Iran's "Right" to a Nuclear Program

[atifch]

MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS

FROM: GARY SCHMITT

SUBJECT: Iran's "Right" to a Nuclear Program


According to a front-page story in the New York Times yesterday ("Reshaping Nuclear Rules," by David Sanger), the Bush administration is seeking to close loopholes in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The administration's concern is that the treaty allows states to become virtual or actual nuclear weapons states under the guise of acquiring technology, infrastructure, and know-how for "peaceful" nuclear energy programs.

The core problem with the NPT is that it appears to give non-nuclear weapon states a "right" to nuclear technology and assistance in exchange for foreswearing weapons themselves. This is the "right" that Iran is currently insisting allows it to not only build a nuclear energy plant, but also the infrastructure necessary to enrich uranium to fuel that plant. As Sanger notes, this is a right "Mr. Bush's aides" appear to "have acknowledged" and, in the case of Iran, have convinced our European allies "that the only acceptable outcome of their negotiations with Iran is that it must give up that right."

But by accepting the idea that under the NPT Iran has such a prerogative, the administration only makes its own efforts to stop Iran's program more difficult. It leads in practice to the idea that major concessions must be made to Iran in exchange for giving up its "right" and, bizarrely, allows Iran to position itself internationally as a defender of the treaty itself.

This need not be the case. As Henry Sokolski, Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, has previously argued, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty can be read differently. The specific intent of the treaty was to prevent proliferation, and it would be a strange thing indeed if the actual provisions of the treaty mandated precisely the danger it was trying to forestall. As the late strategic strategist Albert Wohlstetter noted: "The NPT is, after all, a treaty against proliferation, not for nuclear development."

Moreover, the so-called right to nuclear technology and know-how found in Article IV of the treaty is itself conditioned on a state behaving "in conformity with articles I and II" of the treaty - articles which prohibit activities that lead to nuclear weapons proliferation. Add to this fact that, during the negotiations over the NPT, specific proposals were rejected that would have made it a "duty" for weapon states to aid non-weapon states with nuclear technology transfers and know-how. The strong inference is that Article IV should not be interpreted as giving non-weapon states a presumptive title to such transfers.

In the case of Iran, then, the administration should be arguing that Tehran has no inalienable right to its nuclear program. By dint of its multiple and prolonged deceptions with respect to that program, and the fact that the program has no feasible economic rationale, Iran has forfeited the ground on which it can plausibly argue that its program is "in conformity with articles I and II" of the treaty. The administration is right to worry about how the NPT is being abused. But it would be in a stronger position to address those concerns if it didn't give up the high ground so readily with respect to what the treaty itself requires.

[Najabat]

Well Atif!Nice article...What i extarct from SCHMITT's article, seems one sided view of the story...I would like to further elaborate the Iran's stretegy in corelation with NPT. Well as a signatory to the NPT, Iran has been accused by the United States of using its nuclear energy programme as cover for plans to build atomic weapons which could be directed at Israel. But Iran has vehemently denied the claims.I think Israel has much more developed plans of Nuclear threat towards Iran;-)

Furhtermore Iran repeatedly assured the international community that its nuclear program is "totally transparent" and in line with the respective conventions and international laws as the program has been under regular supervision of the IAEA. Even Albaradi of IAEA acknowleged that Iran's Nuclear program is transparent.

Resisting the mounting US pressure to sign the additional protocol to NPT, Iran had long argued that inspectors could violate national sovereignty and probe sites that are crucial to the defence of the country. Even if Israel is demanded for same inspectiosn what would be the response of Israel, not hidden from anyone who has a little insight of world's issues.

After the US-led coalition forces toppled the regime of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in just three weeks, many people fear that Iran could be the next "axis of evil" member to come under attack.

The United States, which included Iran in countries of "axis of evil" trying to make nuclear weapons along with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the ousted Saddam regime in Iraq, has sought to get the IAEA to declare Iran in "non-compliance" with the NPT and bring the issue before the UN Security Council, which would have left Iran open to possible sanctions.
The current strategy of UN Security Council and United States just reflects what we called in Urdu "Jiss ki laathi uss ki Bhanss".In simple might is right.

As far the French, British and Germans are concerned it seems that they want to encourage Iran to continue with its stated policy of fully co-operating with the IAEA rather than punish it for past failures. Diplomats said Germany especially feared too harsh a resolution would backfire and cause Iran to stop co-operating with the United Nations.I think Germany fear is quite realistic.So there is a strong need for effective dialogue with Iran on Equality grounds.

[Nedian]

Let me add some thing to it.

Recently the Prime Minister Ohd Olmert of Israel has accepted that the Israel has the nuclear capability. Even though, it was not a bolt from the blue for the world as everyone knows it beforehand. But this recent statement must be a caution not only to Iran but also to whole Muslim world.

Iran is reluctant to have nuclear technology at any cost, on one hand it has been supported by the China and Russia, on the other hand it has sufficient help from the clauses of NPT, which says that every member country can develop nuclear technology for the peaceful purpose
.
NPT is Non proliferation treaty and if any member is dissatisfied with the NPT, then it can leave the Treaty on One month’s Notice. Therefore it will not be difficult for the Iran to Leave the treaty and develop its Nuclear Technology on its will.

US want Iran to sacrifice its right for achieving nuclear technology on the basis that Iran is oil rich country, and it has no need for cheaper energy resources. But it’s a well-known fact all across the board that Iran has been facing the problems of double digit inflation, unemployment and rampant corruption at home. Therefore it is in dire need of cheap energy to set its economy on sound basis.

Iran want incentives and co-operation in developing equality based relations.Therefore the situation must be tackled with the diplomatic means and any pre-emptive strike would be deadly not only to US itself, but to whole world in the shape of mounting oil prices.


Regards

Nedian

[atifch]

its a good analysis and shows ur great effort .

[amjad hafeez]

About the nuclear technology it is evident that without treating all the states equally there is meak possibility of peace.It is so because peace demands justice and justice demands equality.In the present scenario the policy of live and let live is the only option.Each person and state is responsible for the security ,welfare and accountability of other states and persons.Only then peace would prevail.

[atifch]

very wise sir g . every state has right to develop nucleur weapons to maintain minimmum detterence standards.

[Nedian]

Absoulutely,Its the detterence which compels the weak countries to get the nuclear weapons in order to save themselves from the hegemony of nuclear club members.

Nuclear weapons are hope, when they are used for the security purpose against other country's hegemony, but they are peril when they are used against each ohter in cold blood. its example is before us in shape of HIROSHEMA AND NAGASAKI.

Every country should have right to possess nuclear detterence ,but it should not have the right to use it in cold blood as an pre-emptive strike, without any sound and solid reason.


Regards

Nedian

[atifch]

but iraniz have not dealt with as much secrecy and confidentiality as required and had put themselves in a critical position.

[Hafsah]

dont you think by offering GCC states the nuclear technology openly might create bigger problems for iran?? will the arab countries accept iran's offer?? does iran have any ulterior motives behind offering the nuclear technology to arab states where as the america is planning on retreat of its troops from iraq??
kindly, if anyone can answer this ...
thanks

[atifch]

good question hafsah.
i view it as a blunder ...lets see what others say.