my text version for IO presentation
February 15, 2006 5 Comments
1. i didn’t finish this until 4 in the morning, 5 hours to begin my topic in class with two eyebags.
2. it worked as a charm. that people start to attack me, i like it.
3, my dear laosion classmate forgot to press the record button of my DV, what happen next, I need to say no more!
4, the darkness before dawn, the storm is coming. we are always in rushing.
It takes me a whole day for this piece of
paper……. Till now 2:31 in the morning, and I havn’t finish the ppt yet. That
made me start ponder myself, what did I do before?
IAEA, NPT, Safeguard Agreements And
analysis to Iran
—– Lin Pengxuan
According to a recent United Nations
High-Level Panel identified five categories of threats that we face:
Infectious Disease, and Environmental Degradation;
Conflict – both within and among States;
of Mass Destruction.
My group topic today is largely dealing
with the 5th one. Weapons of Mass Destruction, or WMD. The term WMD means different things to
different people. The most widely used definition is that of nuclear,
biological or chemical weapons. And one of the main jobs of IAEA is to prevent
the circulation and spreading of such weapons in related with atomic energy.
Thanks to my group members’ excellent
performance, which left me almost nothing else to cover within the statute of
IAEA, I would like to talk about the current issues of IAEA. What are happening
now? That is the interactivity among Iran, IAEA and International
Community. My first part includes Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, Safeguard
Agreements and their relations with IAEA, which is essential in understanding
the following part, the Iran Nuclear Incident, where I will examine the legal
basis of their dispute about the so-called right of peaceful use of nuclear
power. Then it is followed by the third part, future development in perspective
what so many coutries want to rush into
The true meaning about holding nuclear
weapons is not to use it, it is only been done once, but to show one state’s
ability in retaliating to the attacking country which uses nuclear weapons, in
other sense, it is by possessing such weapons, assume a nuclear deterrence,
thus gaining more chips playing in International Community. A country that
thinks it can withstand a nuclear war is more likely to start one. Better to
show your enemy you can hit back after a strike, than to show him you can
survive one. Let me give you two examples, I can’t recall any Indian now, but
because they have such weapons, their voice in International Community is much
louder than Japan, and several very important post were help by Indian, despite
they have a large number of poor people who starve and strive. Also, recently,
In January 2006, Jacques Chirac of France
indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger
a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue
state’s" power centers. I don’t think this would happen, but by saying
such words, by posing such threatens, those rogue states have to take a second
thought before they make the move. Such words are typical nuclear deterrence.
on NPT, Safeguard Agreements.
Why these two?
As we have been observed before, one of the
main functions for IAEA is to establish and apply safeguards to ensure that any
nuclear assistance or supplies with which the IAEA was associated should not be
used to further any military purposes. This confirms with the objectives of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT
or, much more rarely, NNPT) is a treaty, opened for signature on July 1, 1968,
restricting the possession of nuclear weapons. By ensuring 3 pillars it
focuses, the initiate states to the treaty hope it can dramatically reduce the
risk of using Nuclear Weapons.
Five states are permitted by the NPT to own
nuclear weapons: France (signed 1992), the People’s Republic of China (1992),
Soviet Union (1968; obligations and rights assumed by Russia), United
Kingdom (1968), and the United States (1968). These were
the only states possessing such weapons at the time the treaty was opened to
signature, and are also the five permanent members of the United Nations
Security Council. These 5 Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) agree not to transfer
nuclear weapons technology to other states, and the non-NWS state parties agree
not to seek to develop nuclear weapons. According to what happened recently, I
see no signs of such commitment binding either those states have nuclear
weapons or those don’t.
Second pillar: disarmament
Article VI and the preamble indicate that
the NWS parties pursue to reduce and liquidate their stockpiles; Article VI
also calls for "…a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under
strict and effective international control." I believe this international
control refer to the topic we discuss today, IAEA. In Article I, the Nuclear
Weapon States declare not to "induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to …
acquire nuclear weapons."
Third pillar: the right to peacefully use
This one is most controversial. In scientific
terms, it is feasible that one state could peacefully use nuclear technology
without taking a further step, but when it comes into reality, states are
induced by the power of possessing nuclear weapon when all the efforts only are
needed a little bit more. However, thinking this is one thing while doing it
could be another.
Since very few of the nuclear weapons
states and states using nuclear reactions for energy generation are willing to
completely abandon possession of nuclear fuel, the third pillar of the NPT
provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions
intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons.
