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.
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS