05 September 2006
The Australian takes on Iran
The Australian
Friday, September 01, 2006
JOHN Piper (Letters, 31/8) is correct in pointing out that Iran's support for terrorist operations in other countries is a violation of fundamental principles of international law. He errs, however, in suggesting an equivalence between Iran's nuclear program and those of India, Pakistan and Israel.
Iran, unlike the other three countries, is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which it concluded a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency back in 1974. Under the agreement, Iran accepted safeguards and “ IAEA inspections “ for the purpose of verifying that nuclear material is not diverted to nuclear weapons.
In February, the IAEA board of governors submitted a report to the UN Security Council on its difficulties with Iran, noting Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT safeguards agreement.
No nation is under a legal obligation to become a party to a treaty if it does not wish to do so, and India, Pakistan and Israel are under no legal obligation to become parties to the NPT. Iran, however, received technical and other benefits from ratifying the NPT and the safeguards agreement and it is legally bound by the terms. Any weakness of will by the international community in holding Iran to its contractual obligations will undermine not only the NPT but also the foundational legal principle that treaties must be honoured.
Peter Wertheim
Sydney, NSW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XXXX of Somewhere NSW
01/09 at 02:21 PM
Peter Wertheim says: "In February, the IAEA board of governors submitted a report to the UN Security Council on its difficulties with Iran, noting Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT safeguards agreement".
Untrue. Rather, the IAEA board was pressured by the US administration into calling on the Security Council to demand of Iran that it implement a series of "transparency measures" that were never requested of any other NPT signatory and were entirely separate from any of the provisions of the NPT. The "transparency measures" were so wide-ranging that they would, in effect, enable the US to locate all of Iran's conventional weapons sites, radar facilities and military installations, which could then be easily destroyed if ever the US decided to attack Iran. No country could accept such a program.
It is also a lie that Iran hates the West. Following 9/11, Iran gave the US extensive intelligence against al-Qa'eida; they offered to provide training, uniforms, equipment, and barracks for as many as 20,000 new recruits for the nascent Afghan military, all under US supervision; and they assisted in the Bonn discussions. All this as gestures of goodwill to the West. The US State Department recommended a more formal agreement with Iran in response, but they were refused by President Bush who, just two months later, described Iran as part of the "axis of evil".
The US has consistently refused to provide Iran with any security guarantees against unsolicited US attacks, and many US leaders seek regime change in Iran regardless of any nuclear issues. Iran is not in breach of any of its legal obligations. And I suspect that Mr Wertheim, as the vice-president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, would almost certainly be aware of these facts.
Friday, September 01, 2006
JOHN Piper (Letters, 31/8) is correct in pointing out that Iran's support for terrorist operations in other countries is a violation of fundamental principles of international law. He errs, however, in suggesting an equivalence between Iran's nuclear program and those of India, Pakistan and Israel.
Iran, unlike the other three countries, is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which it concluded a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency back in 1974. Under the agreement, Iran accepted safeguards and “ IAEA inspections “ for the purpose of verifying that nuclear material is not diverted to nuclear weapons.
In February, the IAEA board of governors submitted a report to the UN Security Council on its difficulties with Iran, noting Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT safeguards agreement.
No nation is under a legal obligation to become a party to a treaty if it does not wish to do so, and India, Pakistan and Israel are under no legal obligation to become parties to the NPT. Iran, however, received technical and other benefits from ratifying the NPT and the safeguards agreement and it is legally bound by the terms. Any weakness of will by the international community in holding Iran to its contractual obligations will undermine not only the NPT but also the foundational legal principle that treaties must be honoured.
Peter Wertheim
Sydney, NSW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XXXX of Somewhere NSW
01/09 at 02:21 PM
Peter Wertheim says: "In February, the IAEA board of governors submitted a report to the UN Security Council on its difficulties with Iran, noting Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT safeguards agreement".
Untrue. Rather, the IAEA board was pressured by the US administration into calling on the Security Council to demand of Iran that it implement a series of "transparency measures" that were never requested of any other NPT signatory and were entirely separate from any of the provisions of the NPT. The "transparency measures" were so wide-ranging that they would, in effect, enable the US to locate all of Iran's conventional weapons sites, radar facilities and military installations, which could then be easily destroyed if ever the US decided to attack Iran. No country could accept such a program.
It is also a lie that Iran hates the West. Following 9/11, Iran gave the US extensive intelligence against al-Qa'eida; they offered to provide training, uniforms, equipment, and barracks for as many as 20,000 new recruits for the nascent Afghan military, all under US supervision; and they assisted in the Bonn discussions. All this as gestures of goodwill to the West. The US State Department recommended a more formal agreement with Iran in response, but they were refused by President Bush who, just two months later, described Iran as part of the "axis of evil".
The US has consistently refused to provide Iran with any security guarantees against unsolicited US attacks, and many US leaders seek regime change in Iran regardless of any nuclear issues. Iran is not in breach of any of its legal obligations. And I suspect that Mr Wertheim, as the vice-president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, would almost certainly be aware of these facts.
# posted by kenj @ 19:13 
