World Tribune.com


So much for diplomacy: Teheran's atomic clock ticks down


See the John Metzler archive

By John Metzler
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Friday, May 6, 2005

UNITED NATIONS — Delegates at the U.N.’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference may soon be singing the blues given grievous violations by some states both inside and outside the global accord.

The Islamic Republic of Iran gratuitously and graciously confirmed American fears about nuclear proliferation when its Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told the UN conference that his country indeed intends to pursue nuclear enrichment procedures — a technology which brings Teheran closer to bomb making capability. Though enriched uranium can be used either to fuel power reactors or for atomic weapons production, Iran’s actions are in direct violation of earlier commitments to Britain, France and Germany — The EU–3 — to suspend such activities.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Stephen Rademaker told the NPT conference, that Washington demanded a “permanent cessation of Iran’s enrichment and reprocessing efforts, as well as a dismantlement of equipment and facilities related to such activities.”

Thus diplomatic efforts by the EU-3 have failed to stop the ticking atomic clock in Teheran. It appears that the Atomic Ayatollahs have snookered the international community and have brought the ongoing crisis to a new level. So what’s next?

Though Iran’s Russian-built Busheher reactor is slated for electric power production, the sites at Nantaz are focused on uranium enrichment and Arak facility is focused on plutonium production. Sadly the Iranian challenge becomes a case of not If but When.

Then there’s North Korea whose communist regime has formally withdrawn from the NPT in 2003 while at the same time clandestinely pursuing the nuclear weapons genie. How will states react when Kim Jong-il tests one of his nukes?

But all the heated palaver about proliferation comes down to a basic quandary; many rogue regimes as well as developing countries feel they have a right –just like the major nuclear powers — to possess nuclear arms for prestige or security. Look at Pakistan.

The NPT Treaty remains a cornerstone of global arms control and nonproliferation efforts according to the U.S. State Department. With nearly 190 signatories — including the Islamic Republic of Iran — each of the parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue effective measures relating to ending the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament.

Naturally there’s a duality in the debate. The NPT does not ban the peaceful uses of nuclear energy — e.g. for electric power production but does forbid the production of nuclear arms. Moreover besides banning wider proliferation, the Treaty imposes clear cut disarmament obligations on the current nuclear powers such as the USA, Russia and communist China. So in other words, NPT aims to stop the spread of weapons as well as reduce and eventually phase out already existing stockpiles.

According to the State Department, “The United States has reduced its nuclear weapons stockpile by more than 13,000 nuclear weapons since 1988. When the Treaty is fully implemented by 2012, the U.S. will have reduced by about 80 percent the number of strategic nuclear warheads it deployed in 1990.”

Clearly most governments demand strict compliance with NPT’s nonproliferation obligations. And here’s the looming dilemma. Should members of the UN Security Council confront either Iran or North Korea, there’s the real possibility of a diplomatic dead end. Why? Because when pressed, the People’s Republic of China and possibly even Russia will not support what will be perceived as an Anglo/American and possibly French action to sanction Iran.

Still as Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Kislyak told delegates, “The cases of non-compliance with the Treaty, the black markets phenomenon, and the possibility of nuclear materials falling into the hands of the terrorists confirm the necessity to be vigilant and to strengthen in every way the nonproliferation regime. This is the major factor in ensuring each states national security and the security of the international community as a whole.”

Ensuring that national security may be more difficult than appears. The European-3 and the USA clearly don’t appear to be on the same page as regards forming a united front to seriously challenge Iranian transgressions. In the meantime, Teheran’s atomic clock is still ticking.

John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.




See current edition of

Return toWorld Tribune.com's Front Cover
Your window on the world

Contact World Tribune.com at world@worldtribune.com