Zahir
Ebrahim | Project
Humanbeingsfirst.org
April
10, 2013 | Correction Thursday, April 11, 2013
Spotted
today on iranreview.org:
'Francis A. Boyle: I’m Ready to Help Iran Freeze the Sanctions'
- Iran Review
Exclusive Interview with Francis A. Boyle By: Kourosh Ziabari
The
interview is intriguing as it highlights some of the pressures that
the people of Iran are unjustly being subjected to at the hands of
the Western hectoring hegemons. The interview is reproduced below in
its entirety along with the interviewer's preamble to raise awareness
among the Western public. My
take
on Prof. Francis A Boyle's craftsmanship
is at the end.

Saturday,
April 06, 2013 The economic sanctions imposed
on Iran by the United States and its allies are being intensified
every single day. The United States brags about diplomacy, détente
and reconciliation with Iran, but it tightens the grip of sanctions
around Iran on every occasion and especially once Iran and the P5+1
(China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United
States) are slated to meet. It not only imposes new sanctions on
Iran’s finance, oil, insurance and media sectors, but incites
the European countries to impose sanctions on Iran, as well. The
sanctions have made trade, business and daily life difficult for the
Iranian people, but they haven’t surrendered yet.
In
order to discuss the different aspects of the anti-Iran sanctions,
Iran Review has begun doing exclusive interviews with renowned
political analysts, legal experts, authors and university professors
who oppose these unjustifiable sanctions. Our today’s
interviewee is one of the world’s most renowned lawyers and
legal experts.
Francis
A. Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of
Illinois’s College of Law. Prof. Boyle has a Ph.D. in political
science from the Harvard University. He is a vocal critic of the U.S.
foreign policy, and especially the War on Terror which has claimed
the lives of thousands of innocent people across the world,
especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2007 Boyle denounced the
“ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush Jr.
administration and its nefarious foreign accomplices in allied
governments such as in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea,
Georgia, etc.”
Prof.
Boyle has predicted that the land of Palestine which is stolen and
occupied by the Israelis will return to its original owners, and
Jerusalem will be the eternal capital of the Palestinian State.
According to Boyle, Israel is “nothing more than a Jewish
Bantustan, set up by the Western colonial powers, in the Middle East,
to control and dominate the Middle East at their behest.”
In
2006, Prof. Francis A. Boyle was asked by the Iranian government to
help file a lawsuit against the United States and its European allies
over the illegal and unilateral economic sanctions they have imposed
on Iran. He agreed to cooperate and submitted his proposal to the
Iran, but his cooperation didn’t continue for some reasons. In
this interview, we will be discussing Prof. Boyle’s proposal
and also his viewpoints regarding the reasons why he thinks the
anti-Iran sanctions are illegal and criminal.
Q:
Do you think that the process of passing Iran’s nuclear dossier
to the Security Council was illegal, and if so, do the resolutions
issued on this basis have legal warranty and credibility?
A:
Thank you very much for having me on, and my best to all my friends
in Iran; it’s been a while since I last spoke to you. Of course
not. There’s no reason to move Iran’s file to the
Security Council. It should have stayed with the IAEA, but the U.S.
government exerted pressure on the IAEA board to forward it to the
Security Council.
Q:
What about the unilateral sanctions? Isn’t focusing the
sanctions on medicine, foodstuff and consumer goods and depriving the
ordinary citizens of such goods tantamount to a continued and
systematic violation of human rights?
A:
Certainly this is clearly designed to punish and coerce the Iranian
people and try to turn them against the government under President
Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei. I had already submitted a
proposal to the Iranian government quite some time ago to sue the
United States, Britain, France, Germany, Israel and several other
European states at the International Court of Justice in The Hague to
stop the further development of the sanctions [that are] only
collectively punishing the Iranian people and it’s going to get
worse the next time the EU meets, so again I respectfully renew my
request to President Ahmadinejad and His Holiness Ayatollah Khamenei
to give me the authority to file those lawsuits as soon as possible.
