More on Iran

Paul Robinson

Stephen, I suggest that you and Oliver Kamm actually read the NPT. Under its terms, the non-weapons states have an 'inalienable right' to the use of nuclear power. Not only that, but the weapons-states have an obligation to assist them in the pursuit of that right. If the assessment is that Iran is not building a weapon, then the treaty is clear - it has the inalienable right to enrich uranium, and states like the UK have an obligation not only not to prevent them, but to assist them!! In short, it is ridiculous to say that the UN must pressure Iran to abide by 'its international obligations as a signatory of the NPT' by forcing it not to enrich uranium. In fact, doing so would put us in breach of our obligations under the NPT. If you don't like that, then call for the scrapping of the NPT. But don't call upon the NPT to justify action against Iran. Its position under the NPT is extremely strong, much stronger than ours. Paul

Oliver Kamm

That's nonsense. The NPT states: "All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy." "Fullest possible" does not mean there is inalienable right to the full fuel cycle, as sometimes it isn't possible. Some allies of the US do have access (e.g. Japan) but others do not (e.g. South Korea, which is not allowed to possess reprocessed plutonium). Iran is being treated perfectly fairly by the US and the EU-3, especially when you consider the regime's consistent record of deception and its president's demented antisemitic threats.

Paul Robinson

Oliver, Article IV, 1, of the NPT: 'Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination' Also, Article IV, 2: 'All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.' This is fundamental to the NPT. It was a deal under which the non-weapons states agreed to forego weapons in return for the others helping them develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. This deal is at the very heart of the NPT. It is what made it possible. Denying it is absurd. Paul

Paul Robinson

Further to my last, whatever one's interpretation of what the NPT gives signatories a right to, it is clearly untrue to state, as above, that in enriching uranium Iran is in breach of its obligations 'as a signatory of the NPT', since nowhere does the NPT say that you can't enrich uranium. Saying that Iran is in breach of a UN resolution is accurate. Saying it is in breach of the NPT is not. Paul

Oliver Kamm

Well, hold on: you said that Iran's position under the NPT is "much stronger than ours". This isn't a matter on which conflicting interpretatations are equally valid. Your comment was nonsense, because there is no inalienable right to a full fuel cycle. The NPT indeed does not forbid non-nuclear weapons states from enriching uranium: I've already mentioned the case of Japan, which does have access to the full cycle. But under the NPT: "Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards ... for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." Iran was thus in breach of the NPT by building undeclared fuel cycle facilities, which were exposed by an opposition group in 2002. Those facilities, at Natanz and Arak, were of very doubtful use for generating electricity - before a single reactor had come into service - but great utility for building nuclear weapons.

The Real Green Goddess

As part of a most malicious campaign of lies and harassment which he has waged against Oliver Kamm, Neil Clark exhorted his readers yesterday to write defamatory notes about Mr. Kamm to an editor at the Guardian. Many of you are of course aware that Neil Clark is a schoolteacher. If you believe it is outrageous that Mr. Clark is allowed anywhere near children, I would suggest you contact the DFES (Department for Children, Schools and Families). You will find the necessary information at the following link: http://tinyurl.com/2rpmer

Paul Robinson

Article IV.1 of the NPT couldn't be clearer: 'Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination'. Nothing in the NPT obliges any country to declare anything, merely, as pointed out, to accept safeguards. Iran has done this, so the issue is not whether the country is in breach of the NPT, but whether it is in breach of its safeguards agreement. The safeguards agreement which puts obligations on Iran is that of 1974, which is very limited in scope, and, somewhat simplified, did not actually oblige Iran to declare those things which it did not declare prior to nuclear material being introduced into reactors, which they had not been at the time the program was publicly revealed. More to the point, the IAEA Board has never formally declared Iran to be in breach of its Safeguards Agreement. So the nonsense is on Oliver's side here. I'll leave it there.

PJD

The Real Green Goddess - so does what you have just suggested seem a little hypocritical to you?

Oliver Kamm

I believe The Real Green Goddess was being ironic. TRGG is reminding us that, as Stephen and I reluctantly divulged, Mr Clark has been in the habit of inventing female identities in order to praise himself in the third person on other people's websites. These identities include "Green Goddess", under which name Mr Clark posted to Stephen's old blog in order to applaud the wisdom of, ahem, Neil Clark. The deception was not subtle or ingenious, and it concluded with serial disavowals by Mr Clark, writing under his nom de keyboard, that he was in fact Mr Clark. (Mr Clark, I'm glad to report, has now grasped the concept of an IP address, and in particular what such an address will reveal if it keeps cropping up under different names.) I'm grateful to The Real Green Goddess for her efforts, but if Mr Clark is intent on telling all who will listen that he considers me a scoundrel, then I am not overwhelmingly fazed by his efforts. I ought to make it clear, too, that I have no reason to doubt that schoolteaching is a suitable career choice for Mr Clark, and I wish him well in it.

The Real Green Goddess

No.

Oliver Kamm

Fair point.

PJD

The other way of looking at it would be Iran believed the US claims that Iraq had WMD. Once the US invasion in 2003 proved that they didn't have any then they realised that with Saddam gone they didn't need to have their own deterrent. If the National Intelligence Estimate is correct that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 then it was more likely due to the IAEA starting its investigation in February 2003 which was before the invasion of Iraq.