News Beneath the dignity of the Office of the President

[mheslep]

Your timing is a little out. The sites became an issue in 2002, as I have already pointed out Iran did not sign the new safeguards agreement until 2003.

note They still have not formally signed the Additional Protocol agreement and so the charge they were in breach of the NPT which they did sign was incorrect.

??
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2003/iranap20031218.html
Iran Signs Additional Protocol on Nuclear Safeguards

 

[Art]

??
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2003/iranap20031218.html
Iran Signs Additional Protocol on Nuclear Safeguards

I meant ratified.

IRAN CONFIRMS STOPPING ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL OF THE NPT

Iran accepted the Protocols on October 2003 and suspended on a voluntary basis all nuclear activities, but the government of former president Mohammad Khatami did not presented it to the Majles, or the Parliament for final approval.

The present parliament, controlled by the ruling conservatives has urged the new Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadi Nezhad to consider getting out of the Additional Protocol and has said that it would not approve it if the Government submit it for acceptance.

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2005/october-2005/Iran_nuclear_91005.shtml

 

[mheslep]

I meant ratified.

I assume you refer to some internal parliamentary Iranian action? How is that relevant in terms of what they are bound to do under the NPT and its derivatives? Iran sent its representative to sign that Protocols agreement, the IAEA found that they violated it in numerous ways; Iran is then in violation of the NPT and has no legal right to enrich.

 

[Art]

I assume you refer to some internal parliamentary Iranian action? How is that relevant in terms of what they are bound to do under the NPT and its derivatives? Iran sent its representative to sign that Protocols agreement, the IAEA found that they violated it in numerous ways; Iran is then in violation of the NPT and has no legal right to enrich.

lol Think Kyoto Agreement! But in any case it is irrelevant, my point remains, the 'secret' plants which caused such consternation predated any of this.

 

[Gokul43201]

I guess we'll know more in a week when the next IAEA report comes out. But for now...

Iran is still withholding critical information that could determine whether it is trying to make nuclear weapons, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a restricted report.

The nine-page report, obtained by CNN on Monday, detailed a number of recent meetings with Iranian officials who deny conducting weapons research and continue to stymie the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency.

"The agency is continuing to assess the information and explanations provided by Iran," the report said. "However, at this stage, Iran has not provided the agency with all the information, access to documents and access to individuals necessary to support Iran's statements."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/26/iran.nuclear/index.html

I don't really trust most of the mainstream news outlets to even read the report correctly, so I'm not putting much weight on the news today. Also, it's not clear to me if any of this is actually in violation of the NPT. If FAS or Globalsecurity had anything to say about this, I'd listen...but I don't see anything there yet.

 

[mheslep]

lol Think Kyoto Agreement! But in any case it is irrelevant, my point remains, the 'secret' plants which caused such consternation predated any of this.

That is not my point. It is indeed irrelevant because of NPT III:

Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

That is, non-NWS NPTs don't have a choice, they must reach an agreement for safeguards (i.e. inspections). Absent this agreement there are logically only two options: one, forego any nuclear processing or two, process and violate the NPT. Iran has unquestionably chosen the latter.

Thus this

The only genuine charges against Iran of illegal nuclear activity are related to the period when the US's friend the Shah was in control...
The situation now is the US are trying to prevent Iran from enriching uranium despite them having a perfect legal right to do so and despite the sanctions imposed Iran has continued to exercise their right.

is incorrect, Iran has no such legal right.

 

[Art]

That is not my point. It is irrelevant because of NPT III:

That is, NWS NWTs don't have a choice, they must reach an agreement for safeguards (i.e. inspections). Absent this agreement there are logically only two options: one, forego any nuclear processing or two, process and violate the NPT. Iran has unquestionably chosen the latter.

Thus this
is incorrect, Iran has no such legal right.

Read this again

Implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran

snip
15. The Subsidiary Arrangements General Part in force with Iran from 1976 to 26 February 2003 included what was, until 1992, standard text which called for provision to the Agency of design information on a new facility no later than 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material into the facility,

Iran is still working under the provisions of the original safeguards it agreed under the NPT it signed and ratified. If they weren't you wouldn't be getting any IAEA reports

They have not withdrawn from the old safeguards agreement only the new one.

