Iran's uranium enrichment program: the REAL issue.

According to news reports, Iran today announced that it has developed 4000 centrifuges, and this is supposed to be a cause for "concern" because "Western nations" supposedly "fear that Iran's nuclear program is intended to make bombs."

But that's not really the issue and it never was. Framing the issue as "Iran can make nukes" is a convenient pretext.  What's driving this process is not fear of nuclear weapons proliferation, but plain old greed: a conflict between developing and developed countries over control of nuclear fuel production technology that started right after the NPT was signed, long before Iran started enriching uranium. Iran is being forced to give up nuclear fuel production technology to set a precedent against other developing nations.

Article IV of the NPT

When the NonProliferation Treat was signed, it created two classes of countries with respect to nuclear weapons: 5 nuclear-armed countries (Russia, China, US, Britain, France) and everyone else that were the non-nuclear armed countries.  Article IV of the treaty explicitly reminded everyone that by signing the NPT, the non-nuclear armed countries had ONLY agreed to not make nuclear weapons -- they had not given up any other rights regarding their nuclear program, and in exchange they were promised that the nuclear-armed countries would (eventually) get rid of their own nukes, and in the meantime would share access civilian nuclear technology. Article IV of the NPT affirms that all states party to the Treaty in good standing have a right to benefit from the peaceful uses of nuclear power.  It further commits the parties to cooperate with one another in the "fullest possible exchange" of nuclear equipment, materials, and information for peaceful purposes - without discrimination. 

The language of Article IV was drafted specifically to addresses the concerns of developing nations that the NPT would not be used to create two classes of countries when it came to civilian nuclear technology. The initial drafts of the article were vague but the developing nations specifically pressed to the firm-up the wording -- by adding the world "facilitate" for example -- inorder to emphasize the the NPT required an active commitment by the nuclear-armed countries to share nuclear technology.

The NSG and Monopolization of Nuclear Fuel Production

Of course, the nuclear armed countries have since then blatantly violated all of their obligations under the NPT. They have plainly refused to disarm, and are instead making more nukes. With respect to sharin nuclear technology, they simply claimed that Article IV language did not "obligate" them to do so. Specifically, in 1975, the "Nuclear Suppliers Group" was formed, which is essentially an informal club of countries that have nuclear technology. They agreed not to share certain "sensitive" civilian nuclear technologies with other countries, especially not nuclear enrichment technology. This was supposedly motivated by India's test of a nuclear device in 1974 -- but note the irony: India was not a signatory to the NPT anyway.

So, in other words, the Nuclear Suppliers Group used the conduct of a non-NPT member, to undermine their legal committments to other members of the NPT.

The developing countries have long been quite upset about this arbitrary decision to form an extra-legal limitation on Article IV commitments. And ever since then, they've been fighting against the use of the non-proliferation pretext to justify creating a nuclear fuel monopoly.

International Reaction

In reaction to the formation of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (and the Carter administration's efforts to limit sharing nuclear technology) the Final Document of the United Nations General Assembly resolution S-10/2 which was adopted at the 27th plenary meeting of the tenth special session on 30 June 1978 stated in paragraph 69:

 "Each country's choices and decisions in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear energy should be respected without jeopardizing its policies or international cooperation agreements and arrangements for peaceful uses of nuclear energy and its fuel-cycle policies". 

 This language was reiterated in the final document of the 1980 NPT Review Conference and  has been consistently reiterated in every Review Conference since then, including the 1995 Review Conference , the 2000 NPT Review Conference and in the Final Document of the 10th Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly in 2002.

So, when some claim that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium in opposition to the "will of the international community" you should wonder what the will of the international community really consists of.

I don' have time to blog about this issue in further detail suffice it to say that several countries have made various proposals to limit and restrict the distribution of nuclear enrichment technology  -- all of them, incidentally, would be "fuel providers" under their own proposals -- and have tried to allay the fears of developing countries that such restrictions would amount to a monopolization of nuclear fuel production. But the devil is in the details of their proposals. For example, they have offered to create a multinational fuel bank to guarantee against interruptions of nuclear fuel supplies so developing nations would not have to worry about fuel cutoffs. However, the developing counties are not worried about 'cut off' of nuclear fuel - they're worried about the developing states charging too much for their nuclear fuel by forming a monopoly. Under the fuel bank proposals, developing countries would ONLY have the right to access these nuclear fuel supplies in cases of CUTOFFS of delivery - not because the states selling nuclear fuel are charging too much. Similarly, the supposedly 'multinational enrichment' facilities proposed are not really 'multinational' and would discriminate against the developing states.

In 2004 the Bush administration revived the efforts to place arbitrary restrictions on the distribution of nuclear enirhment technology too. According to a 2004 analysis by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies:

"Many NPT state parties, particularly those from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), have already stated their opposition to President Bush’s proposals to restrict enrichment. In their view, precluding states from developing enrichment and reprocessing capabilities contradicts an important tenet of the NPT-that is, the deal made by the nuclear weapon states (NWS) to the non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS).  Article IV of the NPT states that NNWS have the inalienable right to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, a right intended to provide an incentive for NNWS to give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Bush proposals, however, introduce another element into the nonproliferation regime by segmenting countries into those that can engage in enrichment and reprocessing and those that cannot. Since most states with fuel cycle capabilities are from the developed world, it is clear that the target group of the proposal is the developing world."

In short, whenever the media tries to frame the debate about Iran's nuclear program as "Western states fear Iran is making nukes" you should read that as really saying "Western states want to monopolize nuclear fuel production and are using the trumped up 'fear' of Iran as a pretext".

Israel has a role in this conflict. Israel sees Iran as a competitor and blockage to its desire to dominate the mideast. An economically secure Iran with a reliable source of nuclear fuel to power its industries in the future which is also viewed as being technologically advanced etc. would - in Israeli eyes -- be a threat to Israel's ambitions for regional domination. It would also pose a risk that the US would start to get along with Iran -- in which case, who needs Israel. So the Israelis have been raising a hue and cry about how "threatened" they are by Iran's non-existent nukes, playing the victim as usual while pushing for a war between the US and Iran.

Anyway, gotta run.

Comments

[Amir]

Thanks for your post. However, I think you are exaggerating the role of fuel producers (i.e. private or governmental companies that produce nuclear fuel). My reasoning may become clearer when you try to answer this question:

"Why should western governments go out of their way and abandon lucrative oil&gas deals by sanctioning Iran? Just to have a monopoly on N. fuel?"

I think Israel has more role in this conflict than just 1 paragraph at the end. My speculation is that Iran gets a strategic boost by gaining nuclear technology (I emphasize: technology, not bomb). This strategic boost is going to overshadow Israel's dominance (because even without any evidence of a nuclear weapons program, one may guess that Iran has built or can easily build nuclear weapons). And this balances Israel's major magic power.

This is exactly why Israel is doing its best to stir up and sour relationship between Iran and the West. This is why Israel is pushing the US into a conflict with Iran.

(Cyrus responds: the oil companies may not like this policy, but they don't necessarily have control over it. Also, Iranian oil contracts are not as lucrative as they used to be since Iran doesn't provide ownership of the oil in the ground. The Conoco Affair showed that Israeli lobbying trumps the influence of the oil companies anyway.)

[Cyrus]

I know "these facts" quite well, Saint Michael Traveler, and I suggest you do more than read just one book. For example you could visit this blog entry in which I provide details of the US support and participation in Iran's nuclear program under the Shah:

http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2006/05/blasts_from_the.html

However, note that was before 1978 -- when the Nuclear Suppliers groups adopted measures to illegaly restrict enrichment technology.

[Saint Michael Traveler]

You should know that our problem with Iran has nothing to do with the infant Iranian Nuclear Fuel Cycle.

“In 1978, Iran had the fourth largest nuclear power program in the world and the largest by far among Third World nations. The Shah’s plan called for the installation of 20 nuclear power reactors by 1995, to provide some 23,000 megawatts of electricity. The Shah saw nuclear electricity as the rational means to diversify Iran’s dependence on petroleum, and as means to counter the enormous pressure from Washington and London to recycle his petrodollars to New York and London banks.”

Shah was supported by USA.

If you do not know these facts, may be you should read the following book:

"A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order", by William Engdahl, is a perspective on oil and politics, and how the two have been linked for the past 100 years.

The book is a great primer for anyone interested in preventing wars and understanding the role of men who shaped the last 150 years of our history especially in the Middle East. The book is revelations to the crimes that were committed and were allowed to kill thousands incent people under a bogus banner of rightness and democracy. Please read excerpt of this book in: USA and England: reshaping the Middle Eastern landscape.

http://stmichaeltraveler.wordpress.com/2008/08/17/usa-and-england-reshaping-the-middle-eastern-landscape/

The book is about Hitler, Germany, Israel, Iran, Russia, France, England, and USA.
You will be surprised to learn who provided money for Hitler’s ascending to power.

[mb]

Another excellent and succinct post. Thank you Cyrus. Iran even asked other nations to assist her with the enrichment of uranium inside Iran under the auspices of UN, US, and EU. It was flatly refused. So their concern is not about Iran with nuclear weapons; it is about Iran with the knowledge to enrich for civilian purposes therefore jeopardizing the world and Mid East hegemonic intentions of US and Israel.