Global Nuclear Disarmament at Top of Agenda at Tehran’s Nuclear Conference
By Sadegh Kharrazi
In the hands of international organizations, in relations between major and minor global powers, and in global security doctrines, nuclear technology has undergone a metamorphosis. Between the behavior of Western powers—rooted in their imperialistic attitude—and the good intentions of international organizations, the phenomenon has seen many twists and turns.
Iran’s nuclear program—considered by all Iranians a national achievement and a matter of pride—has not been immune to those influences. As peaceful nuclear technology and nuclear development policy enjoy unanimous support inside the country, no Iranian administration could or would dream of disregarding or diminishing any aspect of the indigenous nuclear program.
Iran’s painstakingly achieved nuclear technology has become victim to prejudice and the delusions of Western intelligence services, however, and is unfairly attacked by Western countries—particularly the U.S., Israel and some Middle Eastern Arab countries—and the adventurist attitude by Western states towards Iran’s peaceful nuclear program has even caused confusion for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Let’s briefly review the history of Iran’s nuclear program. In 1959, Iran bought its first research reactor from the U.S. It signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968, which was subsequently ratified by the Majles (parliament) in 1970. After the establishment of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, Iran and the United States agreed on the construction of 23 nuclear power plants by the year 2000. A contract was signed in 1975 with German Kraftwerk Union AG for the construction of two 2000-megawatt nuclear reactors in Bushehr, due to be delivered and on-line by 1981. The pre-revolution years witnessed fierce competition among nuclear countries to sign contracts with Iran, and the French even coaxed Iran into a nuclear contract by selling a major stake in the Eurodif enrichment plant.
Iran’s Islamic Revolution, however, changed European behavior and attitude. Contracts were repudiated and reneged on, often for preposterous reasons. Kraftwerk abruptly halted its construction project in January 1979, with the French now seemingly preferring to sell Iraqis missiles with which to hit Bushehr and its unfinished nuclear power plant. Western intelligence services generously provided Saddam Hussein with information to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Despite all these impediments, Iran took the matter into its own hands and took giant leaps forward in nuclear development to the disbelief of other countries. Having once promoted the use of clean energies in Iran, Western countries now doubted the purpose of Iran’s nuclear program, mainly due to Iran sitting on remarkably huge fossil fuel resources. To make the hypocritical situation worse, instead of wielding its legitimate authority, the IAEA became a pawn in the hands of global powers and turned a purely technical-legal dossier into one with a political—and later security—nature.
So what is remarkable in the IAEA’s record? Has it taken any steps towards the promotion of peaceful nuclear technology, and the reduction of regional and international threats, as the sole qualified institution for inspection, control and non-politicization of existing dossiers? The latest report by the IAEA chief elaborated in “20/20 Vision for the Future” clearly shows that the agency has failed to fulfill its responsibilities, which include:
- Ensuring the efficiency of IAEA Safeguards;
- Transferring technology to the developing world;
- The role of the Secretariat and the IAEA Secretary;
- Facilitating the flow of information from advanced states towards new members;
- Combating the threat of nuclear terrorism;
- Decommissioning older reactors
. The IAEA’s record is replete with failure and inefficiency. But little more could be expected when the global powers desire an international organization that aligns its function with their interests. Due to the IAEA’s inefficiency:
- Israel now possesses a nuclear arsenal containing more than 200 nuclear warheads. This country does not comply with any international norms and creates new threats for Middle Eastern countries, especially Iran, on a daily basis. (And it’s difficult to recall the last time Israel obeyed a UN resolution.)
- Nuclear rivals India and Pakistan threaten the stability of the region, prompting other countries to boost their deterrence power. Should it come as any surprise if Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or any other country for that matter, embarks on a quest for nuclear weapons in future?
- Nuclear states such as the United States, Russia, China and France have taken no serious steps in containing the proliferation of nuclear arms. All they’ve really done is paid lip service to the issue.
- North Korea’s dossier was taken away from IAEA and is now dealt separately by a six-country ensemble (U.S., Russia, China, South Korea, Japan and North Korea).
- Iraq’s dossier turned into an ultimate fiasco—which severely undermined the IAEA’s credibility and even legitimacy. Based on forged documents, the U.S. brought disaster to the Iraqis and to other Middle Eastern nations.
- Libya and the U.S. made a trade-off tainted by blood and power. The IAEA could do little but stand back and merely observe the Libyans and Americans play at their game. And with a few battered centrifuges, Qaddafi settled his problems with the United States.
- The unfortunate case of Iran’s dossier, of course, needs no introduction.
In fairness the IAEA has, however, managed to handle the cases of Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and South Africa, and has been successful in helping abolish Abdul Qadeer Khan’s nuclear network.