This is a case of flog the willing horse. Iran has signed the NPT fulfilled it's obligations under it by allowing unrestricted access to the IAEA in accordance with the Safeguard Protocols, has accounted for every scrap of fissile material to the satisfaction of the IAEA which are what the safeguards are all about. From 2004 (which also covers previous years) to today the IAEA has signed off every year that Iran has not diverted any material to a military or unknown program and so is in compliance with it's obligations under the NPT and yet are still being pummeled by the US who are themselves in breach of the NPT by,

1) Not dismantling their nuclear arsenal as required to under the NPT
2) Has traded nuclear materials and know how with non-signatory nations such as India.
3) Secret weapon sharing with other NATO countries.

Whilst also of course never once criticising Israel and it's nuclear arsenal

Even the fuss about the Additional Protocol is nonsense as 30% of the signatories of the NPT have yet to ratify it so Iran is hardly an exception. Of the 61 with nuclear programs who have ratified it only 20 have been given a pass by the IAEA so far. So countries such as Canada, South Africa and the Czech Republic who signed the additional protocol years ago still get a comment each year that the IAEA cannot confirm there is not a secret weapons program. Whereas the same comment on Iran's report is touted as proof they are up to something whilst in truth it is simply standard notation.

Ultimately Iran would be within it's rights to drop out of the NPT completely by giving 3 months notice which I suspect is what the Bush administration is trying to push them to do so they can declare it a causa bella.

For a lawyer's take on Iran's compliance / non-compliance and a full overview of all of the issues see here http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/iran/undeclared.htm

 

[Art]

The latest report which has not been made public yet was issued in response to this

The report is being circulated at the request of the UN Security Council, which on 3 March 2008 asked for "a further report within 90 days from the Director General of the IAEA on whether Iran has established full and sustained suspension of all activities mentioned in resolution 1737 (2006), as well as on the process of Iranian compliance with all the steps required by the IAEA Board and with the other provisions of resolution 1737 (2006), resolution 1747 (2007) and [resolution 1803 (2008)], to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the Security Council for its consideration."

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/iranreport0508.html

As Iran has said it is ignoring the SC resolutions against her then obviously they are not going to get a glowing report

However as the report is likely to conclude Iran remains in compliance with it's obligations under the NPT (a separate issue to it's non-conformance with UNSC resolutions) the US representative to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, is getting in a preemptory strike by briefing everyone who will listen on only the negative aspects of the report in a continuation of the US propaganda effort to paint Iran in as black a light as possible.

 

[Gokul43201]

Getting back on topic...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24833156/

Appeasement? Bush straddles line with Sudan
WASHINGTON - Sometime in the next few weeks, a special envoy of President Bush plans to meet with Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, whose government sheltered Osama bin Laden and pursued a scorched-earth policy in southern Sudan that resulted in more than 2 million deaths.

Bashir's government has been accused by Bush of participating in a "genocide" in Darfur, the only U.S. government use of such a strong accusation. Yet Richard S. Williamson's visit to Khartoum follows a series of direct contacts by senior Bush administration officials with the Sudanese president, including Secretaries of State Colin L. Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Rice's deputies, and several special presidential envoys.

Bush has spoken to or exchanged letters with Bashir on numerous occasions, underscoring how White House policy has departed from his pointed public call to shun talks with radical tyrants and dictators.

Really, that was a brilliant speech Bush gave to the Knesset!

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the administration has been willing to talk with both Sudan and Iran -- though in the case of Iran, only if it halts uranium enrichment. "We enter into discussions with countries where we have leverage to achieve results," he said.

Strange! No mention of radicals or terrorists!

Meanwhile, Bashir defends his #1 spot in Parade Magazine's annual list of the World's Worst Dictators - the spot he won in 2005, by ousting Kim Jong Il from the top.

http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2...gabe-is-not-the-worlds-worst-dictator-nr-one/

 

[mheslep]

...the US who are themselves in breach of the NPT by,

1) Not dismantling their nuclear arsenal as required to under the NPT
...

Quick browse here and the first point is a misstatement of NPT VI. Please quote the treaty.

...undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Clearly the nuclear arms race has ceased and US weapons stockpiles have been greatly reduced.

 

[Art]

Quick browse here and the first point is a misstatement of NPT VI. Please quote the treaty.
Clearly the nuclear arms race has ceased and US weapons stockpiles have been greatly reduced.

