Posts
Iran is defying Security Council resolutions ordering it to suspend the enrichment of uranium.
Why is Iran defying the Security Council?
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a country has the right to enrich uranium to be used as fuel for civil nuclear power, but not to the much higher level needed for a nuclear weapon. It has to remain under inspection from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Iran says it is simply doing what it is allowed to do. It argues that it needs nuclear power and wants to control the whole process itself. It says it will not break its obligations under the NPT and will not use the technology to make a nuclear bomb.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stressed that Iran will not yield to international pressure: "The Iranian nation will not succumb to bullying, invasion and the violation of its rights," he has said.
So why is the Security Council ordering Iran to stop enrichment?
The Council is concerned because the technology used for producing fuel for nuclear power can be used to enrich the uranium to the higher level needed to produce a nuclear explosion.
Iran hid an enrichment programme for 18 years, so the Council says that until Iran's peaceful intentions can be fully established, it should stop enrichment and certain other nuclear activities. The Council's order is obligatory and supersedes other rights.
What precisely does the Security Council and the IAEA want Iran to do?
It wants Iran to stop all enrichment activities, including the preparation of uranium ore, the installation of the centrifuges in which a gas from the ore is spun to separate the richer parts and the insertion of the gas into the centrifuges. It also has to suspend its work on heavy water projects, notably the construction of a heavy water reactor. Such a reactor could produce plutonium, an alternative to uranium for a nuclear device.
The IAEA has also called on Iran to ratify and implement an additional protocol allowing more extensive inspections as a way of establishing confidence.
What does the IAEA say?
The IAEA has Iran's fuel enrichment plant under its surveillance and says in its latest report in February 2009 that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium, though the IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei says this is not at such a high rate as earlier. The IAEA also says that, following a detailed examination, it had found that Iran has accumulated more low-enriched uranium than had been thought - more than 1000 kilograms. This is regarded as enough basic material from which to make a nuclear device. However the uranium would have to be enriched further and the IAEA is watching. It says it has found no evidence that Iran has diverted material for weapons purposes.
The IAEA also reports that Iran is not cooperating with its request for an answer to questions about possible studies on nuclear warheads carried out in the past.
Incentives are being offered to Iran. What are these?
A renewed offer was made in summer 2008 by the US, Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany, known as the P5+1 (the permanent five on the Security Council plus Germany) or the E3+3 (the European three plus the three others from the Security Council). It builds on a previous offer of 2006 and says that if Iran suspends uranium enrichment, then talks can start about a long-term agreement.
On offer is recognition of Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and the treatment of Iran in "the same manner" as other states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iran would get help with developing nuclear power stations and be guaranteed fuel for them. It would also be offered trade concessions, including the possible lifting of US sanctions preventing it from buying new civilian aircraft and parts.
What was Iran's reply?
Iran said publicly that its position was unchanged, suggesting that it would not suspend enrichment, the condition set for any talks. President Ahmadinejad said the demand was "illegitimate".
What about an interim negotiation known as the "freeze-freeze"?
Under this idea, Iran would freeze its enrichment programme at the current level and the P5+1 would agree not to impose further sanctions for a limited period. The hope is that this would help substantive talks but the P5+1 insistence on the suspension of enrichment would still need to be dealt with.
What sanctions were imposed on Iran in March 2008?
Resolution 1803 extends asset restrictions and travel bans on more Iranian individuals said to be involved in nuclear work and on more Iranian companies. It bans the sale to Iran of so-called dual-use items - items which can have either a military or civilian purpose - as well as calling on governments to withdraw financial backing from companies trading with Iran, to inspect cargo going into and out of the country, and to monitor the activities of two Iranian banks.
What sanctions were imposed earlier?
Resolution 1737 was passed in December 2006. It mandates all UN member states "to prevent the supply, sale or transfer... of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems".
In March 2007, the Council passed resolution 1747. This seeks to tighten the squeeze on Iran's nuclear and missile programmes by preventing dealings with the state Bank Sepah and 28 named people and organisations, many connected to the elite Revolutionary Guard. Member states have been told to exercise restraint in and to report the travel of individuals connected to these programmes.
Imports of arms from Iran are banned and member states are told to exercise restraint in selling major arms systems to Iran. Loans are supposed to be limited to humanitarian and development purposes.
What about further sanctions?
On 10 June 2008, the US and the EU announced at a summit in Slovenia that they were ready "to supplement (UN) sanctions with additional measures."
