Close Up
Iran: "Diplomacy with teeth" or Cooperation?
Four years after the beginning of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear enrichment programme, a thorn has appeared in the side of Iran’s detractors. The thorn in question is a deal signed by the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mr Mohammed ElBaradei with Iran, on August 21st 2007, and giving Iran time to answer all questions about its nuclear ambitions. This deal has received strong criticism from Western Powers and has consequently been rejected in favour of more sanctions against Iran in the Security Council (SC).
But it reflects an evolution in the Iranian enrichment chapter, that of the growing split between the IAEA, who has been supervising the Iranian nuclear programme, and the Western Powers who dominate the SC. Eventually it comes down to the following problem: who can decide on the measures to be taken with respect to Iran, the SC or the IAEA? Both feel they have the rights to do this.
For the Western Countries, especially the US, the solution to this nuclear crisis lays in the SC sanctions. Ever since the IAEA first discovered Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme, these countries have been convinced of its military purpose. And they have reason to doubt Iran’s intentions. For why does a country possessing a tenth of the worlds known oil reserves, which will last them 90 years at current extraction rate, suddenly decide upon a “civilian” nuclear programme? They have no need for nuclear energy now, or any time soon. So why invest so much money in it? Despite belonging to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and having signed the IAEA’s May 1997 Aditionnal Protocol (which allows this institution unrestricted inspections, and mandatory declarations on all nuclear related activities by member states) Iran refuses to submit to these conditions. Do they have something to hide? And then there is Iran’s long history of non cooperation and ignoral of the West. As time goes by tensions are rising, and countries like the US and France are impatient with the rhythm of negotiations.
After two rounds of SC sanctions calling Iran to stop enrichment, no change has occurred on the Iranian side. So when ElBaradei signs a deal with Iran, which in the West’s eyes relieves to some extent the pressure of inspections and having to comply with UN resolutions, they are outraged. Condoleezza Rice declares that “it is not up to anybody to diminish or cut back on the obligations that Iranians have been ordered to take”, which we can assume means only the SC can. These countries see the IAEA as a technical body whose function is set by Article 3 of the NPT that is: the IAEA poses safeguards on non-nuclear States, which prevents them from acquiring or producing nuclear explosive devices. These safeguards are detailed in the Programme 93+2 additional protocol of May 1997. So for the US, France and their allies, the IAEA can inspect, collect samples, write reports, but they are not entitled to cutting deals with problematic States.
The IAEA’s Mission
If only the IAEA could see the situation in the same light. After having finally reached a basis of cooperation and transparency with Iran, El Baradei made a report on August 31st about Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme. The report is restricted but from what has been leaked to the media, ElBaradei has apparently reported that they have so far found no evidence of “weaponization” from Iranian enrichment works, although Iran prevents wider inspections. He also said that “Iran’s statements concerning plutonium experiments are consistent with the agency’s findings”. The Iranian reaction to the deal as expressed by Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA is even more positive “Iran’s nuclear energy quest is solely for electricity generation, and not a front for bomb making as the US claims, and it is serious about going the extra mile to overcome distrust” Not only is ElBaradei pleased with this progress, the Non-Aligned Movement Countries in the IAEA also endorse this deal and reject any intervention, as well as the IAEA’s Board of Governors. It seems now that quite a lot of countries are willing to give Iran the benefit of the doubt regarding its nuclear programme, and not rush to a military assumption. This provides us with a whole new light on the situation. First of all, contrary to what is being repeatedly stated in the press, we cannot declare that Iran has violated the NPT. On the contrary Article IV of the NPT says that “Nothing is this treaty, shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable rights of all Parties to the Treaty to develop, research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Article I and II of this Treaty”. Secondly, the main purpose of the IAEA as expressed in Art I and II of its Charter is to assist with the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. If the IAEA so far, has no proof that Iran’s nuclear programme is not for civilian use, it is their duty to assist Iran. And how so, then by building trust and cooperation amongst both sides. Assuming that Iran is being honest about its nuclear intentions, their unwillingness to cooperate is comprehensible if they have the World accusing them from the start. Seen from this angle, ElBaradei is entitled to strike a deal with Iran.
Ever since, the differences amongst both Western Parties have grown. The Western Powers, to underline their disagreement with this deal, decide to push for more sanctions in the SC. Mr Kouchner goes so far as to warn the World against a possible military intervention in Iran. They believe that the IAEA has been duped and that the Iranians are just buying time. After all, they lied once about their nuclear programme at the beginning, so why should they be believed now. The consequences of a nuclear Iran on the World are such that there is no place left for doubt. This is the country that wants to “wipe Israel of the map”. A nuclear war could be a serious possibility. Step in ElBaradei who disagrees with this logic and says “I see war drums being beaten by those basically saying the short solution is to bomb Iran, which makes me shudder because the rhetoric reminds me of the pre-Iraq war”, a harsh critic towards the US administration alluding to the famous WMD never found. He continues saying that sanctions can never bring about a durable solution, only cooperation can. To which Condoleezza Rice retorts by telling the World that the US still has all options on the table, which includes the military one, and that “diplomacy is best left to diplomats, not a technical body such as the IAEA”. She wants “diplomacy with teeth”
And so the bickering goes on, and while the World cannot agree on a common stance to adopt, Iran pursues freely its nuclear enrichment programme. If Iran’s intentions are honest, the West will have discredited one of their most important institutions, which they themselves put into place. And if the IAEA gives in to these Powers’ pressure, they will be showing the World that despite what is said in its Charter, only certain privileged countries have the rights to nuclear energy. But if the IAEA is wrong and they allow Iran to get the bomb, then what will stop other countries getting it as well, it could be the end of the NPT. It all depends on Iran’s intention, and the thin line between civilian and military nuclear programme. But this uncertainty should only last till late November when the World will finally know if Iran is telling the truth or not.
Bibliography:
- BBC
- Al Jazeera
- The New York Times
- The Washington Post
- Teheran Times Daily Newspaper
- International Atomic Energy Agency Charter
- The Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty Charter
Ines Ward
Research Assistant Trainee at CERMAM
Permanent link to this entry (permalink)
- Origin CERMAM
- http://www.cermam.org/en/logs/zoom/iran_diplomacy_with_teeth_or_c/
- Publié le 1 October 2007