Israel rejects call to join anti-nuclear treaty

May 29, 2010

Reuters

Israel on Saturday rejected as "flawed and hypocritical" a declaration by signatories of a global anti-nuclear arms treaty that urged it to sign the pact and make its atomic facilities subject to U.N. inspections.

All 189 parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the United States, called on Friday in a declaration that singled out Israel for a conference in 2012 to discuss banning weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

"As a non-signatory state of the NPT, Israel is not obligated by the decisions of this conference, which has no authority over Israel," the Israeli government said in an emailed statement.

"Given the distorted nature of this resolution, Israel will not be able to take part in its implementation," it said.

The 28-page declaration said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and key states would arrange a conference that would include all nations in the region, by implication including bitter enemies Israel and Iran.

Israel is presumed to have a sizable nuclear arsenal but neither confirms nor denies it. It is the only Middle East state that has not signed the NPT and, like fellow non-members India and Pakistan, did not take part in the review conference.

U.S. officials, irked at efforts to single out Israel, made clear the proposal might go nowhere, saying the Middle East could not be declared WMD-free until broad Arab-Israeli peace prevailed and Iran curbed its uranium enrichment programme.

"HYPOCRITICAL"

Alluding to this point, the Israeli statement said: "This resolution is deeply flawed and hypocritical. It ignores the realities of the Middle East and the real threats facing the region and the entire world."

Iran was not mentioned in the NPT declaration.

Israel and Western powers suspect Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons capability due to its past concealment of nuclear activity from the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency and continued restrictions on IAEA access.

Tehran says it is enriching uranium only to generate electricity and isotopes for agriculture and medical treatment.

The Israeli statement said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would discuss the NPT declaration with President Barack Obama when the two leaders meet on Tuesday at the White House.

Obama welcomed agreements on a range of non-proliferation issues at the NPT meeting but said he would oppose efforts to isolate Israel and any actions to jeopardize its security.

Israel, whose jets bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 and mounted a similar sortie over Syria in 2007, has hinted that it could use force to deny Iran the means to build an atomic bomb.

The Israeli government statement said: "The real problem with WMDs in the Middle East does not relate to Israel but to those countries that have signed the NPT and brazenly violated it: Iraq under Saddam, Libya, Syria and Iran."

Libya in 2003 ended years of international isolation after it promised to give up nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and has followed through on those promises.

(Writing by Joseph Nasr, Editing by Mark Heinrich)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64S1ZN20100529

India, U.S. seek to bridge prickly gaps in ties

May 31, 2010

Reuters

India and the United States this week hold their first strategic dialogue, testing a pledge from the Obama administration that it really does consider New Delhi a global partner.

New Delhi is keen for the June 2-3 talks to go beyond mere symbolism and tackle tricky issues such as the tighter U.S. relationship with Islamabad, due to strategic concerns over the conflict in Afghanistan and the potential for instability in Pakistan.

Washington, in turn, will look for assurances that India is on track to open its vast market in power plants to U.S. firms, narrowing differences over trade and climate change, as well as getting New Delhi's cooperation to sanction Iran over its nuclear program.

"The Indian complaint is that the Obama administration has done all the right things at the level of symbols, but at the level of substance the proof is still wanting," said Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

India is widely seen as a key geopolitical player for stability in South Asia, as well as playing a bigger role on global issues such as climate change and trade.

President Barack Obama has called India an indispensable partner. But the ties have lacked a central theme, such as the civilian nuclear pact that defined the relationship during the presidency of George W. Bush.

The talks led by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Indian counterpart S.M. Krishna will focus on five areas -- strategic cooperation, energy, climate change, education/ development, trade and agriculture -- and also include deeper cooperation on security and intelligence.

"There is a commitment there, but we have yet to see the kind of dedicated focus and the motivation within the bureaucracy to really get down to the nuts and bolts of fleshing out the strategic dialogue," said Lisa Curtis, a South Asia analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

NETTLESOME ISSUES

President Bill Clinton started U.S. efforts to build ties with modern India when the Cold War ended nearly two decades ago and India began to liberalize its economy in the 1990s.

His successor George Bush elevated relations with a 2008 civilian nuclear deal that ended an embargo imposed in 1974 after New Delhi tested a nuclear bomb. Bilateral trade shot up from $5.6 billion in 1990 to $43 billion in 2008.

But New Delhi is concerned about the U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, in which it has allied with Pakistan, seeing it as giving Islamabad more influence in Afghanistan at the expense of India.

"A fundamental disconnect has emerged between U.S. and Indian interests in Af-Pak," said Harsh Pant of King's College, London.

Among other nettlesome issues, Washington will be keen to get India to back its move on sanctions against Iran, something that New Delhi has so far refused to endorse.

The United States has clashed with Brazil and Turkey, which oppose sanctions against Tehran. As a major G20 member India's view would be crucial for Washington.

The dialogue will also focus on India expediting a bill giving accident liability protection to American firms, opening up retail trade, and cooperating on climate change positions.

By Krittivas Mukherjee

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64U0L920100531?type=politicsNews

N-liability Bill, a dampener on power PSUs

 May 31, 2010

 The financial express

India’s public sector nuclear power generators could find themselves on an unequal footing with builders of nuclear reactors, as the onus of any nuclear accident will fall solely on these PSUs and the government.

The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2009 introduced in Parliament recently, allows private suppliers of equipment and project contractors to go scot-free in case of nuclear mishaps. For public sector Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) and the Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Ltd looking at the business opportunities in nuclear power generation, the proposed discriminatory policy is a dampener.

With India planning to increase its nuclear power generation from the present 4,120 mw to 60,000 mw by 2030, the market is wide open for international players. It is estimated that the country would need about 50 to 60 new nuclear power plants, each costing $4-5 billion in capital investments. The potential of the nuclear market in India is estimated at $200-250 billion.

Most foreign companies which are keen to explore opportunities for the supply of nuclear reactors and other equipment in the proposed addition have already made a strong pitch for India joining the international convention on civil liability. Areva, GE, Westinghouse and Rosatom Corp have been talking to NPCIL as well as various private sector companies such as Tata Power, Reliance Power and GMR.

The Bill seeks to fix the maximum financial liability of the operator at Rs 500 crore. If the damage is assessed to be more than this amount, the additional money has to be provided for by the government up to a maximum of 300 million special drawing rights (about Rs 2,200 crore). SDR is the monetary unit of IMF’s reserve assets and represents potential claims on the currencies of the IMF members. A victim can make a claim only till ten years from the date of the accident .

Apart from the uneven distribution of liability arising from mishaps, the Bill is also criticised for the insufficiency of the compensation amount. Analysts say that Rs 500 crore is too small an amount in the event of a very big nuclear accident. A similar law in the US has set the financial liability for such accidents at $10.5 billion.

However, in fixing this figure, the government seems to have been guided by two things. First, this figure is in line with the maximum liability defined in most other countries. Second, the government has been.

By Huma Siddiqui

Source: http://www.financialexpress.com/news/N-liability-Bill--a-dampener-on-power-PSUs/627013/

North Korea 'trading nuclear technology' says UN panel

May 28, 2010

BBC News

A United Nations panel has accused North Korea of continuing to export nuclear and missile technology in defiance of a UN ban.

The experts said North Korea has used front companies and intermediaries to sell weapons and provide illegal assistance to Iran, Syria and Burma.

The preliminary report was compiled by a seven-member group that monitors Pyongyang's compliance with sanctions.

The panel has called for further, urgent investigations.

Devices

The 47-page report outlined a broad range of techniques used by North Korea to evade sanctions imposed by the UN after the North's nuclear tests of 2006 and 2009, the Associated Press reports.

The report said North Korea had moved quickly to replace banned individuals and entities with others to enable it to continue the nuclear trade.

Among a number of "masking techniques", it said the North describes exports falsely, mislabels shipping container contents, falsifies information about the destinations of goods and uses "multiple layers of intermediaries, shell companies, and financial institutions".

The report said North Korea has a range of legitimate trade offices but also sustains links with international criminal organisations to pursue the banned trades.

An unnamed diplomat told Reuters the findings were "not entirely surprising".

"The point is that North Korea has been providing that kind of aid to Iran, Syria and Burma," he said.

The report comes before a crucial day of talks in New York about the future of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

It also comes at a time of increased tension surrounding what international investigators say was a deadly North Korean torpedo attack on a South Korean warship in March.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10180497.stm

Why is the West sceptical about Iran's fuel offer?

By Sylvia Westall

Reuters - Iran has outlined a plan to the U.N. atomic watchdog under which it would give up some of its nuclear material but diplomats say the gesture would have no effect on a push to widen sanctions against Tehran.

Under the plan agreed with Brazil and Turkey last week, Iran would transfer 1,200 kg (2,646 lb) of its low-enriched uranium -- enough for an atomic bomb if enriched to higher levels -- to Turkey within a month.

A year later the Islamic Republic would get special nuclear fuel rods for a medical research reactor which makes isotopes to help treat cancer patients.

Why is the West cautious about this proposal?

