The rights of Iranians vs. Iran's "right" to enrich nuclear materials

Sun, 06/14/2009 - 9:13am

At the very least, Iran's election results are under a cloud. But evidence certainly seems to be mounting that there was considerable intimidation, systematic efforts to quash the ability of the opposition campaign to spread its message in the days prior to the election, and likely voter fraud. Further, President Ahmadinejad certainly didn't do anything to help his already shredded credibility with his nonsensical Sunday news conference in which among other things he asserted Iranians weren't divided by the election while violent clashes took place in the streets.

These circumstances raise an important question. Given the apparent disregard for the rights of its own citizens exhibited by the Iranian regime, will the Obama administration rethink its stance vis á vis the Iranians?

The prevailing U.S. view, articulated by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair John Kerry last week, is that the Iranians have a "right" to uranium enrichment. Will we continue to honor such a supposed right now? The hopes of many reasonable Americans has long been that it would be possible to establish a dialogue with Iran given the country's diversity of opinions and its cosmopolitan traditions. But when democracy is seemingly crushed or at the very least undermined, the government defines itself by the degree to which it does not reflect the views of its citizens. Since governments rather than general populations control nuclear programs, shouldn't the recent events give us reason to reconsider our recent drift toward acceptance of Iran's nuclear aspirations?

That's a rhetorical question. Of course it should. We should not acknowledge international "rights" of countries that deny fundamental rights to their people. I would think that would be at the core of any Obama foreign policy (in fact, it seems to be with regard to Cuba, for example). Nor, as a practical matter, should the U.S. base critical proliferation decisions on the promises of countries that so callously break their fundamental promises to their citizens and then lie about it to the world. In fact, how about amending the Non-Proliferation Treaty to limit the right to the pursuit of peaceful nuclear programs only to democracies?

This election should lead us to meet with our allies and reconsider our approach to the Iranian nuclear question -- especially because through a major multilateral rebuff of the regime we might further weaken them in their own country, a place where the opposition seems so vital and poised to make such a promising change.

Photo: BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images

David Rothkopf | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

President Ahmadinejad is no Kim Jong-IL

by kimyongil on Sun, 06/14/2009 - 6:37pm

President Ahmadinejad, in spite of Iran’s support of Hisballah is no Kim Jong-IL. Many people have referred to Mr. Obama as a very educated, intelligent president. I must reserve judgment. The real test of his intelligence, in my opinion, will be if he can circumvent the Senate, Congress, and his security advisors and outwit Kim Jong-IL. Nuclear proliferation is not just a political matter. It could alter the course of world history. America has many enemies both foreign and domestic.

Therefore, it would be an act of supreme obedience for many of those member enemies to assist in the acquisition of any percent of a nuclear weapon. Also, Kim Jong-IL, in my opinion, has plans to proliferate nuclear weapons- not just the technology- it takes too long to build one and the process is very hard to keep secret.

Dealing with Mr. Kim is not going to be like the Bay of Pigs. Here is why: The enemies of America knows the US is the only country arrogant and bold enough to have actually used “the bomb” and they feel the US should not be the only one. This is not logic. This is not reason. This is pure enmity. This is my opinion based on years of observing world politics and current affairs. These enemies have also observed the offensive US military groped around the world under the banner of regime change, democracy, and preserving our way of life and pounced upon weaker, smaller nations: Iraq, Panama, Haiti, Granada, Vietnam, and Cambodia… Neither of these countries, in the minds of these enemies, were a threat to US security nor national interest.

His mission, should he choose to accept it, is to outwit Kim Jong-IL. Unfortunately its too late to stop him. If Mr.Osama is as intelligent as some thinks he is. This will be his most challenging mission. As always Osama, should you or any member of your security force be caught or captured, everyone involved will disavow any knowledge of their actions until years later- like with the invasion of Cambodia. This tape will not destruct in five seconds, good luck!

We need to invade them and

by AllanGreen on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 4:20am

We need to invade them and end this pathetic charade that is North Korea. Of course its China that will balk at our efforts, and all of China's business pals in the Congress will balk at any tough foreign policy in the peninsula.

Yup - Obama Husseino will go down as the man who led us to nuclear war. No doubt about it. He didn't understand the importance of any of this. And if he were to reverse, he would basically give up policy to some more militant camp.

Unfit, unprepared, illegitimate (no birth certificate!!!). Impeach the man who sold us down the river.

Are these the views of David J. Rothkopf?

by MDrew on Sun, 06/14/2009 - 10:03pm

Or are they not?

They are signed "Blake

by J Thomas on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 3:01am

They are signed "Blake Hounshell" who is almost certainly somebody other than David Rothkopf. Rothkopf has not commented on them.

So I think we should say there is no evidence that these are Rothkopf's views and if he agrees or disagrees he might tell us.

I suppose you are correct...

by MDrew on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 6:08am

But then again the name of the blog, if not always the blog author, is "David J. Rothkopf." Pondering the mysteries...

Truth in advertising...

by djrothkopf on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 2:28pm

Hello from Asia. The name on the blog is Rothkopf. The views are Rothkopf's. I know, what with being Rothkopf and all. BTW, I agree that the U.S. should not jump to conclusions re: the results of the Iranian elections. That said, if it turns out that we believe the election was fraudulent this should certainly color our view as to the reliability of the Iranians regarding other commitments and their word in general. Further, we ought to consider what we can do via international action to challenge Ahmadinejad and call him on the theft of the election. We ought to do what we can to help strengthen the opposition (knowing full well that we are likely to have deep differences with them). In short we ought to pursue whatever steps advance our national interests, strengthen our negotiating position and, not incidentally, support a just outcome or at least the airing of the truth. Fortunately, there are a number of courses of action in this respect that do all of these things. Rolling over and saying via our actions that there is no relationship between the actions of a government and whether we trust them on a critical issue, is a mistake. As for those who argue they are entitled to the peaceful pursuit of nuclear power via international agreement...they are. The issue is whether we feel they will live up to the terms of the agreement and that the issue is to serious to wait until they violate the agreement to take action. For example, the second amendment guarantees Americans the right to bear arms...but we cut out certain groups, like felons. If it works for a 22 caliber handgun it probably ought to work for atom bomb.

I agree that the U.S. should

by J Thomas on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 4:40pm

I agree that the U.S. should not jump to conclusions re: the results of the Iranian elections.

And yet everything else in your comment consists of conclusions you jump to....

As for those who argue they are entitled to the peaceful pursuit of nuclear power via international agreement...they are. The issue is whether we feel they will live up to the terms of the agreement and that the issue is to serious to wait until they violate the agreement to take action.

So, the issue is too important to live up to the treaty we signed.

Because we think they might violate it though we have no evidence whatsoever, and so we will break our NNPT treaty.

We promised that nations which agreed not to make nukes could get our help for peaceful reactors etc. They had to accept inspections to make sure they didn't cheat, and they'd get our help for civilian use of nuclear power. Anybody could drop out of the deal if they gave sufficent prior notice. That was the deal.

So now we want to break the deal. We don't want to give six months notice and drop out of it ourselves. We want to keep the deal with all the nations we like, but we break it on the ones we don't like. "Yeah, you signed the deal, you honored all the agreements, you did everything right. But you're out. I don't have any grounds for it except I just don't trust you. So no goodies for you, Bucko! Unless you can persuade me that you aren't trying to get nukes, unless you can persuade me with something better than evidence, I'm going to do whatever it takes to stop you."

And it occurs to me .... If we act this way with NNPT, why would any nation trust us to keep our word about anything else?

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/farr.htm

Israel used many subterfuges to conceal activity at Dimona. It called the plant a manganese plant, and rarely, a textile plant. The United States by the end of 1958 had taken pictures of the project from U-2 spy planes, and identified the site as a probable reactor complex. The concentration of Frenchmen was also impossible to hide from ground observers. In 1960, before the reactor was operating, France, now under the leadership of de Gaulle, reconsidered and decided to suspend the project. After several months of negotiation, they reached an agreement in November that allowed the reactor to proceed if Israel promised not to make nuclear weapons and to announce the project to the world. Work on the plutonium reprocessing plant halted. On 2 December 1960, before Israel could make announcements, the U.S. State Department issued a statement that Israel had a secret nuclear installation. By 16 December, this became public knowledge with its appearance in the New York Times. On 21 December, Ben-Gurion announced that Israel was building a 24-megawatt reactor “for peaceful purposes.”[22]

