Nuclear Rights

Greetings,

With the current invasion and occupation of Iraq over possible weapons of mass destruction, the current trend at the minute is that any country that could ever attack the home country or even disagree with the host countries values a pri-emtive strike is a means to the end.

Iran insists on nuclear 'rights'

Iran has an "inalienable right" to produce nuclear energy, the country's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has told the United Nations. Speaking before the General Assembly, he invited other states and private companies to help with the programme.

He strongly criticised US arms policies and said Islam precluded Iran from having atomic weapons. Earlier, the US secretary of state accused Iran of threatening efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Condoleezza Rice told the General Assembly at the beginning of its session on Saturday that the UN Security Council must deal effectively with Iran.

"Iran should return to negotiations with the EU3 [the UK, France and Germany] and abandon forever its plans for a nuclear weapons capability," she said.

"When diplomacy has been exhausted, the Security Council must become involved."

Jack Straw, the UK foreign secretary, told the BBC Mr Ahmadinejad's speech had been "disappointing and unhelpful".

The US and the EU want Iran to give up any idea of having an enrichment capability at all. 'Legitimate rights' Iran's leader said his country was being denied the technology to produce peaceful nuclear energy.

"Some countries do not have the right to enjoy their legitimate rights," he said.

In an apparent reference to the US, he condemned what he said were powerful interests bullying and misrepresenting Iran. Mr Ahmadinejad called on the General Assembly to work for complete nuclear disarmament, and to establish a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. He told CNN in an earlier interview that his country had "the means to defend and obtain its rights", without specifying if it would use its oil leverage.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan opened Saturday's session by warning of the spread of nuclear weapons and terrorism without referring to any state by name.

"We face growing risks of proliferation and catastrophic terrorism, and the stakes are too high to continue down a dangerous path of diplomatic brinkmanship," he told the assembly's annual session.

Further work
Ms Rice advocated expanding the Security Council, an issue omitted from the reform package agreed at the UN World Summit, which ended on Friday.

Other issues not covered in detail at the World Summit may be raised at the session of the General Assembly, which brings together ministers from the UN's 191 member-states, and is due to last 12 days. Ms Rice called for a "lasting revolution of reform" and argued that countries with poor human rights should not be allowed to sit on UN committees judging other nations' records. Much disappointment greeted the 35-page document adopted by the leaders, which had been diluted over long negotiations.

It omitted references to disarmament, reform of the UN Security Council and hard details of a plan to create a new human rights council. However, the document passed at the historic summit in New York - held to mark 60 years of the UN as a body - did contain commitments to fight global poverty and reform the UN's structure.

BBC NEWS
news.bbc.co.uk...

Now, I am not sure where I stand on this one, I agree that a country should have the right to protect itself in any means neccessary to over come the foe. But does this apply to a nation that could, in the future become a foe.

Should Nuclear nations have the right to control nations that it deem, unrully or merely disagree with the host nations ideals? China have Nukes, but international weight isn't pressed on them, and they are clearly not really as "nice" as the UK and the US would like. Yet Iran has been threatened with military action if it pursues it Nuclear ambitions.

Do you believe that a group of Elite Nations have the right to control nuclear development in any other nation on the planet, our do you believe that some one has to keep the Third World nations in check.

- Phil


[edit on 17-9-2005 by gooseuk]

All nations should have the right to develop peaceful nuclear energy as stated by the NPT itself..
Also Iran's concern in it NOT having to import fuel for its reactors is well-founded as all these imports always come with strings attached..
I am for every nation capable of developing nuclear energy to go ahead and do so..
Now I heard yesterday that the President said in explicit terms that :
"construction,use and proliferation of nukes if forbidden by our spiritualand religious beliefs."
Now its pretty difficult for an islamic nation to go back on a promise like this but having said that look at Pakistan:

1. They have the bomb, and they even go go so far as calling it the "islamic bomb" for the muslim world..That does not falll into place with what the Iranian PM said yesterday at the UN..
(unless there are differences on nukes between the shia and sunni sects!!)

2. Iran has NOT had a totally indigenous nuclear program with proliferation sources coming from pakistan and china..Now pervez musharraf has gone so far as saying that his top dawg nuke scientist has/may have passed nuclear secrets to Iran,libya and North korea..

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has confirmed that disgraced nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan provided North Korea with centrifuge machines and their designs, Kyodo news agency said on Wednesday. Khan, revered in Pakistan as the man who gave his country the weapons capability to balance that of nuclear-armed neighbour and rival India, admitted last year to leaking nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea. In an interview with Kyodo on Tuesday, Musharraf spoke in public for the first time about Khan's clandestine transfer of nuclear technology, the Japanese agency reported from Islamabad.

Now IMHO the US will face certain "defeat" at the UNSC if they take Iran to it, as they are already tainted by Iraq and the fact that Iran has repeatedly asked for proof behind US claims..

Now the US can prove its claims by simply exposing Pakistan as the sole culprit in having passed nuke secrets to Iran, which is in clear violation of the NPT (though Pakistan is not a signatory of this)..

Iran will be exposed of underhandedly acquiring nuke tech for whatever means; here that is irrelevant as "why should one be underhanded,devious and secretive for peaceful N-tech ??!"

But here the problem lies in the US falling into its own foreign policy quagmire:
Pakistan

By exposing Pakistan the US will be severely backtracking on its "non-NATO ally" and literally selling it(Pakistan) out..
The US has known abt Pakistani proliferation for the last 15 years or maybe even more..
They have chosen to ignore it/downplay it for personal reasons..

Many ask why the Indians are suspicious of the US and are not welcoming them with "open hands" as an ally..
I rest my case..
It literally breaks my heart (as an Indian) to witness this US foreign/nuclear policy hypocracy being practised by the US..

On a separate note, i noticied something very interesting in yesterday's press conf with the Iranian president..
Throughout he was very "benevolent" and "appreciative"; striving for "nuclear equality", all nations are equal etc.etc..
It was truely very impressive(I don't mean that sarcastically) unitl this instant when an Israeli reporter asked this question:

"Sir I am from Israel,form so-n-so news agnecy;Sir, Why is Iran bent on the total destruction of Israel and on practising anti-semitism"..(something to that effect)
The reporter asked another question pertainig to a particular incident in Lebanon in 1986, I didn't follow that..

The response of the Iranian President was fascinating:
He said "next question"...


I fail to understand why these islamic republics do not get over their obsessions with Israel/Kashmir..
IMHO they will remain in the economical/technological doldrums until they overcome this obsession...
Israel is not going anywhere..