World Powers Agree on Sanctions Against Iran:
Will Sanctions Ease the Nuclear Stand off
Shakil Rai
May 26, 2010
The Obama administration has been on the defensive against the right wing onslaught, and has increasingly positioned itself closer to the neo-cons on the questions of “war on terrorism”, nuclear proliferation, and peace in the Middle East. The new round of UN sanctions on Iran should be viewed in this context.
The sanctions are sweeping in scope, more punitive, and crippling than the ones currently in force. The fact that sanctions have not achieved the stated objectives before, in the case of Iran or other nations, has not discouraged the forces behind the current drive. It’s unlikely that under pressure of the new sanctions Iran would abandon its uranium enrichment program, or weaken the clerical regime to the point of collapse. If anything the sanctions are more likely to strengthen the mullah’s grip on power. They would use the situation to their advantage and blame every hardship the people are going to face on the “great Satan”. They will use it as a rallying cry to unite the nation behind them. This would weaken democratic opposition to the regime, and strengthen collective Iranian resolve to pursue nuclear program. It’s significant to note that even the strongest political opponents of the theocratic regime in Iran are supportive of their country’s right to enrich uranium on its soil; on this point government and opposition stand together.
One may wonder why then the US would pursue a new round of sanctions so vigorously if they know they are not going to produce the desired result. It can be argued that those who have advocated the case for new sanctions are looking beyond the sanctions regime. The idea may be to cripple the Iranian economy, destroy its financial institutions like banks and insurance companies who cannot have any business with any company outside Iran. This financial squeeze is expected to considerably weaken Iranian defense capability especially its missile program, and slow down uranium enrichment program. Economic hardships, some may think, will make people sick of the government and receptive to the idea of a deliverer. At that stage Iran’s nuclear and military installations can be destroyed in a massive aerial attack.
This possible line of action is indicated in successful use of US pressure on Moscow to suspend an arms deal between Russian and Iran. Moscow and Tehran had signed a deal for the sale of S-300 antiaircraft missiles to Iran. The US argued that delivery of such a weapon system would enable Iran to “shoot down American or Israeli warplanes should either try to bomb its nuclear facilities”, says a report in the New York Times, of May 26.
Another reason for this rush is to undermine the nuclear swap deal worked out by Turkey and Brazil with Iran. Although this deal was not comprehensive; it did not provide a detailed mechanism for implementation, and had many a loose end. Yet it provided a solid basis on which, if they so desired, they could build a comprehensive uranium swap program with the involvement of IAEA and the UNSC. After all it was almost identical arrangement that was proposed less than a year ago with American approval, and accepted by Iran. Iran though went back on it probably under pressure from the hardliners within the regime, and again came round it this time. It may be a tactical move, on the part if Iran, to buy more time, and dodge the forthcoming sanctions at for the time being. If that is the case Iran needs to be exposed. That exposure could come through the implementation of the deal and not by scuttling it.
The basic point in this whole dispute is the insistence of Iran that under the NPT she has a sovereign right to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. A considerable number of third world countries who are signatories of the NPT including several Arab countries do not want to give up this sovereign right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. The West led by the USA want Iran and others to surrender this right, and amend the NPT accordingly. The nuclear haves and the have-nots are poles apart in their perception of peaceful use of nuclear energy and monopoly of the few on it. There is little room for compromise on that one point. While most of them agree on the need for a more comprehensive NPT regime to guard against cheating, they do not want to give up their right to produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, nor do they wish to see the nuclear haves endlessly maintain their control over this renewable source of energy.
The sanctions are coming, no matter what, but to make them work what the US really needs to do is to improve its credibility in the eyes of the world by being honest about nuclear imbalance in the world, and particularly in the Middle East. Iran seems to pose a mortal threat with its nuclear weapons which are not even on its drawing board yet, while Israel’s huge stockpile of nuclear weapons is treated as nonexistent, even benign for peace. This approach may humor the neo-cons and right wing detractors of the Obama administration; it’s not likely to convince anyone else about the seriousness of the US administration’s efforts to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East, or to the ultimate goal of nuclear-weapon-free world.
To this end the US need to initiate serious effort to achieve a nuclear weapon free Middle East as envisaged in the NPT Review Conference resolution in 1995. Some Arab countries closely allied with the US are trying to revive this dormant resolution and get some traction for it in the current NPT conference. Will the US and her European nuclear allies give this noble objective a chance and make a serious beginning to rid the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction, first, and then implement the same model the world over. A step in this direction will assure the world that the nuclear haves are indeed serious in the effort to achieve a nuclear weapon free world, as envisaged in the NPT.
At the same time, Iran is not an innocent victim of a vindictive super power, as some may like to believe. Iran does share the blame for not coming clean on the matter. It started its nuclear program surreptitiously. When caught, it allowed IAEA inspections to prove its peaceful intentions. At the same time it started working on another nuclear site without informing IAEA as required under the NPT. This gives rise to serious security concern among Iran’s neighbors. Leave Israel aside, no one in the region wants Iran to become a nuclear weapon state; it will cause fundamental change in the security dynamics of the region. Iran must realize that and work out its strategy accordingly.
The US also needs to realize after the Iraq fiasco that it cannot dictate its will through the barrel of the gun alone, nor it can continue with traditional uneven approach to peace in the Middle East. The neo-cons cannot be pleased, no matter what you do, but you have a historic chance to bring peace to this ravaged region.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
NPT Review Conference 2010: Address Moral Crisis First
NPT- Review Conference 2010
Address the Moral Crisis First
Dr Shakil A Rai
May 12, 2010
NPT review conference currently in progress at the UN in New York is a spectacle of the same old power play, and diplomacy, all cloaked in the pious jargon of world peace, international law, saving the mankind a possible nuclear holocaust, and eventually creating a world free of nuclear weapons for “a global public good of the highest order," as the UN Secretary General very wisely stated. Proclaimed wisdom and professed pious intentions alone cannot achieve meaningful result if implementation of the treaty remains partial, selective, even discriminatory, and manipulative, as has been the case in last four decades.
What was perceived rogue behavior of India in conducting nuclear test in 1998 won her greater respect and got her better reward in the form of US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement. The deals meets all civilian nuclear energy needs of India by giving her ample supply of nuclear material and technology from the US, and at the same time spares her enough resources to pursue military nuclear ambitions unhindered. India, and not the US, decides which nuclear sites are military and hence closed to American intrusion, and which ones are civilian and can be left open to US inspection. India is free to add any number of new nuclear weapon programs, no questions asked. If this is the “punishment” for pursuing the rogue path of nuclear weapons, and refusing to sign NPT who on earth would want to eschew it. This one deal has done more harm to the lofty objectives of NPT than anything else, in recent years.
The deal has made nuclear technology a marketable commodity like any other high-tech product. This allows big nuclear powers to use their know how to buy influence, and make money in the nuclear bazaar, officially inaugurated by the US-India deal. It’s no accident that soon after this deal China signed an agreement with Pakistan to finance two civilian reactors at Chashma. The US is looking at this deal “very carefully”. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg tells us that discussions are underway but have not “reached a final conclusion.” It doesn’t take a genius to guess what that conclusion would be.
Not to be left behind Russia signed an agreement with Turkey early this month to build a nuclear power plant to generate electricity. Nuclear deal is part of multiple economic and trade deals signed between the two countries. Wall Street Journal quotes an analyst saying that among all the multi-billion dollar deals “The prize for Moscow appears to be the nuclear-plant deal.” The US may look “very carefully” at this deal too, but it’s obvious the nuclear bazaar is open for business now; NPT or no NPT.
Pakistan, with some justification, now demands the same reward that Indian got for its once perceived “rogue” behavior. Since Pakistan’s stocks are lower than India’s in the political stock exchange of America, this deal is not likely to come by any time soon. The sheer fact that nuclear stockpile gives you the courage to demand a favor instead of fearing punishment says a lot about the efficacy of NPT and international conscience keepers and law enforcers.
