The drumbeat of Western disapproval accompanying Iran's decision last week to resume uranium conversion at its nuclear plant in Isfahan looks likely to drown out more considered approaches to the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation in general and Iran's aspirations in particular.
Largely unnoticed by mainstream media, the foreign ministers of Australia, Chile, Indonesia, Norway, Romania, South Africa and the UK put forward a series of proposals last month to avoid exactly the sort of confrontation that now looms over Tehran.
The countries affirmed "the inalienable right of all state parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination."
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
But crucially, they suggested that states wishing to develop nuclear power for civil purposes should be able to do so without first having to develop a domestic fuel-cycle capability. It is Iran's insistence on acquiring such a capability that, more than anything, has strengthened US, Israeli and European suspicions that it is trying to build the bomb.
In other words, the ministers said, the international community "should establish mechanisms to ensure guaranteed access to the market for nuclear fuel and related services for states in compliance with their non-proliferation obligations under the NPT."
Internationally approved and monitored supplies of nuclear fuel would reduce the risk of diversion of the enriched product for non-peaceful purposes. Thus, some of the suspicions surrounding the current Iranian program would, in theory at least, be dispelled.
The group of seven also bemoaned the failure of last May's NPT review conference in New York and proposed a series of steps to reinforce the treaty. They included a reaffirmation by all signatory states of their treaty commitments; and the "universalization of the treaty" -- meaning that states with nuclear weapons that have refused to join, such as Israel, India and Pakistan, should do so.
North Korea's abandoning of NPT membership in 2002 after it was found to be in breach of its obligations was a precedent that should not be allowed to stand, the ministers said.
"Leaving the treaty must not be considered a viable or consequence-free option ... obligations cannot be retrospectively forgotten," they said.
Last but not least, the seven countries, one of which (Britain) is an acknowledged nuclear-weapons state, said the international community "must continue practical, systematic and progressive efforts to advance nuclear disarmament globally ... towards a world free of nuclear weapons."
The group said it would pursue its proposals at next month's UN summit. Unfortunately, the Bush administration was not party to the initiative, and neither were Russia or China for that matter. And in any case, the initiative by itself cannot stop a Security Council showdown over Iran if the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) decides to refer the Iran "dossier" to New York.
Internationally safeguarded and guaranteed nuclear fuel supplies, for example, were part of the "final offer" put to Tehran last week by the EU3 -- France, Germany and Britain. Unfortunately, the atmosphere of distrust and recrimination after two years of protracted negotiations -- and following the election of a conservative Iranian president -- seems to have led Tehran to reject the deal out of hand.
"The EU proposal was very insulting and humiliating," said Mohammad Saeedi of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization. Saeedi appeared to be referring to the widespread Iranian perception that the EU was trying to deny Iran its "inalienable right" to process fuel -- a problem that might have been overcome if the group of seven's proposals had been in place.
The growing air of crisis over Iran's nuclear programs is also obscuring other new factors which could (and perhaps should) have a direct bearing on how Western countries, and particularly the US, act now. One such factor is the leaked assessment contained in a new Bush administration National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran.
According to US newspaper reports, the NIE concluded that Iran was bent on acquiring the atomic bomb.
"It is the judgment of the intelligence community that, left to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons," it said.
But the study also expressed uncertainty that Iran's clerical leaders had actually decided to go ahead. And it threw cold water on repeated Israeli claims that Iran was within six months of gaining nuclear-weapon capability. It estimated that, given Iran's technical limitations, it would probably not deploy an atomic bomb, assuming it wanted to, until 2015.
The NIE's considerably less dramatic conclusions are reminiscent of international weapons survey reports since the Iraq invasion that showed pre-war claims about Iraq's nuclear capabilities and activities had been wildly inaccurate -- and politically exaggerated.
By leaking the findings, and taking a cautious line, the US intelligence officers may be trying to ensure that they do not get caught on that hook again.
And this leads to another largely under-reported and unconsidered nugget of information concerning Iran's activities that emanated from the IAEA this week: Key evidence on which the charge of illicit bomb-making against Iran rested may have to be scrapped.
Tests performed by the IAEA reportedly indicate that enriched uranium particles found on Iranian nuclear equipment came from Pakistan, from where the equipment was imported, and were not produced in Iran.
Tehran has adamantly maintained all along that this was the most likely explanation for the existence of the particles. Now the IAEA appears to agree.
Far from being able to brandish a smoking gun, Iran's accusers hardly have a water pistol to share between them. That does not necessarily mean Tehran is innocent of all charges. It does not disguise the fact that Tehran suspiciously concealed its nuclear activities for many years. But when other factors are also taken into account, it does suggest that a more considered and consensual approach to Iran and other proliferation problems might be the wisest course.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS