Recent UNSC sanctions against Iran came as a disappointment to all well wishers of non-proliferation. International community owes the success of NPT Review Conference 2010 (RevCon 2010) to prudent approach of Iran. Had Iran got swayed to cast its negative vote, RevCon 2010 would have met the fate of its 2005 predecessor. During the course of proceedings of the Review Conference, Iran made an all out effort to show its support towards the cause of non-proliferation.
President Ahmadenejad made it a point to address the opening session of RevCon. He was the only head of state to attend the venue; where as rest of the states were represented at ministerial or lower levels. His address had not only amply highlighted the contradictions on existing non-proliferation regimes but also made very useful suggestions to strengthen and universalize the non-proliferation mechanisms. Entire world was holding its breath as success or otherwise of the RevCon depended on Iranian vote. Despite provocations to the contrary, Iran made the right choice and stood alongside the comity of nations.
While RevCon was in progress and UNSC was busy working on fourth set of sanctions against Iran, Brazilian /Turkish initiative bore fruit. Iran agreed to a ten point arrangement, on 17 May, 2010, aimed at defusing the mounting confrontation in the context of its enrichment facilities.
The essence of the deal was that Iran would ship 1200 kilograms of low enriched uranium (LEU) to Turkey for deposit, and receive in return 120 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20% for use in an Iranian nuclear reactor devoted to medical research. The agreement reaffirmed support for the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well as acknowledged Iran’s right under the treaty to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, which meant the entire fuel cycle, including the enrichment phase.
The bargain negotiated in Tehran closely resembled an arrangement reached some months earlier in which Iran had agreed to turn over a similar amount of low enriched uranium to France and Russia in exchange for their promise of providing fuel rods that could be used in the same medical research reactor. That earlier deal floundered as Iran raised political objections, and then withdrew. The United States had welcomed this earlier arrangement as a desirable confidence-building step toward resolving the underlying conflict, but it wasted no time repudiating the agreement, which seemed so similar. This agreement had indeed provided a springboard for engaging Iran in a sustainable way. However, due to this rash decision of sanctions, taken in indecent hast, the opportunity could very well be lost.
And what a pay back, within less than a fortnight, fourth round of sanctions is imposed against the Islamic Republic. These sanctions once again expose the duplicity of the managers of NPT. In continuity came the Iran specific criteria for expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO); which incorporates a clause that countries under UN sanctions will not be admitted as members of SCO. Criterion does not speak about violators on UNSC resolutions, like India.
UNSC sanctions are irrelevant because such inhibitors have never achieved the intended objective. Whenever a country makes a political decision to ‘proliferate’, technical, financial or other difficulties can always be overcome through motivation and work-arounds. Sanctions always strengthen pro-proliferation constituency within the effected country and a tempo of defiance become politically rewarding at the domestic level. This tempo then becomes a legacy to be carried forward as a matter of national pride, which generally culminates at nuclear explosion.
Anatomy of fresh sanctions reveals that these are neither crippling nor smart. Thanks to moderation by China and Russia, economic implications of sanction are limited. However, they intend to hit the national pride of Iran. A dangerous approach indeed. Iran is likely to become more defiant, and many states may defy these politically motivated sanctions in order to safeguard their national economic interests. The split vote resulted in a 12 to 2 vote in favour, with on abstention. It indicates that even within a small forum of UNSC, there was a lack of unanimity in support of sanctions.
Turkey and Brazil voted against the resolution because they had been able to bring forward a diplomatic solution to the issue. It indicates that diplomatic solutions to intricate global issues are possible if departures could be made from traditional fixations. It is unfortunate that the US, which saw itself sidelined, reacted negatively.
Once again, Iran has chosen the pragmatic approach, and has not fallen in the trap of provocation induced rhetoric and erratic actions. It continues to be a member of NPT and holds the position that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, in accord with the provisions of NPT.
It would be naive to presume that Iran would continue to have unlimited stores of patience. There is every likelihood that if this hostile and discriminatory profile does not come to halt, Iran may opt out of NPT and go for higher uranium enrichment. In such an eventuality, these sanctions document would comeback in circle to haut its authors and that too for ever. Iran could yet take another option and follow Israeli approach of a bomb in basement and adopt a national policy of nuclear opacity. In both the cases, the onus of proliferation would rest on pro-sanctions lobby headed by the United States.
Unfortunately America has lost its image of an honest patron of nonproliferation after its nuclear deal with India which directly accelerates India’s nuclear weapons capabilities. Likewise, IAEA has eroded its credibility by incorporating country specific provisions, in contravention to NPT, to kick start Agreement 123. It is ironic that Nuclear Suppliers group that was formed in reaction to Indian nuclear explosion of 1974, failed to stand the ground and chose to scum to America pressure to promote Indian nuclear proliferation programme.
Current US approach towards Iran accentuates the anti-Muslim-state bias underlying US and EU nuclear policies. Obviously, like the earlier sanctions, these will also not work. However, it is time that Muslim states should make their opposition to such discriminatory sanctions clear. It is no longer viable to remain quite and tacitly support a non-proliferation approach that sanctifies India and Israel’s nuclear programmes, but aims at denying Muslim states their inalienable right to even minimum sufficiency in the peaceful nuclear expertise.