Q:
Would you please elaborate more on your proposal? Will the lawsuit
have a practical guarantee if it’s submitted to the ICJ? I
mean, can it lead to a freeze on the unilateral sanctions and the
EU’s oil embargo against Iran?
A:
If the Iranian government had followed my proposal when I submitted
it in 2006, I think we could have prevented large numbers of the
sanctions already imposed. At this point, I guess the best we are
able to do it to stop further sanctions, because it’s clear
that the United States, Britain, France and the European Union member
states will be meeting again soon to impose another round of
sanctions against Iran. So I can’t make any guarantees about
prior sanctions. We should have filed this lawsuit a long time ago
and we could stop them. But, as for future sanctions, yes, I think we
can stop them, and also to inhibit a military attack upon Iran by the
United States, Israel, France, Britain and above them Canada and some
other NATO states who have been threatening Iran. So that’s
what we can do now.
Q:
How can Iran legally demonstrate that the sanctions imposed on it are
illegal? I ask this because the United States claims that it imposes
sanctions to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, while Iran
says that its nuclear program is peaceful. How can Iran prove that
the sanctions are unlawful and unjustifiable?
A:
Again, my proposal to the Iranian government going back to 2006 was
to sue all these states at the International Court of Justice in The
Hague and get a temporary restraining order against all of them for
any economic sanctions against Iran and against threatening and
preparing a military attack against Iran. So, that’s what Iran
can do. What can I say? Everything I can is to get the Iranian
government of Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad to
authorize this lawsuit and I respectfully renew my request again
before the situation gets worse.
Q:
Do you have any experience of helping other UN member states take
legal action against the economic sanctions imposed upon them by the
United States and other countries?
A:
Well, I advised Colonel Gaddafi to sue the United States and Britain
over the spurious Lockerbie bombing allegations at the world court
and eventually Colonel Gaddafi was able to work his way out of those
sanctions, yes. And at least at the time I was advising him, there
was no military attack until 2011 that the United States and NATO
decided to stab Colonel Gaddafi in the back. But I’ve done this
work with Libya, and also with Bosnia. I won two world court orders
on behalf of Bosnia and Herzegovina against Yugoslavia to prevent
them from committing all acts of genocide against them. So, I
submitted a memorandum to your government, and also answered all of
their questions, and yet for some reason, the green light to this
lawsuit has not been given by the president or His Holiness the
Ayatollah. So I really don’t know what the problem is. I guess
it’s political. I guess there are some people in the Iranian
government who believe in good faith that they can negotiate with the
Americans, but I don’t really see that would get anywhere;
between you and me. Maybe it will or maybe it won’t. I think
the Americans are biding their time until they’re taking care
of Syria and then they’ll turn on Iran. But of course this is
for the President of Iran to decide, and His Holiness the Ayatollah,
not me.
Q:
Had you received any response from the Iranian government when you
first submitted your proposal to them? Had they told you what actions
are needed to be taken so that you may realize your plan?
A:
It was the Iranian government that asked me to submit the
proposal in the first place, which I did and then I responded to
their questions. But then,
there was nothing more after that. I think the last time I heard from
them was a year ago. So, there’s not much more I can do sitting
here in Champaign, Illinois. I think I’ve made sure that my
proposal got to the office of the president and got to the office of
His Holiness Ayatollah Khamenei. So they are aware of this proposal,
but so far, nothing more has happened. But again, maybe they decided
that they prefer negotiations with the Americans and this is for them
to decide, not me. I’m a lawyer.
Q:
I don’t know why the office of president hasn’t responded
to you so far. Maybe they have some bureaucratic restrictions or
problems to cooperate with you. But what I want to ask you now is
that, are you still ready and willing to cooperate with the Iranian
government if they reply to you and take up your initiative for suing
the United States and its European allies in the International Court
of Justice?
