Ahmadinejad did not address UN security on Nuclear matter

[greatcalgarian]

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had said that he wanted to join the Security Council session in order to address members before they voted on the new sanctions.

However, he did not attend because, Iranian officials said, the US delayed issuing visas. The US say the visas were issued and the Iranian leader was looking for an excuse not to come.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6492139.stm

UN has been described as a toothless tiger. Again we see the failure of UN bringing a peaceful solution to Iran nuclear energy crisis.
UN did not have any say over how US handled the N Korea nuclear crisis, and we ended up with N Korea 'successfully' developed and test blasted some nuclear device.
In the case of Iran, Ahmadinejad has declared Iran is developing nuclear technology for peaceful nuclear energy application, why is there no way the UN being able to monitor and cooperate with Iran to ensure what Iran says will be what she is going to do? Why this confrontational attitude of attempting to use sanction etc and approach the problem with antagonistic attitude?
Do you think US is worried about Ahmadinejad past sincere and powerful speeches will sway the members of the security council and in the end will not be able to obtain the 'unanimous' vote that US wanted? Or is it Ahmadinjad has chickened out, and gave excuses of US not providing the VISA in time for him to address the UN?

What do you think?

 

[greatcalgarian]

Does it mean that if Iran agrees with UN to stop uranium enrichment, she will be helped to carry out the following activities?

The U.N. Security Council imposed new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, expanding on sanctions approved in December. The key points of the new measures:

- A ban on Iranian arms exports and on any country buying Iranian weapons.

- A call on all nations "to exercise vigilance and restraint" in supplying tanks, combat aircraft and other heavy weapons to Iran.

- An asset freeze on 15 individuals and 13 organizations and companies.

- A call on all governments and financial institutions not to make any new commitments "of grants, financial assistance, or concessional loans" to the Iranian government.

- A call on all countries to exercise "vigilance and restraint" on the entry or transit through their territory of the individuals who provide support or are involved with Iran's nuclear activities.

- A requirement that all countries report the transit or entry of any of people whose assets have been frozen to the Security Council committee monitoring sanctions against Iran.

For example, Iran can purchase as much of the war weapon such as tanks, aircraft, heavy weapon etc, and she can then use those on Iraq or Israel, and these weapons are good for Iran to have, but not the nuclear energy for peaceful use?

 

[greatcalgarian]

Is Russia cooperating with US, or is Russia trying to blackmail Iran to get more money out from this deal?

But staunchly absent from Ahmadinejad's speech was any mention of Russia's decision Monday to postpone a crucial shipment of fuel for the Russian-built nuclear reactor at Bushehr because of Iran's payment delays.

Without Russian uranium, the plant cannot begin generating electricity by September as planned. Iran had expected a fully operational Bushehr to boost its nuclear negotiating position.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/14/africa/ME-GEN-Iran-Nuclear.php

Meanwhile, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, told reporters that Iran expects Russia to fulfill its commitments and ship the fuel to Bushehr. He claimed Russia's shipment and the uranium enrichment were unrelated issues.

"The Russian government should solve this problem," the state Irna news agency quoted Larijani as saying. "This issue (enrichment) is not related to Bushehr case."

Atomstroiexport, the Russia's state-run company building Bushehr, said it had received no payments since mid-January and warned the delays may cause "irretrievable" damage to the project if the Iranian side "doesn't resume funding."

The company said in a statement Wednesday it had difficulties in appeasing subcontractors demanding urgent payments and added it would continue works in Bushehr "relying on Iran to show common sense and resume funding."

Tehran state-run radio said in a commentary that the Russian delay would "not cost Iran anything and the country will eventually achieve the know-how for building a (nuclear) power plant."

 

[greatcalgarian]

Iran also says it will never give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, says that while there is no evidence to prove Iran's nuclear program has diverted toward weapons, Tehran has stepped up enrichment rather than halt it.

No evidence of program being diverted toward weapons, other than Tehran has not halted the enrichment (why should they if it is within the nuclear non proliferation right and agreement), how can you 'predict' that Iran is developing nuclear weapon? What is the use of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

 

[greatcalgarian]

Washington claimed that other countries are breaking Nuclear Proliferation Treaty:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/38058.htm

A world in which countries can ignore their commitments is a world more dangerous for all of us. The pretense of arms control in which Parties do not insist on full compliance is a threat to all, for it not only fails to control proliferation, but also can provide a false sense of security that constrains only honest countries.

Failure by the international community to hold states such as Iran and North Korea accountable for their noncompliance would not be lost upon other would-be violators. While Libya’s welcome example in renouncing its former pursuit of weapons of mass destruction points to the benefits of compliance, failing to address Iranian and North Korean noncompliance today will tempt others to confront the international community by challenging the credibility of the NPT.