President Ahmadenejad made it a point to address the opening session of RevCon. He was the only head of state to attend the venue; where as rest of the states were represented at ministerial or lower levels. His address had not only amply highlighted the contradictions on existing non-proliferation regimes but also made very useful suggestions to strengthen and universalize the non-proliferation mechanisms. Entire world was holding its breath as success or otherwise of the RevCon depended on Iranian vote. Despite provocations to the contrary, Iran made the right choice and stood alongside the comity of nations.
While RevCon was in progress and UNSC was busy working on fourth set of sanctions against Iran, Brazilian /Turkish initiative bore fruit. Iran agreed to a ten point arrangement, on 17 May, 2010, aimed at defusing the mounting confrontation in the context of its enrichment facilities.
The essence of the deal was that Iran would ship 1200 kilograms of low enriched uranium (LEU) to Turkey for deposit, and receive in return 120 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20% for use in an Iranian nuclear reactor devoted to medical research. The agreement reaffirmed support for the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well as acknowledged Iran’s right under the treaty to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, which meant the entire fuel cycle, including the enrichment phase.
The bargain negotiated in Tehran closely resembled an arrangement reached some months earlier in which Iran had agreed to turn over a similar amount of low enriched uranium to France and Russia in exchange for their promise of providing fuel rods that could be used in the same medical research reactor. That earlier deal floundered as Iran raised political objections, and then withdrew. The United States had welcomed this earlier arrangement as a desirable confidence-building step toward resolving the underlying conflict, but it wasted no time repudiating the agreement, which seemed so similar. This agreement had indeed provided a springboard for engaging Iran in a sustainable way. However, due to this rash decision of sanctions, taken in indecent hast, the opportunity could very well be lost.
And what a pay back, within less than a fortnight, fourth round of sanctions is imposed against the Islamic Republic. These sanctions once again expose the duplicity of the managers of NPT. In continuity came the Iran specific criteria for expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO); which incorporates a clause that countries under UN sanctions will not be admitted as members of SCO. Criterion does not speak about violators on UNSC resolutions, like India.
UNSC sanctions are irrelevant because such inhibitors have never achieved the intended objective. Whenever a country makes a political decision to ‘proliferate’, technical, financial or other difficulties can always be overcome through motivation and work-arounds. Sanctions always strengthen pro-proliferation constituency within the effected country and a tempo of defiance become politically rewarding at the domestic level. This tempo then becomes a legacy to be carried forward as a matter of national pride, which generally culminates at nuclear explosion.
Anatomy of fresh sanctions reveals that these are neither crippling nor smart. Thanks to moderation by China and Russia, economic implications of sanction are limited. However, they intend to hit the national pride of Iran. A dangerous approach indeed. Iran is likely to become more defiant, and many states may defy these politically motivated sanctions in order to safeguard their national economic interests. The split vote resulted in a 12 to 2 vote in favour, with on abstention. It indicates that even within a small forum of UNSC, there was a lack of unanimity in support of sanctions.
Turkey and Brazil voted against the resolution because they had been able to bring forward a diplomatic solution to the issue. It indicates that diplomatic solutions to intricate global issues are possible if departures could be made from traditional fixations. It is unfortunate that the US, which saw itself sidelined, reacted negatively.
Once again, Iran has chosen the pragmatic approach, and has not fallen in the trap of provocation induced rhetoric and erratic actions. It continues to be a member of NPT and holds the position that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, in accord with the provisions of NPT.
It would be naive to presume that Iran would continue to have unlimited stores of patience. There is every likelihood that if this hostile and discriminatory profile does not come to halt, Iran may opt out of NPT and go for higher uranium enrichment. In such an eventuality, these sanctions document would comeback in circle to haut its authors and that too for ever. Iran could yet take another option and follow Israeli approach of a bomb in basement and adopt a national policy of nuclear opacity. In both the cases, the onus of proliferation would rest on pro-sanctions lobby headed by the United States.
Unfortunately America has lost its image of an honest patron of nonproliferation after its nuclear deal with India which directly accelerates India’s nuclear weapons capabilities. Likewise, IAEA has eroded its credibility by incorporating country specific provisions, in contravention to NPT, to kick start Agreement 123. It is ironic that Nuclear Suppliers group that was formed in reaction to Indian nuclear explosion of 1974, failed to stand the ground and chose to scum to America pressure to promote Indian nuclear proliferation programme.
Current US approach towards Iran accentuates the anti-Muslim-state bias underlying US and EU nuclear policies. Obviously, like the earlier sanctions, these will also not work. However, it is time that Muslim states should make their opposition to such discriminatory sanctions clear. It is no longer viable to remain quite and tacitly support a non-proliferation approach that sanctifies India and Israel’s nuclear programmes, but aims at denying Muslim states their inalienable right to even minimum sufficiency in the peaceful nuclear expertise.
Comments
Post a Comment