A:
Sure; I’ll be on the next airplane to The Hague to meet with
your lawyers there and draft a lawsuit. I’ve already told them,
but haven’t heard anything.
Q:
Let’s get to some questions on the sanctions and war threats
against Iran. It seems that the main objective Israel seeks through
issuing repeated war threats on Iran is to persuade the U.S. and EU
to intensify the sanctions against the country. Why don’t the
United Nations and European Union give a clear-cut and decisive
response to Israel which is continuously threatening Iran in
violation of the UN Charter?
A:
Because the United States controls the entire Security Council except
Russia and China, and in my opinion, I don’t believe that Iran
can rely upon Russia and China. Russia and China sold out Libya in
the Security Council resolution 1973 in 2011. I know Iran is
diplomatically relying on Russia and China to prevent further
sanctions at the Security Council, but I think Iran has to protect
itself and act to protect its own interest. We remember the long
contentious relationship between Iran and Russia and before that the
Soviet Union when they occupied half of Iran during the World War II,
so Russia is going to do whatever Russia thinks is in its own
interest, and if in some point they think that it’s necessary
to sacrifice Iran to the Americans, they will, just like they
sacrificed Libya.
Q:
What do you think about the legal aspects of the assassination of
Iran’s civilian nuclear scientists by the Israeli agents and
the members of U.S., Britain and other European countries’
intelligence agencies? How is it possible to legally sue these
countries for such terrorist activities and other acts of sabotage
they occasionally carry out in Iran’s soil?
A:
Yes, there is a treaty directly on point prohibiting computer attacks
on nuclear power facilities and I’m surprised that Iran has
not, to my best knowledge, so far raised this treaty. There’s a
treaty directly on point prohibiting attacks on nuclear power
facilities. That was concluded under the auspices of the United
Nations a rather while ago and clearly called such kinds of attacks
on Iran’s nuclear power and research facilities by Israel and
the United States as an international crime and an act of terrorism.
This UN treaty was concluded within a series of international
treaties when the West intended to deal with the phenomenon of
international terrorism. Certainly, if this lawsuit were filed at the
world court against the United States, Israel, Britain, France and
Germany, we could raise these acts of terrorism against the Iranian
nuclear facilities and the assassination of Iran’s nuclear
scientists. That can be done.
Q:
Would you please delve on the issue of the assassinations? Because so
far, 5 Iranian scientists have been murdered in the daylight, while
no voice of condemnation and criticism was raised and the UN
Secretary General hasn’t even sent a message of sympathy with
the Iranian nation. Why is it so?
A:
This is clearly state terrorism and international criminal activity
by the United States and Israel at the minimum. But again, the United
States pretty much controls the Security Council, and the UN
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon does whatever the Americans tell him to
do. It was the United States who got Ban Ki-moon that job and put him
into that position, so he takes his orders from the United States and
of course he will not say anything in condemnation.
Q:
Let’s get back to the sanctions. It’s said that the
sanctions that target the ordinary civilians are a kind of collective
punishment, and collective punishment is a crime according to the
Nuremberg Tribunals. The Western states claim that they care for the
human rights, but they are behaving in such a hypocritical manner and
punish the Iranian citizens for a crime they have not committed.
What’s your viewpoint on that?
A:
Sure. You’re correct that the United States and the European
states are all trying very hard to turn the Iranian people against
their government and their leadership including His Holiness the
Ayatollah. Remember that the United States always has opposed the
Islamic Republic of Iran, and so they want to get rid of it. Now,
as I said, if Iran had authorized and filed this lawsuit in 2006, I
think we could have stopped a lot of the sanctions, but the bottom
line now is Iran is facing more sanctions.
Again the European Union will be meeting again, I think in May, to
impose more sanctions, and the Americans also want to impose more
sanctions. So in my opinion, we have to at least stop that and I
think we can. And then, [we have] all these threats of military
attack being made against Iran by the United States, Israel, Britain
and France and the acts of terrorism against Iran’s nuclear
power facilities by means of the computer viruses which emanate from
Israel, the United States and apparently Germany, and the
assassination of your nuclear scientists by Israel and perhaps with
the cooperation of the United States. So, the appropriate place we
can deal with all this is the International Court of Justice.
Q:
Do you think that the International Court of Justice will respond to
Iran’s appeal for the lifting of the sanctions positively? Some
political commentators believe that ICJ is dominated by the Western
powers and cannot maintain an independent policy. Is that true?
A:
Well, I think what we can do now is to get temporary restraining
orders from the court to try to stop the U.S. and the European states
from imposing more sanctions on Iran. I think we can get that for
sure. And I also think we can get a temporary restraining order
against the U.S., Israel, France, Britain and NATO states from
attacking Iran. I think we can do that. Beyond that, it’s hard
to predict that by the end of the day, what will happen. But I think
we can do what I’ve outlined here. I’ve done this type of
work for both Libya and Bosnia.
Zahir's
Take on Prof. Francis Boyle: The fact that Iran approached Dr.
Francis A. Boyle for their legitimate
grievances is revealing. But so is the fact
of their subsequent reticence. My
examination of FAB's opinions is in my article of January 07, 2011,
Response
to Francis Boyle's '2011: Prospects for Humanity?' – Unlimited
Imperialism and Nation-States but no Secret Rule by Oligarchy for
World Government!
My
aforementioned article cites three letters I had written Dr. Boyle
(January
31, 2010 on Iraq-Afghan Victims,
October
22, 2010 on Jewistan,
and October
10, 2010 on A Case for Treason).
Altogether,
these missives betray quite a different picture of Prof. Francis A
Boyle's famous dissent of empire. It is a puzzling picture to be sure
– for how can someone be so sophisticated with so many terminal
degrees in law and political science from Harvard, while
simultaneously
also appear so naïve when it comes to understanding the Hegelian
Dialectic and the agenda for world government?
Before
Iran or any other victim nation engages the altruistic
legal services of Prof. Francis A. Boyle, they must become familiar
with the issues raised in my article and seek a satisfactory
explanation for the anomalies noted
therein. Dr. Boyle has stoically refused to address them.
To
my mind, Dr. Boyle's
egregious omissions are far more significant than his bold
truth-telling of what's already grotesquely apparent, and his
conscionable legal advocacy for their redressal.
On the surface, his legal advocacy appears fantastic and principled.
But as my examination in the above letters and article demonstrate,
Dr. Boyle also evidently likes to pursue
the lowest order bits while ignoring the higher order ones. He
pursues the effects and ignores the cause. He gets the causality
wrong every time. What sort of trial attorney does that? The sort
examined in my article of April 09, 2009: Who
is more guilty of monumental war crimes - the prime-movers or trigger
pullers?
Perhaps
the Iranians also perceive this obvious philosophical trait in this
superior Western legal mind's moral dissent -- which might explain
their subsequent reticence to further seeking out his assistance.
But
what is strange is that don't the Iranian government have their own
legal minds that they have to resort to one from their sworn enemy's
nation? Dr. Boyle maintains that it was the Iranians who first
approached him: “It
was the Iranian government that asked me to submit the proposal in
the first place, which I did and then I responded to their
questions.”?
Good
for the Iranians to have stopped this silliness. Clearly, the Iranian
officialdom and their nation of 75 million that has withstood the
collective aggression of the hectoring hegemons for well over three
decades now, is just as capable of knowing and exercising
International Law as Prof. Francis Boyle of the United States of
America – the principal hectoring hegemon. See Iran
Today - Building Self Reliance Under Siege.
Because, it is, after all, called “international law”!
What sense would it make that only the superior American legal mind
is competent to practice international law?
Iran's
subsequent reticence shows both their shrewdness and their own
self-respect. Perhaps they have now come to appreciate Hegel and
controlled dissent far better than the young Iranian interviewer.
But
then again who knows how the brilliant Eastern mind that is far older
than the Western civilization put together – indeed some even
suggest is the progenitor of the Aryan race
– plays the game of survival on the Grand Chessboard.
Whatever
the Iranian calculus, unless the expert law professor is able to
offer cogent explanations for what I deem to be the egregious
shortcomings and mis-emphasis of focus in his otherwise learned
opinions, the Iranian officialdom is well-served by continuing to
rely on their own forces.
Iran
has no friends in the occident --- or among the Muslim nations for
that matter
--- and
they'd be back to inviting the Plague
of Occidentosis
to Iran that they have worked so assiduously
since their Islamic revolution to overcome, if they make recourse to
American and Western expertise for their self-defence. And
specifically, in matters of international law which every sovereign
nation must have competence over in order to remain an independent
nation.
Sovereignty
however may well be a lost cause under the oligarchy's pre-meditated
drive for global governance using manufactured
wars and pestilence as their diabolical
pretexts;
the first-cause prime-mover
that
Dr. Francis A. Boyle conveniently ignores in all of his dissent.
Furthermore, making recourse to ICC (please note the correction
below, it is ICJ and not ICC) is
an admission of that fact that a supranational
global court and global justice system is now acceptable to resolve
disputes among nations. And the formulation of these disputes and
their resolutions of course remain according to the prescribed law
books written by the hectoring hegemons themselves who are
orchestrating the erosion of national sovereignty
worldwide by methods most devious (see citations at the end). It
is their court – from whose jurisdiction
(at least for ICC) they have already acquired immunity!
Supranational
global court systems set up by the West are a farce just like
Nuremberg Military Tribunal was a farce to administer
victor's justice (see David Irving's Nuremberg,
the last battle).
But if you wish to play that farce, at least go for the jugular!
If
Francis
A. Boyle
is willing to use his legal expertise to instead sue the
Anglo-American oligarchy, from the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations)
to the RIIA (Royal Institute of International Affairs), in these
supranational global courts – I might perhaps pay attention.
Iran
is advised to do the same --- file legal suit against the real
prime-movers behind the supranational
organizations like the United Nations and the IAEA et. al. which are
ab initio used to provide legal cover for naked aggression, if they
wish to take meaningful legal action with any real teeth in it!
These
hidden in plain sight prime-movers, the
Brotherhood of Death and their institutional aiders and abettors, are
the ones behind the scenes waging the incessant war on Iran and upon
the rest of the world using the military might of the superpower as
merely the sledge hammer du jour to drive their convoluted Hegelian
Dialectics for global governance through.
File
a principled lawsuit against the new world order, against world
government, and against its harbingers in the supranational World
Court systems that have been set up by the very same hectoring
hegemons. See
Of Ostriches and Rebels on The Hard Road to World Order.
A good book that unpeels some of their identity is Antony C. Sutton's
America's
Secret Establishment
and Carroll Quigley's The
Anglo-American Establishment.
It is trivial to identify their successors today.
The
reference is to ICJ (International Court of Justice) and not ICC
(International Criminal Court) which is a different supranational
court. An earlier Press
TV interview
with Francis Boyle explains the distinction, where he also most
forthrightly noted the same quandary: why
Iran want's the help of an American lawyer:
Q.
Precisely what would the charges against the US and Israel be? What
are you hoping to achieve?
A.
About two years ago Iran contacted me about a proposal I had made to
sue the United States, Israel and the EU-3 (Britain, France and
Germany) at the International Court of Justice in The Hague for their
repeated and public threats to launch a military attack upon Iran
over its undoubted right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to
engage in nuclear reprocessing.
My
proposal was that Iran should sue these states immediately, convene
an Emergency Hearing by the World Court, and ask the Court to
indicate provisional measures of protection on behalf of Iran against
the United States, Israel and the EU-3 -- basically a temporary
restraining order.
I
felt that these lawsuits would be able to prevent a military attack
against Iran and also prevent the imposition of sanctions against
Iran by the United Nations Security Council. In addition, by Iran
submitting this entire matter to the World Court, it would make it
clear to the entire world who the real culprits are here.
