@@ Iran has the right to acquire nukes @@
Arash
December 6, 2003
U.S. threatening nuke treaty?
Dr. James Gordon Prather
Nuclear Weapons Physicist
gpra...@worldnetdaily.com
During the Cold War, we were understandably concerned that the Soviets might
nuke 50 or 60 million of us in our jammies. Post-Cold War, there remains the
concern that a terrorist group might somehow nuke a few thousand of us.
So, when President Bush needed a rationale for imposing regime-change on
Iraq, he told Congress that Saddam Hussein posed "a continuing threat to the
national security of the United States" by "actively seeking a
nuclear-weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist
organizations."
Never mind that on March 7, 2003, International Atomic Energy Agency
Director General Mohamed ElBaradei had reported to the Security Council that
"after three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no
evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear-weapons program
in Iraq."
The IAEA is an agency of the United Nations whose original mission was to
facilitate the international transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful
purposes.
Since 1972, the IAEA has also been responsible to the Security Council for
verifying that those peaceful applications - once transferred - are not
misused.
Article IV, Section (1) of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty says "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."
So, the IAEA requires every NPT signatory to "declare" certain facilities
and activities and subject them to the IAEA-NPT Safeguards regime.
In the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War, the IAEA discovered that Iraq
had "failed" to declare uranium-enrichment facilities and activities. Such
"failures" are not necessarily violations of the NPT. But the IAEA
eventually discovered that Iraq did have an illicit nuke-development program
and that was an NPT "violation."
Iraq had gotten most items that it failed to declare from individuals and
private-sector firms located in nation-states that didn't even have nukes.
Only five of the 40-member Nuclear Suppliers Group are have-nuke states. All
NSG members are supposed to closely scrutinize their exports. However, prior
to post-war discoveries in Iraq, if NSG exporters said the importer's
intentions were peaceful, NSG members usually took the exporters at their
word.
No longer. Since the Gulf War, NSG members have criminally prosecuted and
imprisoned deceitful exporters. Furthermore, they now require the importing
nation-state to subject most items to a full-scope IAEA Safeguards
Agreement, whether they are NPT signatories or not.
The additional "full-scope" authority is provided the IAEA by an Additional
Protocol to the NPT, which more than a hundred NPT signatories - including
Iran and the United States - do not yet have in force.
In agreeing to sign the Additional Protocol, Iran recently admitted to the
IAEA that it has also "failed" to "declare" numerous facilities and
activities. The IAEA has confirmed the failures, but after months of
searching, has yet to find any "evidence" of an illicit nuke program.
Nevertheless, Under Secretary of State John Bolton has characterized Iran's
"failures" to be NPT "violations" - which they are not - and has demanded
that Iran be hauled before the U.N. Security Council for disciplinary
action.
"The United States believes that the long-standing, massive and covert
Iranian effort to acquire sensitive nuclear capabilities makes sense only as
part of a nuclear-weapons program."
So, what does the United States intend to do if the Security Council does
nothing?
"Properly planned and executed, the interception of critical technologies
can prevent hostile states and terrorists from acquiring these dangerous
capabilities," Bolton said. "At a minimum, interdiction can lengthen the
time that proliferators will need to acquire new weapons capabilities."
Well, there's a problem with Bolton's approach. It - like the invasion of
Iraq on the pretense of enforcing the NPT - is a violation of international
law.
Not only does the NPT grant Iran the "inalienable right' to acquire the
peaceful "nuclear capabilities" that so frightens Bolton, but it also
imposes on us and the French, Brits and Russians the responsibility of
helping Iran acquire them.
Perhaps Bolton never read Secretary Powell's statement to the PrepCom
session held this spring for the 2005 NPT Review Conference.
"The NPT can only be as strong as our will to enforce it, in spirit and in
deed. We share a collective responsibility to be ever vigilant and to take
concerted action when the Treaty - our treaty - is threatened."
The French, Brits and Russians believe they are strengthening the NPT by
cooperating with Iran, keeping Iran subject to full-scope IAEA Safeguards.
So who's threatening the NPT?
* Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing
official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal
Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the
Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the
Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for
national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking
member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy
Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr.Prather had earlier worked as a
nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in
California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=35