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.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS