IAEA Daily Press Review

The objective of the DPR is to present a general overview of international, English-language, media coverage of the IAEA and nuclear issues, that does not purport to be exhaustive. The following articles are obtained from external news sources for whose content the IAEA takes no responsibility.

10 March 2008

IAEA in the News

Iran Ready to Talk Nuclear With Europe Iran is ready to negotiate with Europe over the Islamic republic's nuclear program if there were would be ''meaningful and effective'' results, Iran's foreign minister said Sunday. AP

Iran's nuclear program: talk of international consortium Interest is growing in a possible US-Iran nuclear compromise that could enable sensitive atomic work on Iranian soil, lower the risks of proliferation, and ease Iran's isolation. CSMonitor

India - IAEA Pact Close But U.S. Nuclear Deal Clouded India is close to finalizing the text for an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, but may fail to save a nuclear deal between New Delhi and Washington that remains clouded in political uncertainty. Reuters

Other Nuclear News

Reformers Decry Iran President's Nuclear Rhetoric A leading Iranian reformist said on Sunday that "provocative" speeches had damaged Iran's nuclear cause and its diplomatic standing in a veiled attack on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Reuters

Peres calls Iran 'greatest problem' in the world, but says Israel will not act alone President Shimon Peres on Sunday called Iran the world's "greatest problem" but said Israel would not act on its own against the Islamic nation's nuclear program. AP

Destruction of Iran's nuclear program good, if done by Israel, even better: Kuwaiti analyst The destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities would be in the interest of the Arab nations in the Gulf, and it would be "less embarrassing" if it was done by Israel rather than the U.S., a top Kuwaiti strategist said in remarks published Sunday. AP

US renews calls for North Korea to declare nuclear programs The top U.S. envoy to South Korea renewed Washington's commitment to removing North Korea from U.S. terrorism and trade blacklists if the communist government fully accounts for its nuclear weapons programs. AP

'Dirty bomb' threat as UK ships plutonium to France Weapons-ready plutonium that terrorists could easily make into a nuclear bomb is to be carried hundreds of miles down the west coast of Britain in an unarmed ship, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. The Independent

China's nuclear power expansion "faster than planned" China is expanding nuclear power construction plans faster than earlier planned, a senior energy official told state media on Saturday, saying installed power capacity by 2020 could be 50 percent above the initial goal. Reuters

Deep under Sweden's soil could lie a solution to the UK's nuclear waste problem Inside the cavernous hall of a nuclear storage plant in southern Sweden, an 18-tonne steel canister, bristling with tiny fins to draw out excess heat, is being hauled slowly through a hatch by a crane. The Times

Opinion and Analysis

Final Warning on India Nukes Deal Time

Don't Nuke The Deal The Times of India

Nuclear States’ Double Standards The Korea Times

Source: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/

Nuclear States’ Double Standards

By Valerie Epps From time to time, the world community becomes concerned that a country, or other entity, not currently possessing nuclear weapons, might be on the road to acquiring them. First it was Iraq, then it was Iran or al-Qaida. Recently, the discussion has shifted to trying to persuade the North Koreans to abandon further development of nuclear weapons. Most people are rightly convinced that the fewer nuclear weapons there are, and the fewer people with access to such weapons, the better off we all are. But there is something decidedly odd about the structure of the legal argument about the right to possess nuclear weapons. Groups of nations have often come together to ban certain sorts of weapons. The 1868 Declaration of St. Petersburg prohibited certain explosive projectiles; biological weapons were outlawed in 1972; chemical weapons in 1993; land mines in 1997; and a long list of other weapons have also been declared illegal. These weapons were banned because they were perceived as violating the laws of war. Although soldiers are permitted to kill the enemy in warfare, weapons that cause unnecessary suffering to combatants are prohibited. Civilians may never be targeted in warfare and thus a weapon that cannot distinguish between military and civilian targets violates the law, as does a weapon, which although targeting the military, in fact, kills a disproportionate number of civilians. Whenever there is sufficient sentiment to ban a weapon, states draft a treaty, work out the final language, and sign on to the ban. These treaties contemplate a total ban of the designated weapon. They do not list countries that are permitted to retain the prohibited weapon, nor do parties to such treaties indicate that states who chose not to ratify the treaty will be entirely free to acquire the banned weapon. Most of us learn early in our lives that if we expect rules that we set to be respected, we cannot promulgate the rule and, at the same time, grant ourselves a permanent exception. The main treaty that deals with nuclear weapons, the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has a very different and fundamentally flawed structure. This treaty specifically permits five states ― China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. ― to retain nuclear weapons, but any other party to the treaty must agree to forgo the acquisition of nuclear weapons. States that refuse to ratify the treaty, such as Cuba, Pakistan, India and Israel are free to acquire such weapons, and three of them have done so. Why are states and other entities so eager to retain or acquire nuclear weapons? The motive is the same whether a state already has such weapons or hopes to acquire them. Nuclear weapons are perceived as giving the possessor a huge military advantage. The determination on the part of the five nuclear declared states to create a structure that allows them to retain nuclear weapons while denying ownership to other nations, is exactly the same sort of determination that we see being brought to bear by states, and other non-state actors, to acquire such weapons. They all want military superiority. Should nuclear weapons be banned? Such weapons have the capacity to cause untold suffering indiscriminately to military and civilians alike. They can cause vast environmental and economic devastation, not only in the area and at the time of detonation, but throughout the world and for future generations. Surely nuclear weapons, including the so-called ``low-yield" nuclear weapons, carve out a far more destructive path than all of the weapons previously coming under the regime of a total ban. Nuclear weapons certainly need to be prohibited, but they must be prohibited for all states and all entities. Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty requires all states party to the treaty ``to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." The International Court of Justice has described this as a binding treaty obligation. As long as some states, including the U.S. and China, insist on their right to retain nuclear weapons, other states will wish to own such weapons and will work out ways to acquire them, even if it means violating treaty obligations. If all the nuclear states would get together and start negotiations toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons, including their own weapons, with a tough verification system applicable to all, the ``problem" of North Korea, Iran and all of the other nuclear aspirants would begin to disappear. Under the present flawed structure, by which the nuclear states have legalized the ultimate double standard, all we have to look forward to is a new nuclear aspirant on the horizon every time we turn around. Trying to eliminate nuclear weapons will surely be a monumental task but its success might just ensure us all a future in a hopeful world. Valerie Epps is a visiting professor of law at Hongik University College of Law, Seoul, and professor of law and director of the International Law Concentration, Suffolk University Law School, Boston. She can be reached at vepps@suffolk.edu.

Final Warning on India Nukes Deal

By MADHUR SINGH/NEW DELHI

During the final full dress rehearsal for India's Republic Day Parade in New Delhi, a replica of India's Agni-III missile passes by spectators. The Agni is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

Raveendran / AFP / Getty

Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher last week visited New Delhi with a sharp reminder: it's now or never for the Indo-U.S. Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, which has been stalled since India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh failed to garner the votes from within his own coalition to pass the deal.

Washington is warning that given the U.S. presidential campaign season, India has until June to complete all the steps required to get the agreement — which provides for civilian nuclear cooperation between the two countries without India having to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty — before Congress for a yes or no vote. Having invested immense political capital in the deal, the Bush administration is keen to see it completed, and has been quietly pressuring New Delhi to expedite matters. Last week, former Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns publicly asked India to take a "courageous decision" in view of the "short timelines". Before that, on February 20, U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel, John Kerry and Joe Biden has visited New Delhi with the same message.

Making haste, however, is proving difficult for India's government, because of the resistance to the deal by opposition parties as well as the leftist parties in the ruling coalition who have delayed the deal at every step since it was first proposed in July 2005. The government has sidestepped this resistance by agreeing to hold talks with leftist allies, buying itself time to complete the requirements to get the deal before the U.S. Congress. But now, time is running out. Experts agree that the current deal is the best one India can get: it allows India to trade internationally in nuclear materials and technology, without signing the CTBT and despite carrying on with its nuclear weapons program. And it has the backing of a congressional consensus in the U.S. sufficient to win endorsement on Capitol Hill. If the deal is not passed during the tenure of the current administration, however, its successor might seek to renegotiate on terms less favorable to India.

The realization that Washington's position may harden has prompted India's power brokers to burn the midnight oil in order to meet the deadlines. This requires concluding, by the end of this month, an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to regulate India's civilian nuclear energy program and to ensure that it remains separate from its nuclear weapons program. By May, they must secure an exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which controls international trade in nuclear materials, to rules that preclude supplying states that are not signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and India's failure to sign the Test Ban Treaty will not go down easily with some of its members. India reiterated its support for universal nuclear disarmament at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva last month, and proposed a seven-point agenda. Getting an NSG waiver will be tricky, but the U.S. has assured India of its support in convincing skeptics.

With opponents of the deal — mainly the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party — digging their heels in, the June deadline may prompt the government to tell its leftist allies to take a hike. Riding high on a popular budget announced last week — which substantially reduced income tax and waived $150 billion worth of loans owed by small and marginal farmers — the government is in a good position to face elections. Politicians know that the average citizen cares little about the nuclear deal, as the CPI (M) learned last September: While the CPI (M) was focusing its attention on holding up the nuclear deal in New Delhi, in Bengal, the state it governs, villagers angry at food shortages and corruption broke into a riot. Many CPI (M) cadres were assaulted in riots over the following weeks. Most Indians may, in fact, be glad to get the nuclear deal out of the way, so that politicians can get on with working on issues more important in the minds of the citizenry.

http://www.time.com/