On 23 June, the EU agreed to freeze assets of Iran's largest bank, Bank Melli, and to extend visa bans to more Iranians involved in nuclear and missile development.
On 27 September 2008, the Security Council reaffirmed existing sanctions but did not impose new ones.
What does the US intelligence assessment say about Iran?
The National Intelligence Estimate plays down any early threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. It assesses "with high confidence" that Iran did have a nuclear weapons programme until 2003, but this was discovered and Iran stopped it.
The NIE adds: "We do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons." The assessment admits that Iran appears "less determined" to develop nuclear weapons than US intelligence had previously thought.
It says that the earliest date by which Iran could make a nuclear weapon would be late 2009 but that this is "very unlikely".
Does the report lessen the chances of an attack on Iran?
It did for a time but more recently, talk has grown again, especially from Israel. President Bush still refuses to rule out any "option".
And Israel has reportedly carried out a major air force exercise, seen as practice for a raid on Iran.
Does everyone accept the NIE report?
No. Israel does not. The Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on 12 February 2008 that Israel thought Iran was aiming to create "a capacity for non-conventional weapons."
And in London on 5 March 2008, a senior British diplomat said: "Many of us were surprised by how emphatic the writers [of the NIE] were... I haven't seen any intelligence that gives me even medium confidence that these programmes haven't resumed."
Even the Director of US National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, appeared to backtrack on 28 February 2008, in evidence to the Senate Armed Forces Committee.
In this evidence, he said that Iran had probably halted warhead design and weaponisation, but pointed out that Iran's continued enrichment of uranium meant that it was continuing with "the most difficult challenge in nuclear production." He said: "We remain concerned about Iran's intentions... Tehran at a minimum is keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons."
What other pressure has there been on Iran?
While the sanctions were being negotiated, the US was also applying pressure on its international partners to restrict their trade with Iran. The US has banned most trade with Iran itself since its diplomats were seized in Tehran in 1979.
On 17 October 2007, the US designated part of the Revolutionary Guard as a "supporter of terrorism" and the Guard as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction for its alleged work on ballistic missiles. The US imposed further sanctions on the Guards' commercial activities and on several Iranian banks.
Is it not too late now to stop Iran from acquiring enrichment technology?
Iran thinks so and has said so. Its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has called this a "great victory".
According to Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, events have overtaken the current strategy and he thinks that Iran should now be allowed to undertake limited enrichment but under strict supervision. This approach has been rejected by the US and its supporters.
Doesn't the Non-Aligned Movement support Iran?
The NAM, representing 120 nations, issued a statement in July 2008 supporting Iran's right to develop peaceful nuclear power. Iran said this reflected international support for its position.
The statement did not directly criticise UN sanctions against Iran, though it said that any issues should be dealt within the IAEA. It also appeared to accept that there are some problems remaining when it said: "Diplomacy and dialogue through peaceful means must continue to find a comprehensive and long-term solution to the Iranian nuclear issue."
What is the background to this confrontation?
The IAEA reported in 2003 that Iran had hidden a uranium enrichment programme for 18 years, and the current dispute dates back to then.
Iran says its nuclear regime is peaceful
Western members of the IAEA called on Iran to commit itself to stopping all enrichment activities permanently, but it has refused to do so and later abandoned a temporary halt as well.
The clash with Iran escalated in February 2006, when the IAEA as a whole reported Iran to the Security Council.
A month later, the Security Council decided to take up the issue after receiving a copy of an IAEA report on Iran which said that it could not "conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran".
Could Iran leave the NPT?
Yes. Article X gives a member state the right to declare that "extraordinary events" have "jeopardised the supreme interests of the state". It can then give three months notice to quit. That would leave it free to do what it wanted.
And, in fact, on 7 May, its parliament threatened to force the government to withdraw if the stand-off was not resolved "peacefully".
Don't existing nuclear powers have obligations to get rid of their weapons under the NPT?
Article VI commits them 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". The nuclear powers claim they have done this by reducing their warheads, but critics say they have not really moved towards nuclear disarmament.
Critics also argue that the US and UK have broken the treaty by transferring nuclear technology from one to another. The US and UK say that this is not affected by the NPT.
Doesn't Israel have a nuclear bomb?
Yes. Israel, however, is not a party to the NPT, so is not obliged to report to it. Neither are India or Pakistan, both of which have developed nuclear weapons. North Korea has left the treaty and has announced that it has acquired a nuclear weapons capacity.
No comments:
Post a Comment