CNN.com / world
09/30/2009
NEW DELHI, India (CNN) — The head of the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog agency said Iran broke the law by not disclosing sooner its recently revealed uranium enrichment site.
“Iran was supposed to inform us on the day it was decided to construct the facility. They have not done that,” International Atomic Energy Agency’s Mohamed El Baradei told CNN’s sister station, CNN-IBN. “They are saying that this was meant to be a back-up facility in case we were attacked and so they could not tell us earlier on.
“Nonetheless, they have been on the wrong side of the law, you know in so far as informing the agency about the construction and as you have seen it, it has created concern in the international community,” he said.
Last week, Iran wrote a letter to the IAEA revealing the existence of the facility. The admission prompted President Obama and the leaders of Britain and France to publicly chide the Islamic republic and threaten further sanctions.
Iran claims its nuclear enrichment program is intended for peaceful purposes, but the international community accuses the country of continuing to try to develop nuclear weapons capability.
Watch uproar over Iran’s nuclear ambitions »
The facility is located on a military base near the city of Qom, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) southwest of Tehran, and is thought to be capable of housing 3,000 centrifuges, according to the officials and the IAEA.
The equipment is not enough to produce nuclear fuel to power a reactor, but sufficient to manufacture bomb-making material, according to a U.S. diplomatic source who read the letter. …
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/30/iran.iaea.nuclear/index.html
It might be interesting to discover just how the IAEA decides how to “police” the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Its decisions appears to hinge upon who the target is. Iran and North Korea are not likely to receive the same treatment as Israel.
While focusing on Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the IAEA has virtually ignored Israel’s nuclear program. But now, according to an article in the Washington Times, 150 member nations of the UN is speaking up about Israel’s nuclear program.
Two things appear to be noteworthy about the voices of those 150 United Nations’ members:
1. This is the first time in 18 years that the UN has commented on Israel’s nuclear program.
2. This affirmation of fairness from the UN happened just days before the White Hat guys, their Middle East sidekick and the “TELL AMERICA” PRESS bombarded the world with accusations against Iran.
Why is that?
Why did one act by the United Nations(IAEA) grab headlines while the other act by the United Nations(150 nation nuclear conference) did not? Both were quite newsworthy. Both addressed the Middle East nuclear programs of nations – yet one nation got “bad-mouthed” while the other nation got little press.
Does the “6000000 card” exempt a likely nuclear bearing Zionist nation from the same scrutiny that Arab nations must undergo?
And it is truly strange that once you opt-in to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, you can’t opt-out.
If a country can’t opt-out, that would enable the IAEA to “grab” North Korea. North Korea opted-out. Opting – in with no option to opt-out is peculiar. That makes one wonder “what other man-made treaty forbade opting out of it”.
I thought I would search the “free news on the Internet” using the search string “irrevocable treaties”. That’s kinda close. That search produced “trading treaties” and the like. I decided to change my search string. I next searched “irrevocable nuclear non-proliferation treaty” and I found the below. Pay close attention to Article X.
Key articles
Article I:[17] Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices.
Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.
Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state’s peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
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.
Article VI. The states undertake 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 towards a “Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”.
Article X. Establishes the right to withdraw from the Treaty giving 3 months’ notice. It also establishes the duration of the Treaty (25 years before 1995 Extension Initiative).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty
So, Article X of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty allows for opting- out by giving a three month notice. And that seems reasonable to allow for opting-out. It seems reasonable that if you voluntarily opt-in you ought to be able to, upon adherence to agreed upon rules, voluntarily opt-out.
But I then thought that there maybe an “opt-in” for which an “opt-out” may be painful or perhaps impossible – blood oaths.
I attempted to look up a definition of “blood oath” but only found references to people, movies and the like. I found no definition of “blood oath”. And maybe that’s good.
|
*** |
Tags: IAEA, international community, Iran, united nations'nuclear watchdog agency, uranium enrichment site, wrong side of the law