The
threat and use of military force clearly violates Article 2(4) of the
United Nations Charter. The Charter also mandates the peaceful
resolution of international disputes. By filing these lawsuits Iran
would prove to the entire world that it intends to resolve this
matter peacefully and in accordance with international law.
I
notice that just this week Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali
Khamenei publicly stated that he would sue
the United States if it attacked Iran. I am proposing that we sue the
United States immediately in order to prevent any attack upon or
blockade of Iran, which would be an act of war.
Q.
Why are you seeing to bring this action in an international court,
rather than a domestic US court?
A.
This would be a total waste of time. Based upon my prior experience,
there is no way a United States court would rule against the United
States government on a matter like this.
Q.
You are proposing to represent Iran in a court action against the US
and Israel - what are you seeking from Tehran - what mandate would
they need to give you. Basically, how would this work?
A.
Of course if Iran wants me to represent Iran in these lawsuits I
would be happy to do so. But given the fact that I am a US national,
Iran might prefer to have its own lawyers file these lawsuits. Iran
already has a detailed Memorandum of Law from me on these lawsuits.
The Iranian lawyers can simply use my Memorandum as they see fit. I
would be happy to assist them in whatever way they desire.
Q.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been in the news recently
regarding a prosecution against Sudan's leader, Omar al-Bashir.
Explain the difference between the ICJ and the ICC.
A.
The International Court of Justice deals with disputes between
states, which the nuclear reprocessing dispute is all about. The
International Criminal Court deals with the personal criminal
responsibility of individuals. It has no authority to rule upon or
settle disputes between states, which the ICJ can do.
Q.
The US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC - what is its
relationship with the ICJ?
A.
The ICJ would have jurisdiction to hear lawsuits by Iran against the
United States, Israel and the EU-3 irrespective of the ICC.
Caveat
Emptor on ICJ Thursday,
April 11, 2013
Iran
would also do well to have their own legal minds carefully scrutinize
the World Court venue for both its legal cracks and lacunas, as well
as its real modus operandi under the realpolitik thumbscrews
of the hectoring hegemons. The Iranians should refresh their own
memory of the supranational legal system called the United Nations
under whose jurisdiction runs the ICJ, by
reviewing Phyllis Bennis' Calling
the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's United Nations
for some real anecdotes of how the United States really gets its
vote.
The
following notification is indicative of just such a crack – did
the lawyers filing the case not know of this: “However,
the Convention requires that states must first attempt negotiations
before initiating judicial proceedings. The Court held that Georgia
had not attempted negotiations and as such the Court could not
exercise jurisdiction.”
Iran
has attempted negotiations with the United States, and the Americans
have of course continually declined to negotiate, and therefore,
while that particular requirement which applied to Georgia may not
apply to Iran, some other similar gotcha can just as easily lead to
the same “oops” end result.
World
Court Throws out Georgia's Case Against Russia (April 1, 2011)
The
International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled it does not have
jurisdiction to hear a case brought by Georgia against Russia,
alleging ethnic cleansing in the breakaway republics of South Ossetia
and Abkhazia. If these allegations are true, they are a serious
violation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination. However, the Convention requires that states must
first attempt negotiations before initiating judicial proceedings.
The Court held that Georgia had not attempted negotiations and as
such the Court could not exercise jurisdiction. This decision may
impede future attempts to bring the matter before the ICJ, as it
cannot be pursued in the same form a second time. (Global
Policy Forum)
Source URL:
http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-does-iran-need-help-of-american.html
Archive.org PDF URL:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130603021146/http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/why-does-iran-need-the-help-of-an-american-lawyer-to-file-charges-at-icj-by-zahirebrahim.pdf
First Published April 10, 2013 | Links fix November 5, 2016
Why does
Iran need the help of an American Lawyer to file charges at ICJ? By
Zahir Ebrahim 12/12