Taking stronger collective action now to bring violators into compliance is necessary to help ensure that future generations live in a world made safer by controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

What about US herself?

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0311-NPT.html

The U.S. is violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by attempting to block Iran's efforts to produce enriched uranium--provided it is used to produce electric energy as Iran states--while the U.S. itself is planning a new generation of nuclear weapons.

The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty entered into force on March 5, 1970 when 187 parties joined the Treaty, including the then five nuclear-weapon states: United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China. More states have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement.

Israel, Pakistan and India never signed the treaty and have since acquired nuclear weapons. Among these, Israel is believed to have the largest nuclear weapons stockpile estimated at 200 to 400 weapons.

Article 14 of UN Security Council Resolution 687, passed in 1991 at the conculusion of the Gulf War, has "the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons." The UN has failed to move Israel toward this goal.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty was to be reviewed every five years, a provision which was reaffirmed by the States parties at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. At this Conference, the treaty was indefinitely extended.

Unlike Iran, whose nuclear facilities are open to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.S. has consistently shielded Israel from pressures to sign the Treaty, and/or to open its facilities to inspection by the IAEA.

 

[greatcalgarian]

In February of this year, the IAEA Board of Governors decided to submit a report to the U.N. Security Council on its difficulties with Iran. In its referral to the Security Council, the Board of Governors noted Iran’s “many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement ....”[3]

This is the basis on which US is doing the sanctioning on Iran. This report was submitted in February, but when did US accused Iran of secretly doing the nuclear weapon?

http://www.asil.org/insights/2006/05/insights060530.html

That is how US law is interpreting international affairs.

 

[greatcalgarian]

What is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty?

The NPT, which has 187 signatories, was created to prevent new nuclear states emerging, to promote co-operation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to work towards nuclear disarmament.

When it came into force in 1970, there were five declared nuclear states - the US, The Soviet Union (now Russia), China, Britain and France. These states are bound not to transfer nuclear weapons or to help non-nuclear states to obtain them.

Non-nuclear signatories agree not to seek to develop or acquire such weapons. In return, they are given an undertaking that they will be helped to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Israel never signed the Treaty, and nobody says anything, and who knows how many nuclear bombs Israel is having now.

Iran sign the treaty, allows inspection, but now is facing sanction, and Russia is forced to stop the supply of fuel for the peaceful generation of nuclear energy?

 

[greatcalgarian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4491003.stm

Is the problem of Iran caused by Iran alone? Or is there really a problem?

 

[greatcalgarian]

BBC is honest in this assessment:

What pressure is being put on these states?

The Security Council has imposed restrictions on trade in arms and luxury goods with North Korea. Even though North Korea has left the NPT, and therefore in theory has the right to do what it wants, the Council has a right to act because it regards North Korea as a threat to international security.

No UN sanctions have been imposed on India and Pakistan after their 1998 nuclear tests partly because they are not in the NPT and are therefore under no obligations. But they also have had and have powerful friends in Russia and the United States who would have vetoed Security Council sanctions.

The US is supportive of Pakistan, whose help it needs in its war on terror. Even when the Pakistani scientist A Q Khan was found in 2004 to have secretly provided nuclear weapons technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, Pakistan was not punished by the US.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was an ally of India but more recently the US has come closer to India, seeing it as a stable, democratic and increasingly important regional power.

It has signalled its acceptance that India is now a nuclear-armed state. The two countries reached an agreement under which the US lifted a ban on trade in civilian nuclear technology and India agreed to accept IAEA inspection of its civilian nuclear sites.

Israel comes under pressure from other Middle East states but is supported by the United States, which would stop any moves in the UN to impose sanctions.

Are double standards operating against some countries

But this one has more to say:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11544

 

[greatcalgarian]

And this is another view on the treaty:

The 188 signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) gathered in New York Monday for another review of the contentious regime. People have started making noises about it, but it's going to be quite predictable. A whole load of documents will be produced prior to the review conference; the pacifists and left-leaning folks will demonstrate vociferously; North Korea and Iran will be hauled over the coals for daring to want nuclear weapons; Israel will maintain a discreet silence; India will bellow about unfair treatment; Pakistan will squirm about its proliferation history; the United States will tie itself in knots trying to navigate some extremely contradictory policy shoals; France will be petulant; the United Kingdom will be diplomatically active; Russia will be lost as usual; the conference will end with some high-sounding declaration, and that will be it. Frankly, if you ask me, it's a complete crock, and the treaty should be torn up.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GE03Aa01.html