By Shen Dingli
Today, the world faces two important nuclear proliferation
concerns: that which is playing out on the Korean Peninsula and
that which is playing out in Iran.
Last October, North Korea declared that it had conducted a
nuclear test. But this declaration has not yet been made
sufficiently convincing.
Iran is taking a different road and has professed that it has no
intentions of developing nuclear weapons. But, it is widely
believed that it might have started taking its first steps toward
nuclear development.
Today, Iran remains a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), which was opened for signature in 1968 and took effect in
1970.
NPT was developed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and
weapons technology, promote cooperation in the peaceful development
of nuclear energy and assist both general and full nuclear
disarmament. Since it was drafted, 187 parties have joined the
treaty, including all five nuclear-weapon states.
According to the treaty, Iran should commit itself to refraining
from the development of nuclear weapons. Accordingly, Iran must
report its significant nuclear activities to the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). By honoring this obligation, Iran
clears its nuclear record and defends its rights to peaceful
nuclear energy use.
However, the IAEA reports that Iran has failed to report its
previous nuclear activity in a comprehensive and timely manner and
demands Teheran answer for its past inconsistencies. Still, Iran
has also failed to meet this requirement.
Subsequently, the IAEA referred this case to the United Nations
Security Council, which passed Resolution 1737 last December. The
resolution demands that Iran, "without further delay, suspend
proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, including all
enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and work on all
heavy water-related projects".
Three months later, on March 24, the UN Security Council (UNSC)
unanimously adopted a new resolution with tougher sanctions to
pressure Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities.
Co-sponsored by Britain, France and Germany, and incorporating
some amendments proposed by Indonesia, Qatar and South Africa,
Resolution 1747 urges Iran to suspend uranium enrichment "without
further delay".
Including moderately harsher sanctions than those included in
previous resolutions on the Iranian nuclear issue, 1747 calls for a
ban of Iranian arms exports and a freeze of the assets of an
additional 28 individuals and entities involved in Iran's nuclear
and missile programs.
However, Iran has not fulfilled the UNSC's demands. Instead, it
has begun operating its first batch of centrifuges for initiating
uranium enrichment.
At a low level of enrichment, this action doesn't pose a serious
problem. However, once uranium isotope 235 is enriched by more than
5 percent, Iran will not be physically distant from weapons-grade
fissile materials.
The legacy of Pakistan's nuclear development demonstrates that
with 3,000 operating centrifuges, a weapons-grade fissile material
inventory can be developed within a few years.
However, many believe that Iran has exaggerated its capacity,
boasting as much as 10 times its actual nuclear capability. These
people believe that currently, Iran is actually running at a level
of 300 plus centrifuges.
Should this prove true, the risk of military confrontation to be
incurred under US preemption policy would become more distant. But
some argue that Iran could later expand its centrifuge pool.
At the core of the matter is the actuality of Iran's
intentions.
So far, the IAEA has been very careful about making its
judgements. It has not reached any conclusions about an Iranian
military nuclear program nor has it found sufficient evidence to
prove its innocence.
Given these circumstances, Iran has continued to insist on its
rights to civilian nuclear development, including work on a nuclear
fuel cycle with uranium enrichment.
And it has disregarded various IAEA and UNSC resolutions.
The Western countries have not launched a military strike for a
number of reasons. Currently, there is no solid proof of nuclear
weapons development and the country seems to be ways from creating
weapons-grade fissile material. Also, the United States is now
spread thinly around the globe.
However, their patience could run even thinner than their
forces. So, the international community must act swiftly in
ultimately resolving the issue in a way that all parties find
acceptable.
Iran wants to exercise its civilian nuclear rights, while the
abuse of such rights could lead to the military application of
atomic energy.
So, a peaceful resolution to this issue could come from a
severance to the link of diversion. This would mean allowing the
country the rights of nuclear operation for the purposes of
generating power but not crossing the threshold to developing
fissile materials.
Then, Iran could keep its uranium enrichment program as long as
it was subject to the close and continuous surveillance of the
international community. Most importantly, the IAEA must be able to
monitor the enrichment levels or even have personnel onsite around
the clock. This would foster and maintain absolute confidence
within the international community that Iran's nuclear program
would remain solely civilian.
And any nuclear waste to be produced by Iran's nuclear reactor
should be transported and disposed of outside of the country,
despite the possibility that Iran originally produced some of the
fuel rods.
Removing the plutonium imbedded in Iran's spent fuel would
alleviate all concerns about the risk of Iran developing a
plutonium bomb.
The United States might be unwilling to accept Iran's rights to
nuclear enrichment, but currently, Washington lacks the means or
necessity to deal with Iran immediately.
Iran failed to respond to UNSC Resolution 1737 within 60 days of
its passing on December 23 of last year. And last Saturday, it
announced it would not halt its nuclear development despite the new
resolution.
It knows all too well that no one is in any great hurry to wipe
out a threat that isn't threatening enough, and no nation is
willing to take the lead or pay the great cost of militarily
engaging Iran at this time.
Over the past month, Iran has negotiated with the six powers in
hopes of reaching an agreement acceptable to all parties, and there
have even been talks of a potential meeting between top Iranian and
US representatives.
Considering the current status of various restraints and
differing interests among involved parties, it is unrealistic to
assume that in this case, any single party could achieve its goals
in a winner-takes-all fashion.
A more realistic and reasonable approach would be to recognize
Iran's rights to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and
accept its full range of rights to develop its nuclear fuel
cycle.
In the meantime, the international community must closely and
continuously monitor Iran's nuclear behavior and send a clear and
credible message to the country: the development of any nuclear
weapons program would have dire consequences.
The rest of the world must be determined to deal with the
challenge Iran is presenting.
This is a complicated and unequal world, where the idea of
equality often meets frustration.
While forbidding Iran to develop nuclear weapons, the United
States is developing new types of nuclear weaponry, including the
so-called "reliable replacement warhead".
While Teheran must be subjected to close IAEA inspections in
order to fulfill its NPT obligations, and while the United States
took a harsh stance towards North Korea before Pyongyang's nuclear
test, Washington has moderated its behavior, given the new world
realities.
The inequality of such changes educates Iran, sending the
message that it should try its bet. However, the stakes are high,
and the outcome could be disastrous.
Iran may or may not be as lucky as North Korea as it takes its
nuclear path.
Although Iran may be able to inflict significant damage upon the
United States in the case of a conflict, given its military
resources, Teheran is still more likely to fail at least in the
short run.
The author is a professor with the School of International
Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University.
(China Daily via agencies May 9, 2007)