TIME LAPSE

Western officials say the landscape has changed in the seven months since they brokered a similar plan with Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as a way to ease tensions over Tehran's atomic work.

Iran has continued enriching uranium and taking away 1,200 kg now would still leave Iran with enough for a bomb if it wanted to build one. Tehran says it has no intention of doing this and says its work is for peaceful purposes only.

Some observers say the swap is still worth it because it would remove half the material. Others say the deal has now lost its value because the bomb risk would remain and it fails to build confidence.

HIGHER ENRICHMENT

Iran also started enriching uranium to higher levels in February, saying it wanted to make fuel for the reactor itself, but the move unsettled Western powers because it takes the material closer to the grade needed for atomic weapons.

Tehran said it took the step because it said it was tired of waiting for the original deal to be agreed. Western officials say it was Iran which stalled progress, with a series of new conditions for the swap which it knew would not be accepted.

Iran has vowed that it will not stop its higher enrichment, even if the fuel supply agreement goes through and has started setting up more equipment for it.

Western diplomats have described this refusal to halt higher enrichment as a likely deal-breaker. They also question why Iran would still need to continue this process -- which like its lower-grade enrichment violates U.N. sanctions -- when countries are prepared to give it the fuel rods it says it needs.

They say Iran lacks the capability to make the specialized fuel assemblies in the short-term, so it makes no sense to produce more highly enriched uranium for a reactor that Tehran says will run out of fuel by the end of the year.

LACK OF DETAILS

Unlike the IAEA plan, brokered by former IAEA-chief Mohamed ElBaradei, the new proposal does not included detail on who would make the fuel rods, who will pay for the process and what will happen to the low-enriched uranium stored in Turkey after the swap has been completed, Western officials say.

Without this sort of information, they say they cannot begin serious negotiations on Iran's offer, which many of them see as an attempt to stall sanctions negotiations.

Some Western officials say the Iranian move fits into a familiar pattern of Tehran offering concessions when punitive measures loom.

THE BIGGER PICTURE

Diplomats also say that with its promotion of the new proposal, Iran is trying to give the impression that it was the fuel deal which was at the centre of problems with the West, rather than its nuclear ambitions as a whole.

They acknowledge that the original IAEA-plan was always intended as a first step towards resolving the nuclear issue, not a solution.

But they say Iran's lack of cooperation with the agency on questions about its atomic programme and its delay in engaging on the fuel deal, have left negotiators feeling wary.

They also fear that Iran may go back on its word.

Talks over the original deal suffered from internal Iranian disputes. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad first appeared to favour the U.N. deal as a way to shore up his own power.

But he faced stiff opposition from rivals who did not want to see him reap credit for a breakthrough. Some voiced misgivings about parting with the nuclear material, which is seen as a strategic asset.

But analysts in Iran believe Ahmadinejad wouldn't have agreed on this deal without the blessing of the supreme leader.

Source: http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-48881820100528

ANALYSIS - Ahmadinejad loses cool with Russia over sanctions

May 28, 2010

Alistair Lyon, Special Correspondent

Reuters - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has never shied away from lambasting Iran's foes. Now he has alienated Russia, which has long helped delay or dilute U.N. sanctions aimed at the Islamic Republic's nuclear programme.

The row between Moscow and Tehran reflects long-simmering tensions that came to the boil on Wednesday when Ahmadinejad berated Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for buckling under what he said was U.S. pressure for fresh sanctions.

The Kremlin swiftly chastised the Iranian leader for "political demagoguery" and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Thursday described Ahmadinejad's tirade as "emotional".

He said Iran had for years failed to respond to Moscow's efforts to resolve the dispute over nuclear work seen by the West as having military purposes, a charge Tehran denies.

"Things have been turning sour for a while," said Ali Ansari, an Iran expert at Scotland's St Andrews University, who suggested that Russia was piqued by Iran's acceptance this month of a nuclear fuel swap deal proposed by Turkey and Brazil -- although Lavrov said it would be a breakthrough if implemented.

"If the deal was do-able now, why not back in October when it would actually have meant something in terms of Iran's enriched uranium stocks?" Ansari asked.

Russia and other world powers backed a fuel swap proposal drawn up by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last year after Iran declared it needed fuel for a Tehran research reactor with medical uses. Iran effectively rejected the idea.

Responding to word of last week's deal with Turkey and Brazil, Medvedev said a key question was whether Iran intended to continue enriching uranium.

Tehran has since vowed to do so, removing, in Moscow's view, the main rationale for the fuel swap and perhaps convincing the Kremlin that Iran's only motive is to play for time.

Baqer Moin, a London-based analyst, said it was unclear if Ahmadinejad's outburst had the backing of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on nuclear policy.

"The Russians don't take Ahmadinejad that seriously," he said, recalling that when Vladimir Putin visited Tehran as Russian president in 2007 he first held talks with Khamenei.

"But if it was not just an off-the-cuff remark -- and if what is coming from the Russians reflects the Russian state -- then it is a major development in the relationship," Moin said.

"It's a bad sign for Iran because they badly needed Russian influence if not to veto, at least to modify, the (U.N. sanctions) resolution as they have done before."

RUSSIA WARMING TO SANCTIONS?

The United States said last week that Russia and China, which have both resisted sanctions against Iran in the past, had agreed to a draft resolution for further punitive U.N. measures.

Ahmadinejad has long taken a defiant line on the nuclear issue, viewed by many Iranians as a matter of national pride. But he initially supported the IAEA's proposal which called for Iran to ship 1.2 tonnes of low-enriched uranium abroad in return for specially processed fuel for its medical isotope reactor.

He then backed away under fire from conservative and reformist critics at home -- only to seal a similar deal with Turkey and Brazil last week. Ahmadinejad called it a "historic opportunity" which U.S. President Barack Obama should seize.

Western leaders said it was a ploy to avert sanctions and failed to allay their fears because Iran had pledged to go on enriching uranium and even if part of its stockpile went to Turkey it would still have enough fuel for one nuclear warhead.

Mahjoob Zweiri, a Qatar-based academic, said Ahmadinejad must have gained high-level backing for the Turkey-Brazil deal.

"He was reflecting the outcome of an internal debate that took place maybe last week," he said. "In one way or another he had a kind of understanding that this deal will be supported."

Zweiri said Iran had not expected Russia to swing behind the West on sanctions. It was already aggrieved at delays to the start-up of a Russian-built nuclear reactor at Bushehr and uncertainty over an order for Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missiles, which could protect Iranian nuclear sites from attack.

The spat between two of the world's biggest energy producers is among their worst since the Cold War.

Though trade ties have grown over the past two decades, Russia is still regarded with deep distrust in Iran after several wars between Persia and the Tsarist Empire, followed by rocky relations with the atheist Soviet Union.

Moin, the London-based analyst, said it was unlikely that either side wanted a real rift, but if tensions between Russia and the Islamic Republic persisted, other issues could surface.

"So far the Iranians have been silent on Chechnya," he said, referring to Russia's violent struggles with Islamist militants in its mainly Muslim-populated Caucasus republic.

"At the end of the day, Russia is weighing its international interests with the West and Iran -- and obviously choosing the West when the crunch comes," Moin said.

(Additional reporting by Dmitry Solovyov in Moscow; Editing by Dominic Evans)

Source: http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-48850420100527

Britain reveals planned size of nuclear stockpile

May 28, 2010

LONDON - Britain's new coalition government has revealed the planned size of its nuclear weapons stockpile for the first time, saying that it will not exceed 225 warheads.

Officials have said before that the country has 160 warheads that are operational; that is, ready to fire.

In an announcement on Wednesday coinciding with a United Nations Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in New York, Foreign Secretary William Hague said Britain hopes its disclosure will contribute to efforts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons worldwide.

"We believe that the time is now right to be more open about the weapons we hold," he told Parliament.

"We judge that this will assist in building a climate of trust between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states."

Countries around the world that do not possess nuclear weapons have long demanded more openness from the nuclear-weapon states about the size and nature of their arsenals.

Earlier this month, the United States disclosed for the first time that it has 5,113 nuclear warheads in its stockpile and "several thousand" more retired warheads awaiting the junk pile.

Source: http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC100528-0000074/Britain-reveals-planned-size-of-nuclear-stockpile

Nuclear treaty talks on brink of failure: diplomats

May 28, 2010

Reuters

Talks on shoring up the global anti-nuclear arms treaty were on the edge of failure on Friday as the United States and its allies clashed with Egypt over a push to pressure Israel to scrap any atom bombs it has.

For a month the 189 signatories of the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have been meeting in New York in hopes of agreeing on a plan to shore up the troubled pact, which analysts say has been hit by Iran's and North Korea's atomic programs and failure by the nuclear powers to disarm.

The latest draft of a final declaration for the NPT review conference calls for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to organize a meeting of all Middle Eastern states in 2012 on how to make the region free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as demanded by a 1995 NPT resolution.

The creation of a WMD-free zone would eventually force Israel to abandon any atomic bombs it has. The Jewish state, which like nuclear-armed India and Pakistan never signed the NPT, is presumed to have a sizable nuclear arsenal but neither confirms nor denies it. Israel is not participating in the NPT meeting.

In a radical departure from the previous U.S. administration, President Barack Obama's negotiators had agreed to join the NPT's other four official nuclear powers -- Britain, France, Russia and China -- in backing such a conference while encouraging reluctant Israel to participate.

The five permanent U.N. Security Council members and a group of Arab states led by Egypt are close to a deal that would make the 2012 conference happen, delegates say. But the two sides have reached an impasse on the question of whether Israel should be named in the declaration as a problem state.

The Egyptians insist the declaration must state explicitly that Israel should join the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state, but the Americans are refusing, diplomats said.

LAST-MINUTE COMPROMISE?

One Western diplomat familiar with the talks described the situation as "not looking too hopeful."

He said there was a "stark choice for the Arabs -- name and shame Israel or have a conference in 2012 to move forward the 1995 promise ... toward a WMD-free zone in the Mideast."

"My bet is their (the Arabs') short-term political needs will trump their long-term strategic interest," he said.

Other delegates confirmed the possibility that the NPT review conference would fail to agree on a final declaration because of disagreements on the Middle East question, repeating what happened at the last NPT review conference in 2005.

But diplomats said they hoped the United States and Egypt -- the key players in the Middle East negotiations -- would strike a last-minute compromise that salvaged the conference.

"We've worked so hard for the past month," one diplomat said. "We've got a strong draft that would strengthen all three pillars of the NPT -- disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear energy. It shouldn't be thrown away."

Western diplomats said Israel had reluctantly agreed to attend the 2012 conference but only on condition that it not be "named and shamed" in the final declaration.

Iran's envoy to the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Tehran's chief delegate, accused the United States of causing the impasse at the NPT talks. Apart from the Middle East WMD-free zone, he said Washington and the other nuclear powers had rejected key demands of Iran and the other non-aligned developing nations.

Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh said those demands were for a precise deadline for nuclear powers to disarm, a call for negotiations on a treaty banning the use of atomic arms, and a pledge from the five nuclear powers not to use atomic bombs on states without them, known as a "negative security assurance."

"The nuclear weapon states, particularly the United States, have not cooperated to find a solution for these four main issues," Soltanieh told reporters, adding that the NPT talks had reached a deadlock.

If the nuclear powers refuse to compromise, "they should be blamed for consequences," Soltanieh said, adding that Tehran was prepared to block a declaration that it viewed as too weak. Since NPT meetings make decisions by consensus, Iran has a virtual veto.

(Editing by Bill Trott)

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64Q72D20100528

N Korea 'exporting nuclear goods'

May 28, 2010

The Press Association

North Korea is exporting nuclear and ballistic missile technology and using multiple intermediaries and overseas criminal networks to avoid UN sanctions, a report has said.
A UN panel monitoring the implementation of sanctions against North Korea said research indicates that Pyongyang is involved in banned nuclear and ballistic activities in Iran, Syria and Myanmar.
It called for further study of these suspected activities and urged all countries to try to prevent them.
The 47-page report documents sanctions violations reported by UN member states, including four cases involving arms exports and two seizures of luxury goods by Italy - two yachts and high-end recording and video equipment.
The report also details a broad range of techniques that North Korea is using to try to evade sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council after its two nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009.
These "masking techniques" included providing false descriptions and mislabelling the contents of shipping containers, falsifying the manifest and information about the origin and destination of goods and "use of multiple layers of intermediaries, shell companies, and financial institutions".
Council diplomats discussed the report by the experts from Britain, Japan, the US, France, South Korea, Russia and China at a meeting on Thursday.
The report's release coincides with heightened tensions between North Korea and South Korea over the sinking of a South Korean navy ship which killed 46 sailors in March.
The council is waiting for South Korea to decide what action it wants the UN's most powerful body to take in response to the sinking, which a multinational investigation determined was caused by a North Korean torpedo.

Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hz6TeBw20mR7FXePW43AVUGB9dTw

As Ugly as It Gets

May 25, 2010

The New York Times

I confess that when I first saw the May 17 picture of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, joining his Brazilian counterpart, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, with raised arms — after their signing of a putative deal to defuse the crisis over Iran’s nuclear weapons program — all I could think of was: Is there anything uglier than watching democrats sell out other democrats to a Holocaust-denying, vote-stealing Iranian thug just to tweak the U.S. and show that they, too, can play at the big power table? 


No, that’s about as ugly as it gets.

“For years, nonaligned and developing countries have faulted America for cynically pursuing its own interests without regard for human rights,” observed Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment. “As Turkey and Brazil aspire to play on the global stage, they’re going to face the same criticisms they once doled out. Lula and Erdogan’s visit to Iran came just days after Iran executed five political prisoners who were tortured into confessions. They warmly embraced Ahmadinejad as their brother, but didn’t mention a word about human rights. There seems to be a mistaken assumption that the Palestinians are the only people that seek justice in the Middle East, and if you just invoke their cause you can coddle the likes of Ahmadinejad.”

Turkey and Brazil are both nascent democracies that have overcome their own histories of military rule. For their leaders to embrace and strengthen an Iranian president who uses his army and police to crush and kill Iranian democrats — people seeking the same freedom of speech and political choice that Turks and Brazilians now enjoy — is shameful.

“Lula is a political giant, but morally he has been a deep disappointment,” said Moisés Naím, editor in chief of Foreign Policy magazine and a former trade minister in Venezuela.

Lula, Naím noted, “has supported the thwarting of democracy across Latin America.” He regularly praises Venezuela’s strongman Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro, the Cuban dictator — and now Ahmadinejad — while denouncing Colombia, one of the great democratic success stories, because it let U.S. planes use Colombian airfields to fight narco-traffickers. “Lula has been great for Brazil but terrible for his democratic neighbors,” said Naím. Lula, who rose to prominence as a progressive labor leader in Brazil, has turned his back on the violently repressed labor leaders of Iran.

Sure, had Brazil and Turkey actually persuaded the Iranians to verifiably end their whole suspected nuclear weapons program, America would have endorsed it. But that is not what happened.

Iran today has about 4,850 pounds of low-enriched uranium. Under the May 17 deal, it has supposedly agreed to send some 2,640 pounds from its stockpile to Turkey for conversion into the type of nuclear fuel needed to power Tehran’s medical reactor — a fuel that cannot be used for a bomb. But that would still leave Iran with a roughly 2,200-pound uranium stockpile, which it still refuses to put under international inspection and is free to augment and continue to reprocess to the higher levels needed for a bomb. Experts say it would only take months for Iran to again amass sufficient quantity for a nuclear weapon.

So what this deal really does is what Iran wanted it to do: weaken the global coalition to pressure Iran to open its nuclear facilities to U.N. inspectors, and, as a special bonus, legitimize Ahmadinejad on the anniversary of his crushing the Iranian democracy movement that was demanding a recount of Iran’s tainted June 2009 elections.

In my view, the “Green Revolution” in Iran is the most important, self-generated, democracy movement to appear in the Middle East in decades. It has been suppressed, but it is not going away, and, ultimately, its success — not any nuclear deal with the Iranian clerics — is the only sustainable source of security and stability. We have spent far too little time and energy nurturing that democratic trend and far too much chasing a nuclear deal.

As Abbas Milani, an Iran expert at Standford University, put it to me: “The only long-term solution to the impasse is for a more democratic, responsible, transparent regime in Tehran. It has been, in my view, a great con game successfully played by the clerical regime to make the nuclear issue the almost sole focal point of its relations with the U.S. and the West. The West should have always followed a two-track policy: earnest negotiations on the nuclear issue and no less earnest discussion on the issues of human rights and democracy in Iran.”

I’d prefer that Iran never get a bomb. The world would be much safer without more nukes, especially in the Middle East. But if Iran does go nuclear, it makes a huge difference whether a democratic Iran has its finger on the trigger or this current murderous clerical dictatorship. Anyone working to delay that and to foster real democracy in Iran is on the side of the angels. Anyone who enables this tyrannical regime and gives cover for its nuclear mischief will one day have to answer to the Iranian people.

By Thomas L. Friedman
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/opinion/26friedman.html

Recon for attack a warning to Iran

May 26, 2010

The Jerusalem Post

Reports that the Pentagon has okayed reconnaissance missions over Iran were seen in Jerusalem on Tuesday as the first public signs of practical preparations for a possible US military operation against Iran. The New York Times reported on Monday that Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in the Middle East, ordered an expansion of clandestine military activity in the region. According to the report, “officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.”
The article continued that the seven-page directive “appears to authorize specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear program or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive.”

Although it is obvious that the Pentagon has contingency plans for all possible scenarios, one Israeli official said this was “the first time that the public is getting word of practical preparations of military activity.”

The official said that if this was a deliberate leak, then it was clearly an attempt to send a tough message to the Iranians that, indeed, no options – as the US has been saying for months – have been taken off the table.

And even if this were not a deliberate leak, the official added, the impression the information would have on Teheran would still be the same.

Also on Tuesday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the Knesset that the deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil last week whereby Iran would transfer 1,200 kilos of low-enriched uranium abroad was “a transparent Iranian ruse meant to divert the international public’s attention from sanctions.”

Addressing the assembled MKs, Netanyahu said the deal, which drew mixed responses from the permanent UN Security Council members and in particular the US, would still leave enough uranium in Iran’s possession to produce a nuclear weapon

“This proposal also guarantees Iran the right to take back at any point the kilograms [of uranium] transferred to Turkey,” the prime minister said, praising Washington for deciding to press forward in its pursuit of a fourth round of Security Council sanctions.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu said that while important symbolically, “I think we all know these sanctions will not stop Iran.”

The prime minister said that “more effective sanctions are being prepared now by the US Congress. They will affect, among other things, the energy sector, imports, exports and other areas. The US will be able to pass these sanctions outside the Security Council or in conjunction with it.”

Teheran, Netanyahu said, must “understand that the international community is determined to prevent it from acquiring nuclear arms.”  

By Herb Keinon

Source: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=176483

'Nuclear Iran poses greater danger to Russia than US'

May 26, 2010

Indian Express


Considered to be the dean of diplomacy in the US, Nobel Laureate Henry Kissinger believes that a nuclear Iran, in the middle term, poses greater danger to Russia than America.


"I would say that in the middle term, a nuclear Iran is a greater danger to Russia than it is to the United States, because it is contiguous, and the restive populations of Russia, which are mostly Islamic, are joining Iran," Kissinger told US lawmakers Tuesday.


"Based on my own conversations with Russian leaders, I'm convinced that they are very concerned about Iran," the former US Secretary of State said in response to a question during a Congressional hearing on the New START (for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) treaty convened by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.


Inked between the US and Russian Presidents, the New START treaty proposes to reduce the nuclear stockpile of the two countries by one third.


Kissinger said despite being well aware of the dangers of a nuclear Iran, the Russians are reluctant to be drawn into a conflict in which they might bear the brunt while the US begins to ease out of it.


"Secondly, their economy creates temptations to benefit from sales to Iran, even while they recognize the long-term dangers. But if present trends continue and if Iran continues to build its nuclear establishment, I don't see how Russia can avoid facing some of the consequences," he said.


Kissinger said the New START treaty is an evolution of treaties that have been made by a series of American and Russian administrations.


"An unconstrained nuclear arms race has appeared too dangerous to leaders of both American political parties and almost every incarnation of Russian leaders over the last 30 years," he said.


Noting that one should not look at this treaty as a means by which Russia can achieve a great advantage over the US, Kissinger said: "The best you can say in that respect is that Russia is trying to mitigate the decline of its global role by a measure of parity with the United States."


Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/nuclear-iran-poses-greater-danger-to-russia-than-us/623901/0

UN nuclear conference calls on India to joint NPT, CTBT

May 26, 2010

Press Trust Of India

Breaking the tradition of not naming countries, the first draft of the final document of 2010 Nuclear-Non Proliferation Treaty Review conference has asked India, Pakistan and Israel to join NPT and CTBT.
"The conference calls upon India, Israel and Pakistan to accede to the treaty as non-nuclear weapon States, promptly and without conditions, thereby accepting an internationally legally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices," the first draft of the document said.
"The conference also calls upon India and Pakistan to maintain moratoriums on nuclear testing and calls upon India, Israel and Pakistan to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) without delay and without conditions," it said.
The NPT Review Conference is held every five years to assess the progress in reaching the goals set out in the 1970 treaty to disarm and stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
This year it started on May 3 and would end on May 28 when the final draft is expected.
India, Pakistan and Israel have not signed the treaty and do not attend. The last conference in 2005 ended in failure.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, a Western diplomat said here that there were countries, which had accepted that India and Pakistan were not going to become part of the treaty and suggested a new track to reign them into the non-proliferation regime.
"We are going to try and put them in a cooperation system with obligations so that they would have the same obligations that NPT countries without being in the NPT," he said, noting that such an agreement was better than doing nothing.
Several experts, however, have pointed out that by the time the final document was prepared the names of the countries may be replaced by a more general call for the universal acceptance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Officials noted that naming Israel, for instance, would lead to the country not cooperating with the Arab nations on a plan to have a Middle East free nuclear weapons free zone.
"We want something so that all countries come to the table," the Western diplomat said. "But it's so fragile, it's so difficult."
Mark Hibbs, an expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who had attended the meetings noted that there seemed to be a "tacit agreement" not to retain the names by the end of the conference.

