A common refrain in the Western media is that Iran’s nuclear program is illegal, “outlawed”, or otherwise of a proscribed nature. This assertion is based on the fact that the U.N. Security Council passed a number of resolutions calling on Iran to halt its enrichment activities and imposing sanctions on the country for disinclining to acquiesce to the U.N. demand. The U.S. view, adopted elsewhere as well, is that the resolutions are binding and by failing to heed their demands Iran is in violation of international law.
Iran’s view, of course, is that as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), who has not been shown to have been developing a parallel weapons program, their program is perfectly legal and their right to enrich uranium guaranteed under international law. It is therefore the U.N. resolutions themselves which are illegal, a violation of the very Charter under which they were passed and therefore null and void.
There can only be one correct interpretation. In this case, a reading of the relevant texts under international law clearly demonstrates that Iran’s interpretation is actually the correct one.
The NPT obligates signatories to “undertake to accept safeguards” under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These safeguards are “for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty”. Iran’s obligations are to employ its nuclear technology only for the production of energy. Any effort to develop nuclear weapons is strictly forbidden.
The safeguards, the NPT states, “shall be implemented in a manner designed to comply with Article IV of this Treaty, and to avoid hampering the economic or technological development of the Parties”. Sanctions, needless to say, hamper Iran’s economic and technological development.
Article IV states that “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….” (emphasis added). In other words, no one can tell Iran that it can’t enrich uranium for a civilian nuclear program.
The key U.N. resolution in question is 1696 of July 2006, which notes “with serious concern” that “Iran has not taken the steps required of it by the IAEA Board of Governors, reiterated by the Council in its statements of 29 March and which are essential to build confidence, and in particular Iran’s decision to resume enrichment-related activities….”
Notice the word “resume” there. Iran had voluntarily suspended its research and development of enrichment technology on a temporary basis as a show of good faith. Iran engaged E.U. member states, but when nothing came of the talks and negotiations over Iran’s program stalled, Iran resumed its activities, which it had every right to do under the NPT.
Furthermore, the NPT does not obligate Iran to halt research and development in order to “build confidence”. Iran must allow the IAEA to monitor and inspect its nuclear program under the safeguards system, but under no circumstances is required to suspend activities that are not shown to be undertaken towards the development of a nuclear weapon.
The language of 1696 is couched very carefully. The resolution “Calls upon Iran without further delay to take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors in its resolution GOV/2006/14” and “Demands, in this context, that Iran shall suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities….”
Notice that the U.N. is appealing to the authority of the IAEA. However, short of evidence that Iran has actively engaged in research and development of a nuclear weapons program, neither the IAEA nor the U.N. has any legal basis to demand that Iran halt its activities. The NPT unambiguously guarantees the “inalienable right” of member states to develop a peaceful nuclear program, which includes enrichment of uranium for nuclear fuel. Moreover, nothing about Iran’s agreement to allow the IAEA to monitor and verify its program may be interpreted in a manner that prejudices that right. The NPT explicitly guarantees that parties may continue such activities while inspections are ongoing.
The IAEA Board of Governors resolution in question does not find Iran in violation of any of its obligations under the NPT. In fact, GOV/2006/14 categorically recognizes that “Article IV of the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [NPT] stipulates that nothing in the Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable rights of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination….”
The IAEA resolution does not find Iran in violation of its obligations under the NPT, but merely “Expresses serious concern” that the Agency could not yet “clarify some important issues” and “Deeply regrets” that Iran had disinclined to acquiesce to requests to once again voluntarily suspend enrichment. Of course, there is no legal obligation for Iran to do so, and the IAEA resolution does nothing to suggest otherwise. It “Requests” that Iran “extend full and prompt cooperation to the Agency”. The IAEA may request that Iran halt legitimate enrichment activities, but has no legal authority to demand that it do so.
So the authority of U.N. resolution 1696 demanding that Iran halt enrichment activities is based upon the authority of an IAEA resolution requesting that Iran do so while also expressly recognizing Iran’s “inalienable right” to continue said activities. This is the “context” of the relevant clause in 1696 forming the basis for the argument that Iran’s enrichment activities are illegal. Since in passing 1696 the U.N. took an IAEA request that Iran voluntarily halt said activities and falsely gave it the appearance of a legal obligation, this operative clause is therefore moot.
The lack of legal authority of the U.N. to demand that Iran halt its enrichment activities becomes even more apparent in recognizing the fact that 1696 was passed acting under Article 40 of Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. Article 40 states that the Security Council may “call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable”. But there are two caveats to this clause to consider.
