AntiWar
July 15, 2006
Condi and Her Gangs
Dr. James Gordon Prather
Nuclear weapons physicist
Former Nuclear
bomb tester at Lawrence Livermore
Former Technical director of nuclear bomb
testings at Sandia
Former Chief scientist of the U.S. Army
U.S. Navy
veteran
On 26, November, 2004, the
Brit-French-German-Iran ambassadors notified Mohamed ElBaradei – Director
General of the International Atomic Energy Agency – of the terms of the "Paris
Accord" [1], whereby the Brits-French-Germans and Iranians undertook to
negotiate an agreement that "will provide objective guarantees that Iran's
nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes. It will equally provide
firm guarantees on nuclear, technological and economic cooperation and firm
commitments on security issues".
Why were they telling ElBaradei all this?
Well, under the Paris Accord the Iranians had voluntarily offered to
suspend – for the duration of the negotiations – activities that were currently
subject to IAEA Safeguards [2].
On March 23, 2005, Iran offered (in confidence) a package of "objective
guarantees" that included a voluntary "confinement" of Iran's nuclear programs,
including forgoing the production of plutonium and reprocessing of spent reactor
fuel.
On August 1, 2005, having had no response to their offer, the Iranian
IAEA ambassador notified [3] ElBaradei they were beginning implementation of the
"confined" program.
Why were the Iranians telling ElBaradei all this?
To alert him that the implementation involved the resumption of certain
voluntarily suspended Safeguarded activities.
Well, almost immediately Condi strong-armed the Brits-French-Germans
into involving the IAEA Board in something that was absolutely none of the
Board’s business.
First they got the IAEA Board – which had no authority to do so – to
"require" Iran to re-suspend the resumed Safeguarded activities and return to
the Paris Accord negotiations.
Well, that didn’t work, so Condi and Brits-French-Germans got the IAEA
Board to "report" the Iranian "dossier" to the UN Security Council (UNSC) for
"possible sanctions".
Well, that didn’t work, either,
You see, Article 39 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter says:
"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to
the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make
recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with
Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm
[Article 41 provides for measures "not including the use of armed
forces’’, while Article 42 includes the use of armed forces].
But Article 40 of Chapter VII says:
"In order to prevent an aggravation of the
situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or
deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties
concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or
desirable".
So, all that Condi and the Brits-French-Germans got out of the Security
Council was a non-binding Presidential Statement that basically remanded the
dispute.
Well, Condi has now assembled a new gang
[Brits-French-Germans-Russians-Chinese] and the French Foreign Minister issued a
statement this week on their behalf [4].
"On the 1st of June, we met in Vienna and
agreed[to a set of far reaching proposals as a basis for negotiation with Iran,
stressing however that, should Iran decide not to engage, further steps would
have to be taken in the Security Council.
"Today, five weeks later, we reviewed the
situation, on the basis of a report by [EU High Representative] Javier Solana
who has met three times with Dr. Larijani [Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National
Security Council].
"The Iranians have given no indication at all
that they are ready to engage seriously on the substance of our proposals. Iran
has failed to take the steps needed to allow negotiations to begin, specifically
the suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities, as
required by the IAEA. We express profound disappointment over this
situation.
"In this context, we have no choice
but to return to the United Nations Security Council and take forward the
process that was suspended two months ago.
"We
have agreed to seek a United Nations Security Council Resolution which would
make the IAEA-required suspension mandatory.
"Should Iran refuse to comply, then we will work for the adoption of measures
under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter".
Well, since the IAEA Board obviously exceeded its authority when it
required, inter allia, Iran to suspend certain Safeguarded activities, it will
be hard for Condi’s new gang to get the Council to determine under Article 39
that Iran’s refusal to obey an illegal requirement to suspend legal Safeguarded
programs constitutes "a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of
aggression".
As the Iranians correctly noted on August 1, 2005;
"Iran, like any other Non-Nuclear-Weapon
State, has no obligation to negotiate and seek agreement for the exercise of its
'inalienable' right, nor can it be obligated to suspend it".
Notes:
------
[1] Paris Accord (November 26, 2004)
Communication received from the Permanent Representatives
of France, Germany, United Kingdom and Iran concerning the agreement signed in
Paris on 15 November 2004.
[3] Communication dated August 1, 2005 received from the Permanent Mission
of Iran to the Agency