Iran Has an 'Inalienable Right' To Nuclear Energy
- From: "Dr Evil" <drevil@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:32:42 +0800
Iran Has an 'Inalienable Right' To Nuclear Energy
By Enver Masud
The Wisdom fund
1-19-5
Iran has an "inalienable right" to use nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes such as the production of electric energy, and the enrichment of
uranium for its nuclear reactors. Could it be that Iran's plan for an oil
exchange trading in Euros is the real issue? Or is it Israel? Article IV of
the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force on
March 5, 1970, states:
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the
inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research,
production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without
discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.
2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have
the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment,
materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses
of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also
cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or
international organizations to the further development of the applications
of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of
non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for
the needs of the developing areas of the world. Thus, not only does Iran
have an "inalienable right" to use nuclear energy for electricity, the NPT
obligates the nuclear powers to "further development of the applications of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." Iran has gone beyond its obligations
under the NPT to assure others of it's peaceful intentions.
According to Dr. Gordon Prather, a nuclear physicist who was the top
scientist for the army in the Reagan years, in December, 2003, Iran had
signed an Additional Protocol to its Safeguards Agreement and had
volunteered to cooperate with the IAEA - pending ratification by the Iranian
Parliament - as if the Additional Protocol were actually "in force." Iran
also offered, says Dr. Prather, "to voluntarily forego a complete fuel cycle
.. . . if the Europeans would get the United States to reverse the campaign
of denial, obstruction, intervention, and misinformation." Iran had already
offered on March 23, 2005 a package of "objective guarantees" (developed by
an international panel of experts) that met most of the demands later made
by the conservative, Washington based Heritage foundation says Dr. Prather.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has found no "smoking gun" in Iran
that would indicate a nuclear weapons program, says Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei,
the director-general of the IAEA. Thirty years ago, Iran developing a
nuclear capacity "caused no problems for the Americans because, at that
time, the Shah was seen as a strong ally, and had indeed been put on the
throne with American help", says Tony Benn, Britain's secretary of state for
energy from 1975-79.
With world oil production approaching a peak it makes sense for Iran
to look toward alternative means for generating electricity, and to reserve
its oil supply for other purposes including increasing revenues from the
export of the additional oil not used for electricity production. A major
reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "to install a pro-U.S. government
in Iraq, establish multiple U.S. military bases before the onset of global
Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart
further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction
currency." Iran is about to commit a far greater "offense" than Saddam
Hussein's conversion to the euro for Iraq's oil exports in the fall of 2000.
Beginning in March 2006, the Tehran government has plans to begin competing
with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil
trades - using a euro-based international oil-trading mechanism," writes
William R. Clark the author Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of
the Dollar.
According to Toni Straka, a Vienna, Austria-based financial analyst
who runs a blog, The Prudent Investor, Iran's "proposal to set up a
petroleum bourse was first voiced in Iran's development plan for 2000-2005.
.. . . Cheaper nuclear energy and increases in oil exports from the current
level of roughly 2.5 million barrels a day will result in a profitable
equation for Iran. "Only one major actor stands to lose from a change in the
current status quo: the US" says Toni Straka, "which with less than 5% of
the global population, consumes roughly one third of global oil production."
"There could hardly be a clearer example of double standards than this, and
it fits in with the arming of Saddam to attack Iran after the Shah had been
toppled, and the complete silence over Israel's huge nuclear armoury," says
Tony Benn. Yes, given the technology and knowledge Iran could develop a
nuclear weapon. But "under the current regime, there is nothing illicit for
a non-nuclear state to conduct uranium-enriching activities . . . or even to
possess military-grade nuclear material," says ElBaradei. Thirty-five to
forty countries possess this capability. Israel - not a signatory to the
NPT - has had this capability for years, is believed to have several hundred
nuclear bombs, the missiles to deliver them to Iran, and it is no secret
that it has been threatening strikes on Iran's Bushehr nuclear electric
power plant - just as it launched an unprovoked and illegal attack on
Iraq's, Osirak nuclear electric power plant in 1981.
U.S. news media's timidity was a significant factor in the launching
of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. This invasion has claimed the lives of over
2000 U.S. soldiers and over 180,000 Iraqis. It has left uncounted others
wounded and maimed, it has destroyed much of Iraq's - indeed the world's -
cultural heritage, and is likely to cost U.S. taxpayers "between $1 trillion
and $2 trillion, up to 10 times more than previously thought," according to
a report written by Joseph Stiglitz - recipient of the 2001 Nobel Prize in
economics. John Ward Anderson of the Washington Post wrote on January 13:
"The foreign ministers of Britain, Germany and France called Thursday for
Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council for violating its nuclear
treaty obligations." Neither he nor the editors or ombudsman at the Post
have responded to our request to identify which "nuclear treaty obligations"
is Iran violating. Writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jack
Boureston and Charles D. Ferguson say, "In pursuing a civilian nuclear
program, Iran has international law on its side. . . . The best way to know
the full extent of Iran's nuclear doings is to offer it help."
.
- Prev by Date: US and allies claim Iran is developing WMD
- Next by Date: Is Syria America's Enemy? Nope
- Previous by thread: US and allies claim Iran is developing WMD
- Next by thread: Is Syria America's Enemy? Nope
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
