Home | News And Society | Politics
On June 6, the European Union’s High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, delivered the “5+1” working group’s (Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the United States) proposal aimed at enticing Iran to end its illicit nuclear activities to the Iranian leadership. In response, hopes for a peaceful resolution of Iran’s nuclear standoff to soared. Unfortunately, actual prospects for such an outcome did not. On the surface, the proposal’s incentives appear attractive. They include an affirmation of Iran’s “inalienable right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,” a commitment to provide Iran with light water reactors, and a fast track for Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). It also provides penalties for non-compliance. Penalties would include an international ban on the export of goods and technologies associated with nuclear energy, a curb on industrial investment connected to those activities, a ban on exporting “unique products” to Iran, and objections to Iran’s request for membership in the WTO. Unless Iran chooses to act in good faith, this proposal could become just another failed effort to bring Iran into compliance with its international obligations concerning its nuclear activities. Don’t count on it. In its past dealings with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has demonstrated anything but good faith. That body’s April 2006 report noted, “After more than three years of Agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran's nuclear program, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern… Additional transparency measures…are…still needed for the Agency to be able to verify the scope and nature of Iran's enrichment program,…and the alleged studies which could have a military nuclear dimension. Regrettably, these transparency measures are not yet forthcoming.” Neither the proposal’s incentives nor its penalties are likely to prove sufficient to terminate Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Iran’s pro-Khamenei daily, Keyhan, which often speaks for Iran’s leadership, declared, “The announcement of the completion of the nuclear fuel cycle carries three messages for the West. Firstly it proves that the language of threat and pressure is not instrumental for Iran. Secondly, it proves that Iranian scientists are so efficient that they can create extraordinary moments every minute, and finally the most important message was that Iran has joined the international atomic club.” In short, Iran feels that the West is powerless to hinder its nuclear destiny. If this proposal is representative of the West’s efforts, Iran may be right. The proposal’s incentives will not overwhelm the Iranians. Iran has largely made progress in its nuclear enrichment and reprocessing activities in the absence of international cooperation. Moreover, Iran has seen its economy buoyed by the rising price of crude oil, and its lack of participation in the WTO has not hindered its economic progress. With crude oil all but certain to remain among the world’s most sought commodities for the foreseeable future, WTO membership is not necessary for Iran to expand its production and sale of crude oil. The proposal’s penalties are even more underwhelming than its incentives. They truly lack teeth. Not one provision would curb Iran’s ability to sell oil in the world market. Yet, that is about the only penalty that would inflict meaningful pain on Iran’s economy and government. The latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency shows that oil sales account for 80%-90% of Iran’s export revenue. Oil revenue also finances 40%-50% of Iran’s federal budget. As a result, curbs on international investment in Iran’s nuclear energy program are all but meaningless. Rising oil revenue would provide an ocean of petrodollars that would thwart the effectiveness of any such measures. At the same time, precisely because Iran has achieved significant nuclear progress on its own accord, restrictions on the sale of nuclear goods and technologies won’t prove a strong deterrent either. Finally, the provision that would ban the sale of “unique goods” would probably prove far more attractive as fodder for David Letterman than inducements for Iran to cease its illicit nuclear activities. Finally, the proposal contains no provisions for verification. Without a robust verification mechanism Iran could easily cheat while simultaneously obtaining the proposal’s benefits. Iran could employ North Korea’s playbook by pocketing the benefits of the proposal while maintaining a secret nuclear weapons program. It could also seek to initiate discussions, not on its nuclear activities, but on the proposal itself, in order to buy additional time for its nuclear research and development activities. In either case, it will insist that its nuclear fuel activities are non-negotiable and it will maintain an overly expansive definition of what comprises such activities. All said, the historic prognosis isn’t good. Philosopher George Santayana once warned, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” If one looks back to recent history, one finds a striking parallel between the “5+1” group's proposal and the Agreed Framework that North Korea accepted in 1994. That framework offered North Korea light water reactors, guaranteed “cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear energy,” and reduced trade and investment barriers. Approximately a year later, North Korea launched its secret uranium enrichment program. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remains determined to build Iran into a nuclear power. The development of nuclear weapons would offer his regime the surest means by which it could secure Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution. Worse, Ahmadinejad possesses messianic visions of his being an instrument to facilitate the “return” of Shia’s “Hidden Imam.” Early in his Presidency, when confronted on costly budget provisions, he declared, “We have not come for democracy. We are here to prepare the way for the emergence of the Hidden Imam.” According to Shia tradition, the “Hidden Imam’s” appearance would bring an end to world injustice. For Ahmadinejad, this translates into a world without Israel and the United States. In a speech before the “World Without Zionism” conference, Ahmadinejad proclaimed that Muslims could not permit Israel to exist in the “heart of the Islamic world” and asserted that a world without the United States and Israel was attainable. Only nuclear weapons could bring that world about. Against such expansive ambitions, the “5+1” group’s proposal is likely to prove largely impotent. Iran may well pocket the gains it offers, but given the absence of meaningful penalties and strong verification measures, it is not likely to end Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Instead, it could actually provide diplomatic cover beneath which Iran would continue a secret pursuit of nuclear weapons while simultaneously benefiting from international assistance. Don Sutherland has researched and written on a wide range of geopolitical issues.
Article Source: http://www.content.onlypunjab.com
Please Rate this Article
5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5
Not yet Rated