Over the next year, relations between the U.S. and Israel became strained over the Dimona reactor. The U.S. accepted Israel's assertions at face value publicly, but exerted pressure privately. Although Israel allowed a cursory inspection by well known American physicists Eugene Wigner and I. I. Rabi, Prime Minister Ben-Gurion consistently refused to allow regular international inspections. The final resolution between the U.S. and Israel was a commitment from Israel to use the facility for peaceful purposes, and to admit an U.S. inspection team twice a year. These inspections began in 1962 and continued until 1969. Inspectors saw only the above ground part of the buildings, not the many levels underground and the visit frequency was never more than once a year. The above ground areas had simulated control rooms, and access to the underground areas was kept hidden while the inspectors were present. Elevators leading to the secret underground plutonium reprocessing plant were actually bricked over.[23] ....

One interpretation of Ben-Gurion's “peaceful purposes” pledge given to America is that he interpreted it to mean that nuclear weapon development was not excluded if used strictly for defensive, and not offensive purposes.

It's clear why israelis are absolutely convinced that iranians are building bombs, in the absence of any evidence. It's what they did themselves. They cheated, they lied, they bricked over secret tunnels to fool inspectors.

They naturally think that their enemies have no honor either.

Your concerns are sane, but this is a bad analogy

by MDrew on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 11:58pm

For example, the second amendment guarantees Americans the right to bear arms...but we cut out certain groups, like felons. If it works for a 22 caliber handgun it probably ought to work for atom bomb.

Treaties are like contracts (you might almost say they are contracts): they apply to named parties for a given duration, the conditions and actions leading to breach of the agreement are laid down within them, and any arbiter of the contract is constrained by the terms of the contract in settling disputes. (The terms of the contract itself have to be consistent with relevant law, but within that interpretation doesn't admit of considerations outside the four corners of the agreement.) Contrariwise, rights guaranteed by constitutions or other governmental law are blanket grants to all members of the polity indefinitely, often using vague or overbroad language and hence are subject to -- cry out for -- interpretation and definition of scope and limitation by the courts. Granters of rights -- legislators, constitutional authors -- can't envision anything like every scenario that will come under the authority of the given provision. Contracts, on the other hand seek to do just exactly that.

None of this is to argue against prudence in dealing with Iran. But if prudence leads us to be in breach of past agreements, it is intellectually dishonest to try to paper that over by poor legal analogy.

Moreover, as usual it is nearly impossible to pin you down about just where you ultimately stand on a sensitive issue -- your view is basically shrouded in the hedging, nuance, and almost-but-not-quite-saying-things. But if I've got you right, you're not rejecting out of hand Obama's preferred approach, but you are calling for vigilance and prudence. My question then is whether you intend the implication that Obama did not already intend to proceed with caution and no illusions. Did you not believe his repeated assurance that he would?

We were just unsure

by MDrew on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 11:25pm

...because a different name did in fact appear at the bottom of the post initially (now changed), as J Thomas recounts. I never had much real doubt it was you.

Obama chicken-shits

by AllanGreen on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 4:17am

This is where Obamoid will show us that he is chicken-shit, and that he blinks.

He will not utter a single effective word, phrase, or sentence to the Mousavi camp, in support of democracy.

Outreach to Iran - clearly means outreach to tyrants and blood-suckers.

Let's watch as European states keep mum - all our good allies chicken-shitting on democracy.

Hey - its fun being a hypocrite.

Up till now I was for Iran's right to civilian energy, but I think I'm on the same page as you David.

Ahmenidejad stole this one, with the help of a terrorist organization known as the Revolutionary Guards.

It is our duty, as American's, to support the Democratic movement in Iran. We need to show our immediate support for those struggling for Democracy in Iran- and declare a naval blockade.

Oh for pete's sake. In 2000

by J Thomas on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 8:02am

Oh for pete's sake.

In 2000 and 2004 we didn't decide the elections were stolen after three days and talk about naval blockades. We used due process, we tried to figure out what happened, and in the end we just shrugged and did nothing.

Why would we care more about democracy in a foreign nation than we do in our own?

You don't know what happened. Give it some time to find out. If you get all bent out of shape over the very first propaganda reports people will think you're excitable.