Peace Now Illegal

Have you ever read anything on PNAC? It's spoken of such things for at least a couple of years.

 

''implementing safegaurds'' is a cornerstone of the NPT..

IAEA Safeguards Overview:
Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols



What are safeguards and what role do they play?

Safeguards are activities by which the IAEA can verify that a State is living up to its international commitments not to use nuclear programmes for nuclear-weapons purposes. The global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and other treaties against the spread of nuclear weapons entrust the IAEA as the nuclear inspectorate. Today, the IAEA safeguards nuclear material and activities under agreements with more than 140 States.

Within the world’s nuclear non-proliferation regime, the IAEA’s safeguards system functions as a confidence-building measure, an early warning mechanism, and the trigger that sets in motion other responses by the international community if and when the need arises.

Over the past decade, IAEA safeguards have been strengthened in key areas. Measures aim to increase the likelihood of detecting a clandestine nuclear weapons programme and to build confidence that States are abiding by their international commitments.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf

Is Iran complying with this ?... I don't think so.

This would be ''not complying with inspections''

 

The fact that IAEA is implenting safeguards isn't proof that Iran is not complying with the NPT. I'm not following what you're saying.

.

 

And they say PNAC is the work of the devil hahahahaha

 

IAEA has not just decieded to draw up safegaurds... It is following the NPT by wishing for IRAN to comply with it's obligations to follow safegaurds..
Is Iran following it's obigations ?... It seems not. Hence the pickle we are in.

Have you read the NPT ?. <---- thats sarcasm by the way..


Article III

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency’s safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfilment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards required by this Article shall be followed with respect to source or special fissionable material whether it is being produced, processed or used in any principal nuclear facility or is outside any such facility. The safeguards required by this Article shall be applied on all source or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of such State, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its control anywhere.

http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

 

I still don't follow you. Wishing for Iran to comply with NPT is not evidence that Iran violated NPT. IAEA is trying to come up with a resolution to the U.S. concerns about Iran. That's not evidence that Iran violated NPT. The fact that someone may think they did isn't proof either.

.

 

Is the IAEA satisfied ?.. are you calling the IAEA warmongers ?.

 

People have to come up with better arguments than this about Iran. Saying that Iran must be violating NPT because the IAEA is implementing safeguards isn't a valid argument. It's similar to saying that Saddam must have been building a nuclear bomb because he tried to buy aluminum tubes from China.

.

 

Why not ?

You say ''is implementing'' .. Iran SHOULD be following these safegaurds anyway... I don't see how this is a difficult thing for them to do ?? other nations seem to be doing it very well.

It's not the same as that either.. thats the media circus and political punditry for you [otherwise known as ''muddying the water''] ..

Simply Iran is not following its obligations.. We seem to be bending over backward to accomodate them..

I have to agree with you about it being like the Iraq situation.. No offence people seem to be making excuses for [in this case] Irans obligations.. and just seem to believe Iran.. wich i would do if they just folowed the darn guidlines and co-operated.. It seems to me to be very simple.. but i guess 'other issues' always have to be taken into consideration.

 

Iran has followed the safeguards. IAEA has been implementing safeguards since its inception. That's what they do. You seem to be saying that IAEA's implementing of safeguards somehow is evidence that Iran was not following safeguards.

.

 

So if the city you live in implements new fire codes, that's evidence that you weren't following the codes?

.

 

Let me ask this question: If Iran follows every single rule of the IAEA from now on, does anyone have a problem with Iran continuing with their nuclear program for energy? Iran having a nuclear energy program for peaceful purposes doesn't violate NPT.

Somehow I get the feeling that the answer is no. If that's the case, then the issue isn't really a matter of Iran following the IAEA rules.

.

 

So let me get this straight... Iran has not complied with NEW safegaurds that presumably have been put in place just for Iran.. No other 'special' safegaurds have been put in place for any other nation. These new safegaurds are a result of none compliance of some other aspect of NPTand don't effect any other nation ?. What other parts of NPT where they not complying with [possibly a issue in itself] If this is the case i can see where Iran is comeing from...but their must be a valid reason for this ? . If not then the IAEA are being unreasonable... but i doubt with the history they have they would consider putting Iran into a no win situation.. what would be the point ?...Are you suggesting the IAEA is politicaly motivated ?.

I'd like a bit of evidence for this ...

I must have missed these new obligations placed upon Iran..

I don't know yet.. you will have to provide some evidence that supports your notion.. if you don't mind ?.

If you ask the 'general public' i guess the answer will be NO... Those are not the people to be asking this question to.. because they don't have treaties to follow.. The IAEA DOES.. so i would presume they WOULD allow Iran to CONTINUE with their peaceful use of nuclear power. Their would be no issue to be resolved.

 

I asked you first what was your evidence that Iran is not complying with NPT. You replied by posting a link that the IAEA is implementing safeguards.

I assume you were implying that because the IAEA is implementing safeguards that it somehow proved that Iran was not complying with NPT.

.

 

OK, No issue between the IAEA and Iran in that case.

So do you think the White House would also be satisfied in a situation like that? Or do you think the U.S. would put political pressure on the IAEA to do something more? Or gather up support in Europe and other countries to have Iran reported to the security council anyway?

.

 

didn't the "european trio" britain ,france, germany , ask for "our' support?

 

The U.S. wants it turned over to the security council and has asked Europe and Russia for help. Europe has taken a more diplomatic approach to it. They generally wanted to give it more time before having the matter turned over to the security council.

.

 

No .... Safegaurds are the cornerstone of the NPT... Iran is not complying with certain elements of those safegaurds .. as such is refusing to uphold ALL its obligations.. simple i thought ?.

Where were you comeing from with the previous couple of posts [New safegaurds]???

Seems people think America wants another war.. i don't think so.. I think they WOULD be satisfied. Be cynical and think they don't need two conflicts in the same region at the same time if you wish [further political suicide].. Personaly i think they just wish like the rest of Europe for a 'safe' Iran.

I don't think they would try and 'report them anyway'.. they have obviously been patient for quite some time..Taking a step back from the situation [quite rightly imho]. End of the day America will gain more from Iran if they oblige the IAEA .
Gather up support for what ?... ok i won't play dumb i know what you mean.. but indications suggest the whole affair will be resolved peacefully . It seems it is basicaly in Irans hands.. i guess like it always has been .

"We are reaching a critical phase but it is not a crisis situation. It is about confidence building and it is not about an imminent threat... ''

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/dg_bog020206.html

 

Shaggie, I think you are mostly playing devil's advocate here. Hope you're having fun. But really, why don't you just tell us what you think is happening in Iran, and what you think should be done.

After all, how can we have safeguards on a site we don't even know exists?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/22/wiran22.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/22/ixnewstop.html

 

I don't know about 'Devils advocate' more like confusing the issue [ok maybe he ended up being a 'devils advocate].... no offence Mr S... but come on ''why don't you just tell us what you think is happening in Iran, and what you think should be done''

I promise to forget about it afterwards and you can go around claiming illegal wars etc etc etc ...