Pakistan’s successful quest for nuclear weapons tells the same story of on-again off-again enforcement of international laws that mock the piety and wisdom of those who pretend to be losing sleep over nuclear proliferation. In 1979 Pakistan was under sanctions for pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program, and was also pilloried for having a military dictatorship that had executed an elected Prime Minister. Everything changed, virtually overnight, when the military forces of the Soviet Union moved into Afghanistan and the US saw a golden opportunity to bleed the Russian bear without putting a single US soldier’s life on the line. Military dictator became “defender of the free world” as President Reagan put it in his welcome address for the erstwhile pariah- Gen Ziaul Haq. The military regime pursued its nuclear ambition at a feverish pitch while the US looked the other way. By 1984 Pakistan had achieved weapon grade enrichment of uranium. There are reasons to believe that the US had pretty good idea of what their ally had been up to in the nuclear field.
Once the Soviet forces retreated from Afghanistan in 1988 the US turned its back on Pakistan and re-imposed sanctions on its ally for pursuing nuclear ambitions. Though it was known, by that time, that Pakistan’s nuclear program had reached an irreversible stage and the sanctions would do nothing to stop or reverse it.
In 1998 India conducts multiple nuclear tests and declares itself a nuclear weapon state. Pakistan conducts tit-for-tat nuclear tests and struts the stage of the nuclear haves claiming nuclear parity with India. Harsh economic and military sanctions are imposed and Pakistan is isolated diplomatically and brought to its knees economically. Just three years passed when the tragedy of 9/11 struck, and the US once again needed Pakistan and its military dictator, who had exiled an elected Prime Minister and practically abrogated the Constitution. Another military dictator becomes a trusted friend and nuclear Pakistan gets billions of dollars to fight “war on terror”.
Let’s have another hypothetical scenario. If Saddam Husain actually had weapons of mass destruction and the capability to deploy them, would “coalition of the willing” have dared launch its attack? Most probably the war mongers of the Bush Administration would have thought about the consequences more carefully if they knew they would face WMDs on the battlefield.
Iran and South Korea both are signatories of NPT and both have pursued clandestine nuclear programs. In 1982 South Korean scientists performed experiment in plutonium extraction. Under US pressure Korea stopped its program and in return got American nuclear reactor and financial assistance for civilian nuclear program. In 2004 it was revealed that South Korea continued to pursue its nuclear program; this time it took the uranium enrichment route. In 2000, Korean scientists enriched uranium to near weapon grade (up to 77%). Both the uranium and the plutonium incidents were not reported to IAEA until 2004. Thereafter IAEA launched an investigation into South Korea’s nuclear activities. It was determined that ROK had failed to report to IAEA as required. This non-compliance was treated as non-issue, however. The matter was never taken up for any possible punitive actions. After all South Koreans are our friends and they are facing a nuclear menace from North Korea. Now there are reports that South Korea is gearing up its resources to have a nuclear powered submarine. This ruffles no feathers, no news in the media, no high sounding condemnations, no threats, and no punitive action.
Iran, is signatory of NPT and has indulged in activities that it should have reported to IAEA. Iran has stretched the NPT provisions to the limit to assert its sovereign right to enrich uranium for ‘peaceful purposes’. Though there are strong parallels between Iran and ROK cases, yet no one seems to worry about Korea, while Iran is treated as evil incarnate, facing ever tougher economic sanctions, and threats of surgical airstrikes. This duplicity may not be visible to the American public but it’s very well known to those who think they are at the wrong end of the nuclear stick.
Then there is Israel’s huge nuclear arsenal, which, if you go by the media coverage in the West, and official response in these capitals it seems there are no WMD in Israel, and whatever there is, is of no concern to anyone. When Egypt tries to remind the NPT bigwigs about a long forgotten resolution that called for nuclear-free Middle East they are told you ‘are protesting too much’.
Power flows from the barrel of the gun, is a maxim that’s true about political power. It may not be true about social, religious, and charismatic power, but the enforcement of political will within state boundaries or inter-state relations is greatly dependent upon the perception of the coercive power of the enforcer. Whether it is law enforcement within a given community or mastery of the trade routes on the high seas, ultimate sanction behind all this is not morality but monopoly of the means of coercion, and violence.
