It seems to me that one has to comply with a treaty himself before complaining that others are not complying. Incidentally, Iran says the violation of its rights under the "Guarantee Clause" are the reasons it was secretive in its disclosures.
_________________________________________________________________
U.S. – Iran rift threatens New York nuclear meet 5/2/2005 12:30:00 PM GMT
With delegates from some 190 countries convening to salvage the 1970 non-proliferation treaty (NPT), the chances of halting the global spread of nuclear weapons appear slim.
The rift between nuclear and non-nuclear states and between the U.S. and Iran in particular is so serious that a final agenda had still not been agreed on the eve of the month-long conference in New York, despite frantic shuttle diplomacy by its Brazilian chairman, Sergio de Queiroz Duarte.
"If we could get out of this conference without a major blow-up we would be doing well," said Matt Martin, a deputy director of the British American Security Information Council, a transatlantic think tank.
Both sides agree the NPT is outdated, but the main differences are on how it could be strengthened. The U.S., supported by Britain and France, wants stricter controls on the transfer of nuclear technology.
The non-nuclear states, which met separately in Mexico City last week to agree a common position, argue more emphasis should be put on banning the development of new weapons by the existing nuclear powers.
And there is disagreement on the NPT's third pillar: the clauses guaranteeing non-nuclear states access to "peaceful" nuclear power technology if they forgo nuclear arsenals.
According to Daryl Kimball, the head of the independent Arms Control Association, "The politics of the conference make it clear the treaty cannot continue and cannot be strengthened unless all three legs of the bargain can be preserved."
Iran believes the NPT's nuclear power clauses give it the right to enrich its own uranium or produce plutonium as long as it is intended for peaceful use, something which Iran insists it is following.
But the U.S. says Iran is abusing its rights by using the NPT as a cover to go to the brink of weapons production with the intention of withdrawing abruptly from the treaty at a time of its choosing and assembling weapons within weeks, a strategy which North Korea has already pursued.
The U.S. also claims that Tehran has forfeited any rights it might have as an NPT signatory by misleading the International Atomic Energy Agency over the extent of its uranium enrichment programme.
The EU 3; Britain, France and Germany, who have been holding talks with Tehran aimed at providing it with incentives to give up its uranium enrichment programme, are concerned the NPT conference will turn into a shouting match between the U.S. and Iran and therefore destabilise their precarious negotiations. Tehran said on Friday the talks had made so little progress so far it might end its temporary uranium enrichment suspension.
At the Mexico City meeting, delegates complained the IAEA spent its time monitoring compliance by the non-nuclear states, while the nuclear powers had failed to live up to the commitments they made the last two NPT reviews, in 1995 and 2000.
For the past two years the Bush administration has been trying to persuade Congress to fund research on a new generation of weapons, including small-yield "mini-nukes" and nuclear "bunker-busters".
The U.S. signed a bilateral arms control treaty with Russia in 2002, aimed at sharply reducing the number of operationally deployed warheads by 2012. However, the weapons don't have to be destroyed, only mothballed, and there are no verification procedures.
Washington has also signalled it has no intention of joining the comprehensive test ban treaty, or sign a verifiable accord which ends the production of new fissile material intended for nuclear weapons. Both were pledges it made in 2000.
"If one state begins to reject commitments it made at past review conferences, other states may start to reject prior commitments. The non-proliferation treaty will quickly erode," Kimball says.
"If the states do not take serious action on a number of key fronts in the next five years, it is likely the treaty will not be able to withstand these challenges and we will see additional states withdraw from the NPT. The crisis is not quite here but it's fast approaching." |
