY.

thirteen28 on March 29, 2007 at 7:39 PM

Defector, I remember asking my dad back in 1979 when I was a kid “Why don’t we just take 52 of *their* people?” He said “Because they don’t give a crap about their people.” My old man’s pretty smart guy.

Tony737 on March 29, 2007 at 7:42 PM

What disturbs me the most is that the Brits actually went to the U.N.. Why major western powers want to give even more legitimacy to a morally bankrupt, anti-Western organazation is beyond me. The Brits need Jesus.

Theworldisnotenough on March 29, 2007 at 7:47 PM

So,when do we sink the Persian Fleet? When do we kick the emissar down the well?

Kid from Brooklyn on March 29, 2007 at 7:33 PM

When they get 15 of our guys. Let the Brits handle it, sow the wind…

Theworldisnotenough on March 29, 2007 at 7:48 PM

When your marines and sailors get ambushed and are held in captivity, and your bold step is to go to the UN and file a complaint, well that is an absolute disgrace. Then all they get out of it is this toilet paper statement from the UN; it’s a total humiliation. Good grief, when are they going to grow a pair? As if Iran gives a damn about the UN.

RW Wacko on March 29, 2007 at 8:00 PM

UN releases Important Action Alert!

Max Power on March 29, 2007 at 8:17 PM

Time to get out the Comfy Cushion.

dalewalt on March 29, 2007 at 8:19 PM

Is there anymore useless organization than the UN?

Yakko77 on March 29, 2007 at 8:37 PM

Oh… come on… I’m sure the UN Human Rights Council will condemn this….

or not….

Romeo13 on March 29, 2007 at 8:38 PM

How do you get to the headline:

“UN Security Council refuses to call for sailors’ release” from this Security Council statement? (At the link)

The statement was agreed following more than four hours of negotiations.

In full, it said: “Members of the Security Council expressed grave concern at the capture by the Revolutionary Guard and the continuing detention by the government of Iran of 15 United Kingdom naval personnel and appealed to the government of Iran to allow consular access in terms of the relevant international laws.

“Members of the Security Council support calls, including by the secretary general in his March 29 meeting with the Iranian foreign minister, for an early resolution of this problem including the release of the 15 UK personnel.”

CNN reports:

Security Council issues careful statement
Meanwhile, after huddling for several hours, members of the U.N. Security Council agreed Thursday on a press statement expressing “grave concern at the captures and continued detentions” of the sailors and marines. It was read to reporters by current council President Dumisani Kumalo of South Africa.

Britain had sought a far stronger statement.

The statement appeals to Iran to allow consular access to the British personnel and appeals for their early release.

The hours of negotiation, Kumalo said, were necessary because members wanted a statement that was “very factual … no political twisting of anything that happened.”

News2Use on March 29, 2007 at 8:48 PM

Fuel up the B-2s!

Tony737 on March 29, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Also, good genes from your dad :) Regards,

Entelechy on March 29, 2007 at 9:17 PM

Tony, I’m not thinking straight tonight – meant to say: Done already, and then hit ‘submit’ :(

Entelechy on March 29, 2007 at 9:18 PM

The UN has moved from benign incompetent (and corruption) to active adversary.

Yet we continue to finance it. Duhhhh…

petefrt on March 29, 2007 at 9:27 PM

Thanks Entel!

I just saw Kirsten argue with Alan on H&C regarding Rosie and Iran … she (Kirsten) keeps on moving closer to our side … but now she’s arguing with Sean … oh well, baby steps I guess.

Tony737 on March 29, 2007 at 9:48 PM

I don’t think that Russia’s Security Council actions necessarily mean that the rift with Iran is healed. I think Russia would have opposed this resolution no matter what the state of their relations with Iran, simply to tweak the US and Britain.

GEC on March 29, 2007 at 9:53 PM

Thanks for posting that – that’s exactly what should be done. Cut ‘em off and cause their economy to implode.

I might go farther than just blockading tankers, maybe blockade any shipping into Iran. They’ll fall apart in a hurry.
As far as the UN goes, it really is time for us to get out of there and to kick them out of NY.

thirteen28 on March 29, 2007 at 7:39 PM

I thought Newts’ take was gutsy too.
Our current administration doesn’t to have much horsepower in their approach to international problems.

As far as the UN goes, it really is time for us to get out

Does the UN act for the benefit of the US?
The answer to that is the same as the the first rule of salesmanship.
It’s always the money, no matter what they say, It’s always the money.

Speakup on March 29, 2007 at 9:54 PM

News2Use on March 29, 2007 at 8:48 PM

sarc on/

nuance!

sarc off/

Yeah, that’s pretty frustrating.

csdeven on March 29, 2007 at 11:26 PM

Next they passed a nonbinding resolution.

SnakeintheGrass on March 30, 2007 at 12:07 AM

Of course not. They are not being held in Guantanamo or Tel Aviv.

hadsil on March 30, 2007 at 1:33 AM

Proposed UN Resolution:

Recognizing that Iran’s territorial waters are sacrosanct; and

Understanding that there is not total agreement on whether the British personnel in question were in those waters at the time of the incident; and

Believing that a peaceful resolution to this situation is still possible; the UN is hereby

Resolved that the seizure of British personnel by Iranian forces may possibly, depending on how you look at it, be somewhat less than ideal in terms of how helpful it was for the current situation in the Persian Gulf, not that we want to be overly hasty and maybe come to some unwarranted conclusions through being carelessly judgmental; and

Further Resolved that Israel be condemned in the strongest possible terms for its role in this situation.

Peace out, dudes.

morganfrost on March 30, 2007 at 9:14 AM

US out of the UN. UN out of the US.

US/UK out of Bizarro World.

Pelosi out of Congress.

aengus on March 30, 2007 at 10:44 AM

Hubby had an idea…

EMP the Iranian fleet in harbour to give them a subtle message.

I said, EMP the whole bloody country so they can’t parade the sailors in front of the camera any more.

Newt’s idea gives it to them in a far more humiliating way, however. When do we start?

I am having a hard time bringing myself to say this, but even Jhummy Cahter at least agreed to a rescue attempt.

To paraphrase what someone earlier said… Come to Jesus, Tony & the UK.

linlithgow on March 30, 2007 at 2:20 PM