Who's Online

We have 643 guests online

Popular

3064 readings
The U.S Will Have its Way - At Any Cost PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Thursday, 06 July 2006 03:51
The U.S Will Have its Way - At Any Cost

PEJ News - F.H. Knelman, Ph.D. - The U.S. policy towards Iran regarding its uranium enrichment program was clearly designed to fail. While it is clear that Iran, a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is in violation of that treaty, which permits inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.S. seized on this to threaten sanctions against Iran.

www.PEJ.org

The U.S Will Have its Way - At Any Cost

F.H. Knelman, Ph.D.

PEJ News
July 6, 2006


The U.S. policy towards Iran regarding its uranium enrichment program was clearly designed to fail. While it is clear that Iran, a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is in violation of that treaty, which permits inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.S. seized on this to threaten sanctions against Iran. This simply hardened Iran?s response. A genuine gesture of the desire to solve this problem would be to offer an unconditional negotiation between Iran and the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany. The aim of this would be to offer Iran genuine incentives to permit IAEA inspections of its enrichment program. And if this failed to obtain Iran?s agreement, then and only then would sanctions be applied. The U.S. plan from the beginning was to encourage Iran?s negative response while they hoped they could get the Security Council to cut off Iran?s export of oil. This, in itself, was short-sighted in that China is Iran?s largest customer. The U.S. has only one technique, and that is to bully in order to get its way.


Meanwhile, Iran had responded negatively to the UN Security Council approach. While the U.S. did not get its way on the specific nature of sanctions and Russia and China continue to have reservations about them, a deadline has been set, i.e. July 12th, at which time Iran must suspend its enrichment program. Iran has rejected the new deadline by stating it would not respond to the six-power offer before mid-August. What is still unclear is the degree to which Russia and China will support a sanctions program authored by the U.S. Iran?s offense against the NPT pales in comparison to the U.S. record in virtually trashing the entire nuclear arms control regime. They withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, they violated the Outer Space Treaty, they impeded the development of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and they have violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty in multiple ways. They have agreed to transfer nuclear technology and parts to India, in so doing violating virtually every single proliferation restraint and a direct violation of Article I of NPT, which states that, ?Each nuclear weapons State Party to the treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices?. And, above all, the U.S. has consistently violated Article VI of NPT, which states that, ?Each of the parties to the treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race?. As well, they have violated the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. What Iran has done pales in comparison to the huge number of violations of treaties by the U.S.


The Iran issue is a classical case of a small country refusing to be bullied in conflict with the most powerful country in the world, whose policy is consistent bullying. The U.S. has continued to announce that it ?would not swear off using military action to stop what the U.S. contends is a rogue program to build a nuclear weapon?, (Anne Gearan, AP Diplomatic Writer, Yahoo News, 3 July, 2006).


We would argue that the difference between the date set by the U.S. for talks with Iran and the prior conditions that must be met in order to have these talks are a deliberate provocation with little merit. The difference in times, i.e. about one month, between Washington?s demand that Iran must first abandon its enrichment program and the date about one month later that Iran has agreed to such a meeting, but with no prior action, is insignificant. We would like to quote the person most qualified to speak on the threat Iran poses - Mohamed ElBaradel, Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, ?Our assessment is that there is no immediate threat - we still have lots of time to investigate. We should not jump the gun. We should be very careful in assessing the information available to us. It would be terrible to try to impose sanctions which could force Iran to retaliate. We have learned some lessons from North Korea - when you push a country into a corner you are giving the driver?s seat to the hard-liners there?, (Yahoo Inc., 1 June, 2006). Other nuclear experts have stated that it could take as long as ten years to increase uranium enrichment from its natural level of 0.5% to the 80% of the fissile element U-235, which is bomb-grade. The U.S. is reaping the unwanted results of its bullying posture in North Korea?s response, exactly what ElBaradel warned. Moreover, there are some positive signs. Iran has turned the issue around, stating that if the West were to recognize Iran?s right to build a civil nuclear power system they would be willing to talk about ?international controls, supervision and guarantees?, (CNN.com, 27 June, 2006).


We have concluded that there is no risk and everything to gain by agreeing to hold talks with Iran in August. But we are equally certain that it is the U.S. that does not want a peaceful solution of this issue and will not relinquish its role of the global bully. We are also aware that China and Russia do not agree with the list of sanctions prepared by the U.S. should Iran fail to comply. The result of the U.S. policy generally is now being made manifest in North Korea, which has nuclear weapons and some delivery systems and, moreover, one of the largest armies in the world, more than sufficient to overrun South Korea. While North Korea?s long-range missile failed its first test, there is no reason to believe they are incapable of redesigning it.


On July 5, 2006, CNN, reporting on a visit by the president of the Republic of Georgia, (the former Soviet Republic) to the U.S., had President Bush responding positively to Georgia?s request to join NATO. This after Georgia had named its major airport George Bush Airport. This can only be seen as outright provocation, particularly since the Cold War has reemerged, although it never ended but simply went underground. A negative aspect now is that Russia will take a harder line in opposition to the U.S. over Iran. In conclusion, the U.S. policy on these issues is at once provocative but ultimately counter-productive.

Last Updated on Thursday, 06 July 2006 03:51
 

Latest News