The Wrong Discussion

by CKR

What bothers me about that question on Dipnotes, and this New York Times editorial, and numerous other discussions of Iran’s nuclear program, is that it’s off on the wrong foot, thanks to the Bush administration’s preference for ignoring treaties and the media’s unwillingness to dig for the facts.

I’ve said much of this before, but it’s probably worth saying again.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty guarantees that its non nuclear weapon signatories can have full access to peaceful nuclear technology. Iran is a non nuclear weapon signatory.

Article IV
1. 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 and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

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 co-operate 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.

That means that it is not up to George Bush, or the United States, to decide whether Iran can have peaceful nuclear technology.

The IAEA found Iran in violation of its NPT obligations to report certain types of experimentation, and therefore the UN General Assembly has called on Iran (Resolutions 1696, 1737, and 1747) to suspend its activities in uranium enrichment until Iran explains those experiments satisfactorily.

However, the United States led the effort to pass these resolutions, in much the same way it led the effort to pass resolutions against Iraq, ignoring the findings of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. The continuing rhetoric from the United States government against Iran suggests that a similar process is under way.

Additionally, the US itself has obligations under the NPT that many nations believe it is shirking or actively working against.

Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Whether the United States has lived up to these commitments can be argued, but the use of preventive war against Iraq, its rhetoric and expressed ambition to build a new generation of nuclear weapons have convinced many that it is in breach of Article VI. Congress has slowed down progress toward that new generation of nuclear weapons, but the administration has come close to threatening that it will take up nuclear testing and break its self-imposed moratorium (this in place of ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty).

Finally, we have the numerous UN resolutions on Israel’s actions that the United States and Israel have ignored.

The Times editorial is right to be afraid:

The further along the Iranians get, the greater our fear that President Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney, will decide that one more war isn’t going to do their reputation much harm.

But the answer is not for Mohamed ElBaradei to ratchet up his demands on the Iranians as if he were part of the Bush administration. The answer lies in the Bush administration’s discovering the rule of law in international relations.