Introduction of nuclear weapons is the most lethal development in human history since the invention of gunpowder. As was the case with gunpowder, no one is going to give up its nuclear capability for “a global public good of the highest order." There will always be reason for states to maintain monopoly of the means of violence and coercion, and to improve their lethality and effectiveness to assert their power against other players on the international scene. Nuclear arsenal being the most deadly and effective mean of self-assertion for states it will remain the most coveted weapon, no matter what say on the podium.
In order to achieve any meaningful result, and to make some progress in reaching the goal of a nuclear-free world, the review conference should try to reduce the ever widening moral gap in the NPT structure, stop being selective in the implementation of the law, and do not manipulate for short term gains.
Address the Moral Crisis First
Dr Shakil A Rai
May 12, 2010
NPT review conference currently in progress at the UN in New York is a spectacle of the same old power play, and diplomacy, all cloaked in the pious jargon of world peace, international law, saving the mankind a possible nuclear holocaust, and eventually creating a world free of nuclear weapons for “a global public good of the highest order," as the UN Secretary General very wisely stated. Proclaimed wisdom and professed pious intentions alone cannot achieve meaningful result if implementation of the treaty remains partial, selective, even discriminatory, and manipulative, as has been the case in last four decades.
What was perceived rogue behavior of India in conducting nuclear test in 1998 won her greater respect and got her better reward in the form of US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement. The deals meets all civilian nuclear energy needs of India by giving her ample supply of nuclear material and technology from the US, and at the same time spares her enough resources to pursue military nuclear ambitions unhindered. India, and not the US, decides which nuclear sites are military and hence closed to American intrusion, and which ones are civilian and can be left open to US inspection. India is free to add any number of new nuclear weapon programs, no questions asked. If this is the “punishment” for pursuing the rogue path of nuclear weapons, and refusing to sign NPT who on earth would want to eschew it. This one deal has done more harm to the lofty objectives of NPT than anything else, in recent years.
The deal has made nuclear technology a marketable commodity like any other high-tech product. This allows big nuclear powers to use their know how to buy influence, and make money in the nuclear bazaar, officially inaugurated by the US-India deal. It’s no accident that soon after this deal China signed an agreement with Pakistan to finance two civilian reactors at Chashma. The US is looking at this deal “very carefully”. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg tells us that discussions are underway but have not “reached a final conclusion.” It doesn’t take a genius to guess what that conclusion would be.
Not to be left behind Russia signed an agreement with Turkey early this month to build a nuclear power plant to generate electricity. Nuclear deal is part of multiple economic and trade deals signed between the two countries. Wall Street Journal quotes an analyst saying that among all the multi-billion dollar deals “The prize for Moscow appears to be the nuclear-plant deal.” The US may look “very carefully” at this deal too, but it’s obvious the nuclear bazaar is open for business now; NPT or no NPT.
Pakistan, with some justification, now demands the same reward that Indian got for its once perceived “rogue” behavior. Since Pakistan’s stocks are lower than India’s in the political stock exchange of America, this deal is not likely to come by any time soon. The sheer fact that nuclear stockpile gives you the courage to demand a favor instead of fearing punishment says a lot about the efficacy of NPT and international conscience keepers and law enforcers.
Pakistan’s successful quest for nuclear weapons tells the same story of on-again off-again enforcement of international laws that mock the piety and wisdom of those who pretend to be losing sleep over nuclear proliferation. In 1979 Pakistan was under sanctions for pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program, and was also pilloried for having a military dictatorship that had executed an elected Prime Minister. Everything changed, virtually overnight, when the military forces of the Soviet Union moved into Afghanistan and the US saw a golden opportunity to bleed the Russian bear without putting a single US soldier’s life on the line. Military dictator became “defender of the free world” as President Reagan put it in his welcome address for the erstwhile pariah- Gen Ziaul Haq. The military regime pursued its nuclear ambition at a feverish pitch while the US looked the other way. By 1984 Pakistan had achieved weapon grade enrichment of uranium. There are reasons to believe that the US had pretty good idea of what their ally had been up to in the nuclear field.