Source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/UN-nuclear-conference-calls-on-India-to-joint-NPT-CTBT/Article1-548632.aspx

Diplomat says Iran deal flawed

May 25, 2010

ASSOCIATED PRESS AND JPOST.COM STAFF

A Western diplomat speaking anonymously has referred to the proposed uranium fuel agreement between Iran, Turkey and Brazil as technically flawed.

AFP is reporting that the diplomat said, "Getting this fuel in one year is impossible. It takes at least one and a half years to have this." He added, "There is something tricky there, but we will see in a year. It is still too early."

The anonymous diplomat's comments came after Iran formally submitted the fuel swap deal to the International Atomic Energy Agency on Monday.

Seeking to evade new UN sanctions, Iran submitted its plan on Monday to swap some of its enriched uranium for reactor fuel and said the onus was on world powers to defuse tensions by accepting the deal.

The proposal, which was shared with The Associated Press, did not go beyond generalities already outlined last week. Thus, it was unlikely to deter the US, Russia, China, Britain and France — the five permanent UN Security Council members — which have agreed on a draft fourth set of sanctions against Iran for refusing to give up uranium enrichment.

The deal would commit Iran to ship 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to Turkey, where it would be stored. In exchange, Iran would receive, within one year, higher-enriched fuel rods to be used in a US-built medical research reactor.

Source: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=176405

Final week of UN nuclear conference has eyes on Iran

May 25, 2010

Agence France-Presse

UNITED NATIONS--A landmark UN conference on fighting the spread of nuclear weapons opened its final week Monday with eyes on Iran's efforts to avoid fresh UN sanctions against its nuclear program.

Iran is seen as a test case for the 189-nation Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as it claims its nuclear work is peaceful but is under three rounds of UN sanctions to get it to rein in its nuclear program over fears it seeks the bomb.

The NPT conference here was still struggling to formulate a draft final statement, three weeks after opening on May 3.

Committees met Monday on the three pillars of the NPT -- disarmament, monitoring nuclear programs worldwide to make sure they are not used to make weapons, and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

The conference is to finalize a draft final statement later Monday and begin a last run of plenary sessions on Tuesday. It closes Friday.

In an effort to avoid new sanctions, Iran struck a last-minute deal with Brazil and Turkey last week on a nuclear fuel swap.

In Vienna Monday, Iran formally notified the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency of this deal.

The bargain is for Iran to ship half of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) out of the country in return for higher grade reactor fuel to be supplied by Russia and France.

When the deal was first offered by the IAEA in October, Iran had less of a stockpile of LEU and would have been shipping out two-thirds of the stockpile.

The US had backed the move in order to guarantee that Iran would not have enough uranium on hand to process further for a first bomb.

Iran would still be left at this point with less than it would need to make a bomb. It has promised to ship out 1,200 kilograms (2,640 pounds) of LEU to Turkey in return for the fuel for a research reactor making medical isotopes.

But Western governments say Iran is still not addressing international concerns about its nuclear program.

And a Western diplomat said Monday that the uranium deal has a key technical flaw as it fails to allocate enough time to make the fuel.

¨Getting this fuel in one year is impossible. It takes at least one and a half years to have this,¨ the diplomat told reporters.

He said that might mean Iran could after one year take its low enriched uranium back ¨and then wait for the fuel to come six months later... There is something tricky there.¨

Washington has pressed ahead at the UN Security Council by circulating a new sanctions resolution.

The to-and-fro over Iran has dominated the conference, even if US President Barack Obama's moves towards disarmament, such as a new strategic weapons agreement with Russia, have given Washington increased credibility.

Non-proliferation analyst Rebecca Johnson said "the review conference has a real chance of being able to adopt a constructively useful -- if not fabulously forward-looking) -- outcome."

Sticking points include whether to set a deadline for disarmament, something nuclear weapons state resist and which is almost certain not to be in any final document.

Another thorny matter is an Egyptian-led proposal to set up a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East.

US and Egyptian officials have been meeting on this for almost two months and will be seeking a compromise in New York that would allow Israel to take part.

Israel is not against such a zone but says it can only come after a peace agreement for the region.

Egypt is promoting the zone, however, as a way to move towards peace, especially since Israel is allegedly the only nuclear weapons state in the Middle East.

Other major areas of dispute at the NPT conference are whether to make tougher nuclear inspections mandatory for all member states and how to penalize states, such as North Korea, that withdraw from the treaty in order to make the bomb.

The NPT, which went into effect in 1970, is in crisis over these issues.

The previous NPT review in 2005 failed to reach agreement but the atmosphere has been better this time around in the twice-a-decade meetings.

Source: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100525-271973/Final-week-of-UN-nuclear-conference-has-eyes-on-Iran