For some states, this third pillar of the
NPT, which allows uranium enrichment for fuel reasons, seems to be a major
loophole. However the treaty gives every state the inalienable right to use
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and as the commercially popular light
water reactor nuclear power station designs use enriched uranium fuel, it
follows that states must be allowed to enrich uranium or purchase it on an
international market. Peaceful uranium enrichment can arguably be considered a
small step away from developing nuclear warheads, and this can be done by
withdrawing from the NPT. But, in fact, No state has successfully constructed a
nuclear weapon in secret while subjected to NPT inspection. Some would argue Pakistan and
Indian have nukes; the true is they are not the members to NPT.
Countries that have signed the treaty as
Non-Nuclear Weapons States and maintained that status have an unbroken record
of not building nuclear weapons. In some regions, the fact that all neighbors
are verifiably free of nuclear weapons reduces any pressure individual states
might feel to build those weapons themselves, even if neighbors are known to
have peaceful nuclear energy programs that might otherwise be suspicious. In
this, the treaty works as designed.
The relation between NPT and IAEA
The IAEA is not a party to the Treaty but
is entrusted with key roles and responsibilities under it. Under the NPT, the
IAEA has specific roles as the international safeguards inspectorate and as a
multilateral channel for transferring peaceful applications of nuclear
technology: according to the following article, IAEA is entitled to ensure
prevention to the spread of nuclear weapons. And this laid the legal foundation
for IAEA’s activities.
NPT Article III: The IAEA administers
international safeguards to verify that non-nuclear weapon States party to the
NPT fulfill the non-proliferation commitment they have made, "with a view
to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons
or other nuclear explosive devices."
NPT Article IV: The Agency facilitates and
provides a channel for endeavors aimed at "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."
In practical terms, the IAEA also is seen
as having roles in connection with verification of nuclear-weapon-free zones
and in the context of verifying ex-nuclear weapon material.
IAEA Safeguards Agreements
Safeguards are activities by which the IAEA
can verify that a State is living up to its international commitments not to
use nuclear programmes for nuclear-weapons purposes. The global Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and other treaties against the spread of nuclear
weapons entrust the IAEA as the nuclear inspectorate. Today, the IAEA
safeguards nuclear material and activities under agreements with more than 140
Within the world’s nuclear
non-proliferation regime, the IAEA is safeguards system functions as a
confidence-building measure, an early warning mechanism, and the trigger that
sets in motion other responses by the international community if and when the
Article III.A.5To establish and administer
safeguards designed to ensure that special fissionable and other materials,
services, equipment, facilities, and information made available by the Agency
or at its request or under its supervision or control are not used in such a
way as to further any military purpose; and to apply safeguards, at the request
of the parties, to any bilateral or multilateral arrangement, or at the request
of a State, to any of that State’s activities in the field of atomic energy.
Fundamentally, by combining these two
measures together, so far, IAEA do does a really good job in preventing the
nuclear expansion while not hinder the development of civil use such huge
power. That is so far. Also this is the reason the General Director of IAEA won
the laurel of Nobel Peace Prize.
The timeline of Iran event.
August 14, 2002
Sources revealed the existence of two
secret nuclear sites, a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and a heavy water
facility in Arak.
has since late 2003 claimed that Tehran is
seeking to build nuclear arms in violation of its agreements under the NPT, and
also that Iran
is seeking to develop nuclear missiles.
November 14, 2004
Iran‘s chief nuclear negotiator announced a voluntary and temporary
suspension of its uranium enrichment program after pressure from the United Kingdom, France,
acting on behalf of the European Union (known in this context as the EU-3 or
November 24, 2004
sought to amend the terms of its agreement with the EU to exclude a handful of
the equipment from this deal for research work. This request was dropped four
IAEA Secretary General Mohamed ElBaradei
remarked that after three years of inspections, the IAEA could not confirm that
nuclear technology program is for peaceful purposes.
August 8 and August 10, 2005
Iranian officials said they had lost much
of their confidence in the IAEA, the Iranian government resumed its conversion
of uranium at the Isfahan
facility, allegedly with continued suspension of enrichment activities.
September 19, 2005
the European Union pressuring the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to bring Iran’s nuclear program
before the United Nations Security Council.
