Neutrality or compromises?

Well I've either been too busy celebrating "shabe yalda" or following the adoption of the resolution on the human rights situation in the IRI, but I just noticed this tonight ... to find out that another blogger had posted about it earlier here and here.

However, I also noticed that a Swiss graphic designer spoke at the opening of the exhibition. Hmmm... Switzerland... just a week after her election, it's new President met with one of Iran's Deputy FM... and also, this year, it decided not to co-sponsor the above-mentioned resolution, although it had done so in the past... the rumour is that it hoped to be able to play a role in the negotiations on the nuclear issue. What did the Calmy-Rey quote in the IRNA release say? "Switzerland attaches special significance to bolstering relations with Tehran"? Maybe it also hopes that if the Security Council resolution passes, Iran will replace the dollar by the Swiss franc rather than the euro!

(double) Standards

A while ago, another blogger wrote about double standards, or more precisely about various interpretations depending on what suits the argument. His was in favour of the IRI. The discourse was so "nonsensical" (to use the terms of someone who responded in the comments) that my disappointment with the author led me to stop reading the blog altogether, rather than responding.

But the malaise of not having expressed my frustration remained, I guess (although I gladly found today that, in fact, someone did.)

And then, here I am, thanks to Mr. Zarif who had another go at the UN. Surely, he must feel a little awkward at calling upon the United Nations Security Council to somehow protect Iran when, a day or two before, his President had indicated that "Iran does not give a damn about such [Security Council] resolutions", and his main nuclear negotiator had defined them as "not very important".