Read your own quotes! Where does the treaty call for the nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals? You accuse me of misstating the treaty calling for complete nuclear disarmament and then proceed to quote where it calls for "general and complete disarmament." Has that happened? No! Is there a snowball's chance in hell of that happening? No, especially as Bush has stated officially he intends to maintain an effective nuclear deterrent! (no good faith negotiations there!) Has the US continued to develop new nuclear weapons? Yes!

Face it the US are in material breach of the NPT in several instances but in this world of 'might is right' there's nothing anybody can do about it which is fine if the US gov't doesn't then pretend shock and horror that somebody else might have marginally infringed the NPT. It's that attitude of 'do as I say don't do as I do' where treaties and international bodies such as the UN are used to beat up America's opponents but dismissed as irrelevant when they will not support the US gov'ts pov that comes across as pure bullying. An attitude epitomised by Bush's speech to the Knesset.

 

[mheslep]

Read your own quotes! Where does the treaty call for the nuclear powers to reduce their arsenals? You accuse me of misstating the treaty calling for complete nuclear disarmament

You do so blatantly. Please stop.

...and then proceed to quote where it calls for "general and complete disarmament." Has that happened?

The treaty clearly says "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation" ... comma "and on ...". What part of 'pursue negotiations' don't you understand? What you are suggesting doesn't even make sense. The NPT demands signatories just disarm by a date unspecified in the treaty or they are in material breach of the treaty? All signers were then in breach the day they signed by that logic. No responsible IAEA member is going around saying the weapons states are in breach because they are weapons states.

... No! Is there a snowball's chance in hell of that happening? No, especially as Bush has stated ...

Bush-isms? This discussion has descended into a resuscitation of articles of faith; it is not a discussion. I'm done.

 

[Art]

You do so blatantly. Please stop.The treaty clearly says "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation" ... comma "and on ...". What part of 'pursue negotiations' don't you understand? What you are suggesting doesn't even make sense. The NPT demands signatories just disarm by a date unspecified in the treaty or they are in material breach of the treaty? All signers were then in breach the day they signed by that logic. No responsible IAEA member is going around saying the weapons states are in breach because they are weapons states.

Bush-isms? This discussion has descended into a resuscitation of articles of faith; it is not a discussion. I'm done.

Articles of faith, Bush-isms! That's not a kindly way to refer to official Whitehouse communiques.

The President's decision further advances policies that he has advocated since assuming office. We are reducing our nuclear weapons stockpile to the lowest level consistent with America's national security and our commitments to friends and allies. A credible deterrent remains an essential part of U.S. national security, and nuclear forces remain key to meeting emerging security challenges

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071218-3.html
Nothing in this release dated Dec 2007 to suggest good faith negotiations towards complete nuclear disarmament. In fact it clearly states the US has no intention of fully disarming it's nuclear arsenal. This despite the fact as recently as 2000 at a month long review of the NPT the world's five main nuclear powers including of course the US pledged to make "an unequivocal undertaking ... to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals".

So what part of this do you not understand?

I note you have deftly avoided commenting on the other 2 serious breaches of the NPT by the US namely providing nuclear materials and know how to a non signatory power and weapon sharing with NATO allies.

 

[quadraphonics]

Has that happened? No! Is there a snowball's chance in hell of that happening?

Well, the US arsenal has been reduced by more than half since the signing of the NPT, and is expected to be reduced even further in the next few years. Nuclear disarmament is not the sort of thing that can be accomplished overnight, or unilaterally. In fact, it's probably not the kind of thing that can ever be fully accomplished at all.

No, especially as Bush has stated officially he intends to maintain an effective nuclear deterrent! (no good faith negotiations there!)

You do understand that, within a year, Bush will not be in any position to decide the status of the American nuclear arsenal, right?

Anyway, the NPT has been deceased as a general framework for world disarmament for about a decade, since India and Pakistan developed arsenals. The NPT nuclear weapons states are never going to go for complete disarmament so long as there are nuclear weapons states outside the NPT. It not simply a matter how how much or how little America wants disarmament.

 

[BobG]

Are you sure it's fair to call Borah's intentions appeasement?

Here's a Borah quote from 1938, after Hitler was given the Sudetenland of Czechoslavakia:

Gad, what a chance Hitler has! If he only moderates his religious and racial intolerance, he would take his place beside Charlemagne. He has taken Europe without firing a shot.