First, the context, given in Article 39, is in cases where the Security Council has determined “the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression”. If such a threat is determined to exist, the Security Council may make recommendations or decide upon further measures to be taken, but before doing so may “call upon” parties to take said provisional measures under Article 40. The U.N. Security Council, lacking evidence of proscribed activities, has not determined that Iran’s nuclear program constitutes a “threat to the peace” or a “breach of the peace”, or that Iran has engaged in any “act of aggression”.
Second, and perhaps even more importantly, Article 40 also clearly states that such provisional measures parties determined to pose a threat to peace are expected to abide by “shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned.” That would include Iran’s “inalienable right” under the NPT to continue enrichment activities for its civilian nuclear program operating under the IAEA safeguards system.
There’s a final point to consider. Assume, for argument’s sake, that Iran was found to be developing a nuclear weapons program and that the U.N. Security Council had passed a legitimate and legally binding resolution demanding that Iran cease this activity. The fact would remain that U.S. policy towards Iran, while in the hypothetical justified, would still reveal its glaring hypocrisy, considering its silence on the matter of the only state in the Middle East known to actually have a nuclear weapons program. Iran has in fact appealed to the U.S. to cooperate in making the Middle East a nuclear-free zone. But that would mean a shift in U.S. policy towards Israel and a cessation of its financial, military, and diplomatic support to the nuclear-armed Jewish State. So the proposal was summarily rejected.
One corollary might be that U.S. policy towards Iran is drastic need of reassessment. One might have hoped that such a policy review would occur under the Obama administration, but the new administration has already made it clear that it would continue the same policy as the Bush administration in demanding that Iran end its enrichment activities before entering negotiations on the matter; translated into meaningful terms, that means the U.S., contrary to Obama’s campaign rhetoric, will not engage in diplomacy with Iran on the nuclear issue, but instead continue to issue ultimatums.
The complicity of the mainstream corporate media in the West in constructing the framework wherein U.S. policy actually sounds somewhat reasonable is in large part the reason why such a hypocritical and erroneous policy is allowed to continue.
It should also be pointed out that the UNSC resolutions are ultra vires, even if taken under Art 39, since Iran’s right to enrich uranium is not derived from the NPT, but is instead a sovereign right that supersedes the NPT. The NPT merely recognizes that right, it does grant that right. That’s why countries which have not signed the NPT or which developed their nuclear programs prior to the NPT have perfectly legal nuclear programs too. Under the terms of the NPT, Iran did not agree to forsake nuclear enrichment if found in violation. Iran has merely agreed not to build nukes and allow IAEA verification of that commitment. THus far, Iran has lived up to that obligation too. Therefore, demands that Iran give up its nuclear program are themselves illegal. THe UNSC is bound by customary international law and cannot violate jus cogens, by demanding that a country agree to a treaty or give up a sovereign right.
“The NPT merely recognizes that right, it does grant that right.”
Correct.
The article says that “Iran engaged E.U. member states, but when nothing came of the talks and negotiations over Iran’s program stalled, Iran resumed its activities, which it had every right to do under the NPT.” That is not the complete picture. After two years of negotiations, which the EU stalled time and again, and after Iran insisted that EU comes out with its final document regarding the Iranian nuclear program, the EU demanded in writing, that Iran suspend all enrichment activities indefinitely, and commit in writing that it will never have any enrichment programs. Furthermore, EU demanded that all nuclear physics related studies at all Iranian universities and educational institutions close down indefinitely. As for Obama, the article says that it is pursuing the Bush administration’s policy toward Iran. That is also half the story. While Bush clearly stated that America and its allies were trying to prevent Iran from acquiring the knowledge to build a nuclear weapon in some future scenario, Obama just refers to the Iranian nuclear industry as the Iranian nuclear weapons program, and asserts that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Given the imbecile that everyone knew Bush was, and the top university law professor that Obama was, that is very disturbing. It would be more fitting for the article to point out that Obama is pursuing the neoconservative devised plan of appearing as having given Iran the chance for engagement and consensus with the West, blown apart only by Iran’s intransigence. That plan is set into motion, with America’s offer of direct negotiation with Iran through the 5+1 meetings. The even more correct description of Obama’s administration would be a neconservative agenda backed by the intelligence of the liberal critics of the Bush administration, instead of the typical vile of the Bush supporters, which is more like the picture the world outside of America has of American governments, when the time comes for America to give and do its best.
