|
|
Home
> Editorial
> Iron fist against Iran
|
ENGLISH VERSION
Iron fist against Iran
|
| |
 |
| HERALD STAFF |
|
|
VERSIÓN ESPAÑOL
Ira contra Irán
Las duras palabras del Presidente Néstor Kirchner contra Irán en la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas son más sorpresivas porque no hubo ningún intento real por lograr un balance ideológico propinando una paliza verbal de igual calibre al Presidente de los Estados Unidos George W. Bush (cada vez más el blanco preferido de las críticas en todo el mundo): en cambio, Gran Bretaña y su planeada expansión de las aguas territoriales del Atlántico Sur fueron el contrapeso elegido de entre los países desarrollados. Kirchner sí criticó la incursión de Bush en Irak con ecos de “yo te avisé” acerca de las virtudes del multilateralismo, pero esta lógica multilateral obliga a países como la Argentina a unirse a las medidas contra Irán evitando así repetir errores unilaterales.
Lea más
|
|
|
President Néstor Kirchner’s tough talk against Iran at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday is all the more remarkable because there was no real attempt at ideological balance by handing out a comparable tongue-lashing to United States President George W. Bush (increasingly the choice target for criticism worldwide) — instead Britain with its planned expansion of South Atlantic territorial waters was the chosen counterweight from the developed world. Kirchner did criticize Bush’s Iraq venture in “I told you so” tones about the virtues of multilateralism but this multilateral logic makes it all the more incumbent on countries like Argentina to join in the crackdown against Iran in order to avoid repeating unilateral errors. Not that Kirchner’s insistence on international arrest warrants being enforced against Iranian ex-officials in connection with the 1994 AMIA Jewish community centre bomb massacre has anything to do with Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s nuclear programme or any other controversial aspect of his presidency, long predating his administration (despite the attempt of Iranian chargé d’affaires here Mohsen Baharvand to create that linkage and thus frighten Kirchner with the prospect of going down the same road of Middle East involvement as Carlos Menem in 1990).
The tone of Kirchner’s speech was in many ways dictated by its context — by presences and absences alike. The only possible factor modifying Kirchner’s severity against Iran would be the latter’s newfound ally Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, whose fuel and cash injections into Argentina have been increasingly valuable props for the Kirchner presidency in recent years. But Chávez was strangely absent (despite the relish with which he literally demonized Bush at last year’s assembly) while Bush, who was present, was mute on the subject of Iran, thus making it easier for Kirchner to criticize Iran without going down any US-led warpath. This combination of factors plus the presence of first lady Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (with her carefully fostered ties with the New York Jewish community) should make it no surprise if Kirchner’s speech was stiffly worded enough to satisfy all Jewish community leaders present.
Nothing else in the speech (neither the compulsive criticisms of the International Monetary Fund nor the vague comments on UN Security Council reform) merit further comment — even the anti-British statements did not go beyond what could be expected from last weekend’s media ripple over South Atlantic territorial waters in the 25th anniversary of the Malvinas war — but Kirchner’s tough talk to Iran deserves praise for its courage and clarity.
|
Go to top
|
Back to editorial
|
|
|