In the last two weeks the world has witnessed nuclear conferences held with different agendas in Washington, Tehran and Hiroshima. The message sent by these conferences is important. If Iran wants the world to hear its message, it must embrace a global attitude towards nuclear technology. In other words, global concerns about proliferation and the disarmament of nuclear weapons should precede any solutions to Iran’s nuclear impasse.
The Tehran nuclear disarmament conference should focus on the following topics:
- Development of practical plans to invigorate the prevalent attitude towards a nuclear-free world;
- A ban on a generation of nuclear weapons, full disarmament and an absolute prohibition on trade in military nuclear technologies;
- A revival of the IAEA’s role reinforced by bilateral, regional and international cooperation free from the influence of global powers;
- Eventual full abolishment of all nuclear arsenals and an acceleration in nuclear disarmament;
- The establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the entire Middle East;
- Pressure on Israel, India and Pakistan to join the NPT and to sign the CTBT (Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty)
- Revising of industrial nuclear programs;
- Enforcement of nuclear discipline, oriented by international standards;
- Persuading the United States, Russia and Israel to reduce (or abolish) their nuclear stockpile;
- Controlling the competition between the U.S., China and Russia on ballistic missiles;
- Pressuring the U.S. to sign the CTBT (a request which was turned down by the U.S. Senate in 1999 to the disappointment of the international community), and to demonstrate more responsibility in non-proliferation issues.
Multifaceted solutions should be offered while Iran’s determination and domestic achievements are recognized. Disarmament and non-proliferation depends on the cooperation and accountability of nuclear powers.
To summarize, the nuclear powers’ attitude towards Iran’s nuclear program is marred by delusion and prejudgment. Political gestures and the abuse of power by these countries is in contradiction to what the Five plus One team claims is their goal.
Half-hearted (and fruitless) talks—aggravated by belligerent rhetoric—not only fail to intimidate Iran, but contribute to its perseverance. Sanctions cannot undermine the determination of Iranians, and hopes for economic paralysis of the country are mere strategic miscalculations. Preconditions to negotiations are also offensive to a proud country like Iran. Iran’s Supreme Leadership supports a strategy of continuation of negotiations with the Five plus One, full cooperation with the IAEA, and non-deviation of the nuclear program. Iran’s nuclear projects are peaceful in nature, and the Islamic Republic is committed to persuading the international community of the purpose of its nuclear program. It will not yield, however, to threats against its nuclear rights. Constructive dialogue through official channels is the only way Iran will engage with the international community. The international community should recognize that the Iranian nation has suffered in defending its nuclear rights, and it clearly won’t give those rights up easily.
Iran’s nuclear program—considered by all Iranians a national achievement and a matter of pride—has not been immune to those influences. As peaceful nuclear technology and nuclear development policy enjoy unanimous support inside the country, no Iranian administration could or would dream of disregarding or diminishing any aspect of the indigenous nuclear program.
Iran’s painstakingly achieved nuclear technology has become victim to prejudice and the delusions of Western intelligence services, however, and is unfairly attacked by Western countries—particularly the U.S., Israel and some Middle Eastern Arab countries—and the adventurist attitude by Western states towards Iran’s peaceful nuclear program has even caused confusion for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Let’s briefly review the history of Iran’s nuclear program. In 1959, Iran bought its first research reactor from the U.S. It signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968, which was subsequently ratified by the Majles (parliament) in 1970. After the establishment of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, Iran and the United States agreed on the construction of 23 nuclear power plants by the year 2000. A contract was signed in 1975 with German Kraftwerk Union AG for the construction of two 2000-megawatt nuclear reactors in Bushehr, due to be delivered and on-line by 1981. The pre-revolution years witnessed fierce competition among nuclear countries to sign contracts with Iran, and the French even coaxed Iran into a nuclear contract by selling a major stake in the Eurodif enrichment plant.
Iran’s Islamic Revolution, however, changed European behavior and attitude. Contracts were repudiated and reneged on, often for preposterous reasons. Kraftwerk abruptly halted its construction project in January 1979, with the French now seemingly preferring to sell Iraqis missiles with which to hit Bushehr and its unfinished nuclear power plant. Western intelligence services generously provided Saddam Hussein with information to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Despite all these impediments, Iran took the matter into its own hands and took giant leaps forward in nuclear development to the disbelief of other countries. Having once promoted the use of clean energies in Iran, Western countries now doubted the purpose of Iran’s nuclear program, mainly due to Iran sitting on remarkably huge fossil fuel resources. To make the hypocritical situation worse, instead of wielding its legitimate authority, the IAEA became a pawn in the hands of global powers and turned a purely technical-legal dossier into one with a political—and later security—nature.