The Western press is mainly owned by Jewish persons who will always compromise the values engrained in “free press ” principles for the sake of the state of Israel. Wolf Blitzer has earned his reward in Israel. And AIPAC has the US congress around its little finger for reasons that are not comprehensible. There is no reason why the world should collude with Israel in denying Iran the right to develop nuclear power plants.
There is another important point, and that is that all other demands by the UN, outside the safeguards against diversion, are without basis in the NPT, because the UN/IAEA is *EXCLUSIVELY* restricted to determining compliance in regard to diversion.
NPT: “Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency’s safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”
” AIPAC has the US congress around its little finger for reasons that are not comprehensible.” Try: endless funds for political contributions, recirculated from the steady stream of money sent to Israel, exempt from accountability.
Hi,
I just wanted to comment that I have never heard mention of monitoring electrical grids to determine if power is being diverted to a clandestine enrichment facility.
It seems to me that by monitoring the national grid it would be relatively simple to detect the huge loads that are required to spin the thousands of centrifuges that are needed to enrich diverted reactor fuel or into HEU.
I am not as familiar with centrifuge technology as I am with Gaseous Diffusion or Calutrons but I do know that much of this technology (magnets) runs on DC current that is at least in some instances, mechanically converted from AC current from the grid with huge power losses.
Maybe they don’t do it because it would be too obvious that Iran is in compliance.
IAEA and U.N agencies are proven to be an instrument of U.S. and allies. They have lost credibility and influence in the eyes of international community. Any reasonable man with an average IQ can decipher hypocrisy, double standard and injustices imposed by U.S. imperialism thru U.N resolutions. West demand for Iran to comply with illegal U.N resolutions while they think rest of the world lacks reasonable intelligence to question all those against Israel that are passed to no avail. What West is trying to achieve is to keep developing countries just ‘developing’ and never ‘developed.’
Iranians are well aware that this is all about strategic balance of power in the Persian Gulf and ME. To conspire to keep Iran weak in order to achieve Zionist objective. Iran is not Egypt, or Jordan or UAE or Qatar or Kuwait or Saudi; to be bought and slaved. Iran is a major sovereign country with significant weight, and a nationalistic zeal which does not want to depend on West for it enriched uranium. Iran knows very well the slaved U.S. agenda and will never ever allow to be pushed around. They are very pragmatic and remember their historical facts better. Politically, very sophisticated, militarily will fight till all die. The U.S. efforts to keep Iran a backward and dependant country like those of Arabs is futile.
They have exhibited more intelligence than us, during Bush dynasty. Iranians are very skilled negotiators and great chess players. At the end, U.S. will have to accept Iran as a nuclear power, sooner the better. Israel will have to make concessions towards Palestinians due to the very shift in this strategic balance of power and their extremist blood hungry behavior. U.S. Should rid itself of destructive AIPAC Zionist lobby’s agenda which is destructive to U.S. interests globally and which U.S. tax payers are paying a heavy price for. U.S. must rid itself of traitor neo- cons, once and for all. It is time for U.S. government to wake up and see the world not thru Zionist lens, but rather thru the lens of reality, justice and equality when dealing with Iran.
“What West is trying to achieve is to keep developing countries just ‘developing’ and never ‘developed.’”
Becoming “developed” would be fine, so long as the nation in question would be willing to take orders from Washington. Otherwise, this is essentially correct. I suggest William Blum’s “Killing Hope: U.S. CIA and Military Interventions Since WWII” for a history of examples.
Wonderful post:) Hope to come back soon:D
Brilliant post
I’m all for nuclear disarmament, but realistically, it is a utopian ideal. Even if Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, the U.S. goal should not be to alienate them as we are doing now. This would only drive any weapons program they might be pursuing further underground. If Iran is developing a bomb, let them do it out in the open, let them roll them down the street in a huge parade as nations like China do. At least then we will know they have a bomb, and we will be better able to hold them accountable for passing weapons or the technology to develop the weapons, to other nations or terrorist organizations. Isn’t that what the nations rattling their sabers are really concerned about anyway? Iran knows passing said technologies to the aforementioned would result in severe retaliation by the world community. Alienating them at this critical point in time is detrimental to our national security.
Tech Question:
Q
please post a little more about this topic
I admit, I have not been on this blog in a very long time. still it was one more delight to discover your excellent articles.
For a fictional, but pithy and no-nonsense, view of this situation, see the short story “In the Gulf” in The Real Thing & Other Tales, by James Baar, former business executive, Washington journalist, and co-author of four books on Cold War politics. http://tiny.cc/s6twz. (I have no commercial interest in the book; I just like the stories.)