February 4, 2006
The 35 member Board of Governors of the
IAEA voted 27-3 to report Iran
to the Security Council. Such action’s legal basis comes from ARTICLE XII: C,
In the event of failure of the recipient State or States to take fully
corrective action within a reasonable time, the Board may take one or both of
the following measures: direct curtailment or suspension of assistance being
provided by the Agency or by a member, and call for the return of materials and
equipment made available to the recipient member or group of members. The
Agency may also, in accordance with article XIX, suspend any non- complying
member from the exercise of the privileges and rights of membership.
Then the result would be up to the Security
Council’s decision. According to UN Charter, Article 26: In order to promote
the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the
least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources, the
Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of
the Military Staff Committee referred to in Article 47, plans to be submitted
to the Members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the
regulation of armaments.
Also, under Article 41 of the UN Charter,
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed
force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon
the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include
complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air,
postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance
of diplomatic relations.
the Security Council may call upon Member
States to apply measures not involving the use of armed force in order to
maintain or restore international peace and security. Such measures are
commonly referred to as sanctions.
Security Council’s decision will probably
come as sanction if Iran
keep its way on, like treatment Iraq
got after invading its neighbor Kuwait
if it is regarded to solve this issue as necessary and urgent.
Or really does it necessary?
There are only two assumptions for Iran’s own
A to develop civil use of nuclear
B by disguise with this, Iran is enticed
to develop its own weapon of mass destruction.
A, the first one is preferable to second.
Actually, apart from the other entire international Pressures either from US,
EU or Russia, Iran does have
a right in developing it for civil use. As I have said before, one of three
pillar of the NPT is the right to peacefully use nuclear technology. Since Iran join the NPT in as early as 1968, there is
no doubt Iran
is entitled to develop it for civil use. The question raised here is it can
develop nuclear technology to what extent and in what forms. Also, what we have
observed here is that it has fail to comply with the safeguard agreement
between IAEA, the directive result of which is Director General of IAEA will
turn to UN security council.
1. Iran claims that nuclear power is
necessary for a booming population and rapidly industrializing nation. It
points to the fact that Iran’s
population has more than doubled in 20 years.
2. Iran questions why it shouldn’t be
allowed to diversify its sources of energy, especially when there are fears of
its oil fields eventually being depleted.
3. It continues to argue that its valuable
oil should be used for high value products, not simple electricity generation.
Those reasons, at least I think are sound.
B. then let us assume Iran’s real intention is to develop
its own WMD. That would be a worst result of all. We better put out the flame
before it becomes fire. The western society believe so because the following
1, it is better to have a tiger without
teeth than a cat with untrimmed claw, even what Iran said is true, Western society
just wants it to keep away from nuclear club.
2. A war break out between Iran and Israel. In Iran’s constitution, they don’t recognize the
sovereignty right of Israel,
and also, in various public instances, President of Iran asserted to wipe Israel out from
the map. Since Israel’s
ability to develop the nukes has been proved for a long time, it is not
difficult to guess Iran
has to develop its own for counter-nuclear deterrence.
3. Probably it would result in an US’ invasion into Iran, at least by air force to take
out the nuclear research invasion. Think about what Mr. George Bush did to Iraq when there
were no evidence at all of the WMD found aftermath. It is not hard to take a
second guess on Iran issue,
at least, according to some recently news, there were voice about bombing
nuclear facilities in Iran
4. A new round of arm race will begin in
Middle East, which would darken the already hazed peace perspective in Middle East.
5. Raise the already skyrocketed oil price
thus burdening the world economy. The situation has to take into account is
that Iran, is the world’s fourth biggest oil exporter, among the amount of Oil
imports from Iran by EU, 33% comes from Iran. Either sanction or invasion would
no doubt result in a much higher oil price thus render a unidentified and
unstable factor to world economy.
The options of Iran
After I have done a lot of googling, I see
no signs or reasons that Iran
will give up its own nuclear project. So far, to keep on its own plan, it might
withdraw from NPT.
According to NPT, ARTICLE X Each Party
shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from
the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject
matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.
We are not sure, by playing this dangerous
game, what is real intention of Iran,
either for peaceful use, or gaining political windfall, or even the power of
nuclear deterrence. So far, what I did before is just part of whole events.
Part of my personal views and might not be true.
To conclude my presentation, I would quota
words from Director General of IAEA, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, to feed world’s
hunger, we only need 1% amount of money that is invested in arm race every