So what is remarkable in the IAEA’s record? Has it taken any steps towards the promotion of peaceful nuclear technology, and the reduction of regional and international threats, as the sole qualified institution for inspection, control and non-politicization of existing dossiers? The latest report by the IAEA chief elaborated in “20/20 Vision for the Future” clearly shows that the agency has failed to fulfill its responsibilities, which include:
- Ensuring the efficiency of IAEA Safeguards;
- Transferring technology to the developing world;
- The role of the Secretariat and the IAEA Secretary;
- Facilitating the flow of information from advanced states towards new members;
- Combating the threat of nuclear terrorism;
- Decommissioning older reactors
. The IAEA’s record is replete with failure and inefficiency. But little more could be expected when the global powers desire an international organization that aligns its function with their interests. Due to the IAEA’s inefficiency:
- Israel now possesses a nuclear arsenal containing more than 200 nuclear warheads. This country does not comply with any international norms and creates new threats for Middle Eastern countries, especially Iran, on a daily basis. (And it’s difficult to recall the last time Israel obeyed a UN resolution.)
- Nuclear rivals India and Pakistan threaten the stability of the region, prompting other countries to boost their deterrence power. Should it come as any surprise if Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or any other country for that matter, embarks on a quest for nuclear weapons in future?
- Nuclear states such as the United States, Russia, China and France have taken no serious steps in containing the proliferation of nuclear arms. All they’ve really done is paid lip service to the issue.
- North Korea’s dossier was taken away from IAEA and is now dealt separately by a six-country ensemble (U.S., Russia, China, South Korea, Japan and North Korea).
- Iraq’s dossier turned into an ultimate fiasco—which severely undermined the IAEA’s credibility and even legitimacy. Based on forged documents, the U.S. brought disaster to the Iraqis and to other Middle Eastern nations.
- Libya and the U.S. made a trade-off tainted by blood and power. The IAEA could do little but stand back and merely observe the Libyans and Americans play at their game. And with a few battered centrifuges, Qaddafi settled his problems with the United States.
- The unfortunate case of Iran’s dossier, of course, needs no introduction.
In fairness the IAEA has, however, managed to handle the cases of Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and South Africa, and has been successful in helping abolish Abdul Qadeer Khan’s nuclear network.
In the last two weeks the world has witnessed nuclear conferences held with different agendas in Washington, Tehran and Hiroshima. The message sent by these conferences is important. If Iran wants the world to hear its message, it must embrace a global attitude towards nuclear technology. In other words, global concerns about proliferation and the disarmament of nuclear weapons should precede any solutions to Iran’s nuclear impasse.
The Tehran nuclear disarmament conference should focus on the following topics:
- Development of practical plans to invigorate the prevalent attitude towards a nuclear-free world;
- A ban on a generation of nuclear weapons, full disarmament and an absolute prohibition on trade in military nuclear technologies;
- A revival of the IAEA’s role reinforced by bilateral, regional and international cooperation free from the influence of global powers;
- Eventual full abolishment of all nuclear arsenals and an acceleration in nuclear disarmament;
- The establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the entire Middle East;
- Pressure on Israel, India and Pakistan to join the NPT and to sign the CTBT (Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty)
- Revising of industrial nuclear programs;
- Enforcement of nuclear discipline, oriented by international standards;
- Persuading the United States, Russia and Israel to reduce (or abolish) their nuclear stockpile;
- Controlling the competition between the U.S., China and Russia on ballistic missiles;
- Pressuring the U.S. to sign the CTBT (a request which was turned down by the U.S. Senate in 1999 to the disappointment of the international community), and to demonstrate more responsibility in non-proliferation issues.
Multifaceted solutions should be offered while Iran’s determination and domestic achievements are recognized. Disarmament and non-proliferation depends on the cooperation and accountability of nuclear powers.
To summarize, the nuclear powers’ attitude towards Iran’s nuclear program is marred by delusion and prejudgment. Political gestures and the abuse of power by these countries is in contradiction to what the Five plus One team claims is their goal.
Half-hearted (and fruitless) talks—aggravated by belligerent rhetoric—not only fail to intimidate Iran, but contribute to its perseverance. Sanctions cannot undermine the determination of Iranians, and hopes for economic paralysis of the country are mere strategic miscalculations. Preconditions to negotiations are also offensive to a proud country like Iran. Iran’s Supreme Leadership supports a strategy of continuation of negotiations with the Five plus One, full cooperation with the IAEA, and non-deviation of the nuclear program. Iran’s nuclear projects are peaceful in nature, and the Islamic Republic is committed to persuading the international community of the purpose of its nuclear program. It will not yield, however, to threats against its nuclear rights. Constructive dialogue through official channels is the only way Iran will engage with the international community. The international community should recognize that the Iranian nation has suffered in defending its nuclear rights, and it clearly won’t give those rights up easily.