Once the Soviet forces retreated from Afghanistan in 1988 the US turned its back on Pakistan and re-imposed sanctions on its ally for pursuing nuclear ambitions. Though it was known, by that time, that Pakistan’s nuclear program had reached an irreversible stage and the sanctions would do nothing to stop or reverse it.
In 1998 India conducts multiple nuclear tests and declares itself a nuclear weapon state. Pakistan conducts tit-for-tat nuclear tests and struts the stage of the nuclear haves claiming nuclear parity with India. Harsh economic and military sanctions are imposed and Pakistan is isolated diplomatically and brought to its knees economically. Just three years passed when the tragedy of 9/11 struck, and the US once again needed Pakistan and its military dictator, who had exiled an elected Prime Minister and practically abrogated the Constitution. Another military dictator becomes a trusted friend and nuclear Pakistan gets billions of dollars to fight “war on terror”.
Let’s have another hypothetical scenario. If Saddam Husain actually had weapons of mass destruction and the capability to deploy them, would “coalition of the willing” have dared launch its attack? Most probably the war mongers of the Bush Administration would have thought about the consequences more carefully if they knew they would face WMDs on the battlefield.
Iran and South Korea both are signatories of NPT and both have pursued clandestine nuclear programs. In 1982 South Korean scientists performed experiment in plutonium extraction. Under US pressure Korea stopped its program and in return got American nuclear reactor and financial assistance for civilian nuclear program. In 2004 it was revealed that South Korea continued to pursue its nuclear program; this time it took the uranium enrichment route. In 2000, Korean scientists enriched uranium to near weapon grade (up to 77%). Both the uranium and the plutonium incidents were not reported to IAEA until 2004. Thereafter IAEA launched an investigation into South Korea’s nuclear activities. It was determined that ROK had failed to report to IAEA as required. This non-compliance was treated as non-issue, however. The matter was never taken up for any possible punitive actions. After all South Koreans are our friends and they are facing a nuclear menace from North Korea. Now there are reports that South Korea is gearing up its resources to have a nuclear powered submarine. This ruffles no feathers, no news in the media, no high sounding condemnations, no threats, and no punitive action.
Iran, is signatory of NPT and has indulged in activities that it should have reported to IAEA. Iran has stretched the NPT provisions to the limit to assert its sovereign right to enrich uranium for ‘peaceful purposes’. Though there are strong parallels between Iran and ROK cases, yet no one seems to worry about Korea, while Iran is treated as evil incarnate, facing ever tougher economic sanctions, and threats of surgical airstrikes. This duplicity may not be visible to the American public but it’s very well known to those who think they are at the wrong end of the nuclear stick.
Then there is Israel’s huge nuclear arsenal, which, if you go by the media coverage in the West, and official response in these capitals it seems there are no WMD in Israel, and whatever there is, is of no concern to anyone. When Egypt tries to remind the NPT bigwigs about a long forgotten resolution that called for nuclear-free Middle East they are told you ‘are protesting too much’.
Power flows from the barrel of the gun, is a maxim that’s true about political power. It may not be true about social, religious, and charismatic power, but the enforcement of political will within state boundaries or inter-state relations is greatly dependent upon the perception of the coercive power of the enforcer. Whether it is law enforcement within a given community or mastery of the trade routes on the high seas, ultimate sanction behind all this is not morality but monopoly of the means of coercion, and violence.
Introduction of nuclear weapons is the most lethal development in human history since the invention of gunpowder. As was the case with gunpowder, no one is going to give up its nuclear capability for “a global public good of the highest order." There will always be reason for states to maintain monopoly of the means of violence and coercion, and to improve their lethality and effectiveness to assert their power against other players on the international scene. Nuclear arsenal being the most deadly and effective mean of self-assertion for states it will remain the most coveted weapon, no matter what say on the podium.
In order to achieve any meaningful result, and to make some progress in reaching the goal of a nuclear-free world, the review conference should try to reduce the ever widening moral gap in the NPT structure, stop being selective in the implementation of the law, and do not manipulate for short term gains.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)