I think it's more fair to say Borah felt Hitler made a tactical error, not that the US should be negotiating with Hitler to stop his aggression.

Borah was old (mid-70's) and nearing the end of his life (in fact, he died about a year later), so he was becoming pretty erratic and unreasonable. He came to deplore Roosevelt for being a near dictator, but admired Hitler, remarking, "There are so many great sides to him."

From: A Lion Among the Liberals

I think they should have thrown him in the same cage with Ezra Pound.

You'll love Pat Buchanan's new book, then. I haven't read it, but I was listening to him talk about it this morning. Buchanan has a history of being really way out there, but woah!

 

[mheslep]

You'll love Pat Buchanan's new book, then.

How so?

I haven't read it, but I was listening to him talk about it this morning. Buchanan has a history of being really way out there, but woah!

Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War"? Read a review; Buchanan is apparently after antagonizers esp. Churchill, not appeasers. His thesis is (in part) the harsh Versailles settlement was a vehicle that allowed Hitler to rise; Churchill and the like were culpable for that. Yes, and? Sounds like grade school history. How does he get a book out of that?

Buchanan is always more trouble than he is worth: he's smart, he's seen government up close, but he is not a historian, he lacks that discipline; and likewise with his economic commentaries. So he comes up with some good insights here, there; commanding a 'well he's probably right about that one isn't he' but then misses the larger context because he lacks the historian's perspective. In this case he appears to ridiculously elevate the bad above the good. I think Nazism, murderous anti-antisemitism in 19th/early 20th century Europe, and a war to stop it all were coming sooner or later, Versailles or no. Churchill recognized the threat Hitler posed, and then never flinched in guiding Britain through a war it might well have lost.

 

[Gokul43201]

I guess it's time for Bush to fire the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Michael Mullen, for his suggesting that we should appease the radicals in Tehran by engaging in dialogue with them.

I will say this, however: My position with regard to the Iranian regime hasn't changed. They remain a destabilizing factor in the region, and that's evident and actually more evident when one visits. But I'm convinced a solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behavior, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure. There is a need for better clarity, even dialogue at some level.

What does the admiral think - "that some ingenious argument will persuade them that they've been wrong all along"?

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4256

 

[WarPhalange]

Hey, remember that time Bush went to N. Korea to talk to Kim Jong Il and persuade him to stop his nuclear program by having talks? Like 2 weeks ago?

 

[Gokul43201]

Naturally, I don't expect Bush to quit. That would be so "old school". Besides, it's not appeasement if the bad guy actually has a small chance of landing a nuke on your @$$.

 

[wildman]

How so? Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War"? Read a review; Buchanan is apparently after antagonizers esp. Churchill, not appeasers. His thesis is (in part) the harsh Versailles settlement was a vehicle that allowed Hitler to rise; Churchill and the like were culpable for that. Yes, and? Sounds like grade school history. How does he get a book out of that?

Buchanan is always more trouble than he is worth: he's smart, he's seen government up close, but he is not a historian, he lacks that discipline; and likewise with his economic commentaries. So he comes up with some good insights here, there; commanding a 'well he's probably right about that one isn't he' but then misses the larger context because he lacks the historian's perspective. In this case he appears to ridiculously elevate the bad above the good. I think Nazism, murderous anti-antisemitism in 19th/early 20th century Europe, and a war to stop it all were coming sooner or later, Versailles or no. Churchill recognized the threat Hitler posed, and then never flinched in guiding Britain through a war it might well have lost.

Buchanan's book is kind of silly. However the Versailles settlement WAS the vehicle that allowed Hitler to rise. The UK and France WERE culpable for that. They were warned by President Wilson that it was a dumb thing to do, but they did it anyway. If France and the UK had done as the US did in Europe after WW II, WW II would have never happened. Fortunately the UK and France were so weakened after WW II, they were not able to make their stupid mistakes twice. Basically after WW II, the US told France and the UK to shut up and go along with the plan.

There is always murderous anti something going around. The point is to not let it get out of hand. France and the UK let it get out of hand by oppressing Germany after WW I. Churchill did an excellent job during WW II and his warnings before the war showed great prescience, but I don't think you can let him off completely free.