some or all of you may have heard of hans blix? he's famously the undead post saddam inspector that found nothing. he has an interview on al-jazeera, wich is quitte decent in many respects , still for insiders clearly shows his own position, the usian (as perceived by the uk probably) one. I'll cover that.
here's the video: http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/frostovertheworld/2009/10/200910374842991758.html,
or here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vfGmS0e0Y4
it is a lot of material and the aproach and questions are to the point..
Obama has asked iran to proof in two weeks it doesn't have nucleair weapons..
i have comments on that, 1: a nation that wants them can obtain nucleair weapons over a period of twenty years. 2: it is not possible to ever proof that without an invasion or some such. 3: perhaps we are all safer when it does have a few.
4: for public knowledge it will not admit such weapons (israel doesn't) 5: it does (most probably) not have the capacity's to build an arsenal 6: taken such arguments into consideration this a dangerous request, requests that cannot be forfilled will lead to baseless reproaches.
Frost introduces by telling about the 6-partite talks. a surprising level of agreement he says "by all accounts" is reached. it is worth noticing that this kind of publicity is naturally meant to provide a positive signal. one might wonder what credit will be given to irans campaign for a nucleair weapons free world...(1)
it also is important to realise that even this bit of aproach, and the contents of this bit of media are facilitated by Obama's will to talk and perhaps even, to disarm. At the moment i do not trust him completely(2), but the argument that major nucleair powers would not hurry disarming in a time of proliferation is natural.
blix is asked for the meaning of progress, he reply's by first stating that the g6 were not asking for very much. only inspections. now that is partial, because they are acually asking a whole lot, and (if they even had to ask? i don't think so) now also immediatly inspections. However he is right in saying it is not that surprising iran agrees to that after announcing the plant.
interestingly that usia was aware of the existence of this plant over at least a month, (it is pretty visible from space) is now kept out of view, at least also by blix.
"the real question is wether iran can be (you say;) dissuaded from continuing an enrichment program"
basically technically not is there? civil nucleair energy necesitates a higher level enrichment then 5%. so abandoning such technological advance would play the whole worlds energy market in the hands of "the lucky few".
the real question is, will israel and iran need to achieve (you say;) parity.
in the context of the indeed mostly old russian proposal,( heh, there is a component of russian greed in the shuttling of material..) he goes into rhetorics, "iranians say they cannot trust anybody" and "it is much cheaper to buy it".
the first is not the actual argument, that centres more about the economic and technological parity.wether it wud be cheaper to buy it very much depends the iranian production methods, if iran manages to sell it, that would definetly be even more profitable, and the rewards of obtaining the technologies and gaining the expertise cannot be estimated yet.
he lauds the talks (and obamashowing some of his affinity with usia and 'the west') they will continue 'for a while 'at any rate'' this is a somewhat sceptical signal, but also apparently he knows (or poses) obama is not intend on running from talks immediatly even advance would be slow or hard.(3)
i myself am quite optimistical of the aproach as well. Keep up the good work blix!.
Blix returns to the point of disuasion. asking wich are the options "carrots" he says
to lead the donkey one way or the other. sanctions or "investments" bluntly put.
well usia, blix, eu, israel, and "the west" , the sanctions are already there, your wild economical attacks on innocents and children are a severe reality of iran, that part took you no long. investments? don't they come with guilt? and loans? with interest and interests? iran wants independence not interference.
blix what kind of commitment to a non-agression status? are you serious blix? come on. words on paper don't guarantee peace, what good has the ink of un resolutions done to the palestineans? a status like the current one? including bombings of iran?
and how about israeli weapons.. ah.. a nucleair free zone in the middle east..
if that loose argument wants some merit it is time to start inspecting israel.
however it is funny, usia that sets no step hardly without israeli permission now puts a nucleair free middle east on the table, i don't know wether to find it desperate or hilarious and i trust it for what the past 50 years have proven this kind of talk and promising. not at all.
some more blackmail, about corporation in afghanistan, libanon and gaza(west bank apparently not negotiable). that is horrible man, is there so much good israel and
usia forbid to happen?
wether iran uses this to drag out the situation. to actually build more centrifuges.
(implying they would be for weapons and not industrially usefull uranium). roundwinded yes, hans. think thoroughly.. what again did israel just offer^^?
the nucleair threat to iran is one of pronouncedly huge proportions, they will need a rocket or 10 to keep israel at bay, and it would work wouldn't it? if in reply to the total destruction of iran the total destruction of the israeli was guaranteed, iran would not anymore be under the threat of nucleair attack and agression. that is the sad of it. and all the use of conflict in the middle east would disappear with it, so we see israel's role in the middle east diminishing. when israel can no longer target anyone with unlimited destruction with impunity, her strongest tool of control has just vanished and (world) peace so bitterly lacking in exactly the middle east muslim lives came closer.
so that is a bit awfull, even hans would agree that a thorough expertise of the material would promote the safety. otoh. perhaps he settles for: any atomic bomb unmade(4) is an actual succes, the pragmatical course.
k he gets partial again next. iran has not ratified extensions to the iaae protocol.
ofcourse he knows, but he doesn't mention,(5) a lot of times actions of usia or israel are based on "not signing ratifications" unratified protocols, this argument is moot.
is there a third plant. i would think so, they must assemble the nukes somewhere, and given earlier attempts, will have taken precautions against further destruction of the civilian programme. otoh i am convinced that if there is such a third plant, usia knows of it's existence and location, and thus israel does as well.
also many nations still have classified nucleair projects, there is almost a tradition of secret plants, why no mention of that ?
remains to say he says there maybe an option of nucleair disarmament in the whole middle east (also referring to israel not wanting 2 neighbours with them), fortunately even here iran has been one step ahead of the blues , by founding her current campaign and aproach of a slogan asking for nucleair disarmament in all the world. a thing najad btw. referred to in his un speech.
conclusions: Blix is not impartial, his attitude towards nucleair weapons is only in so far sincere he would want a world without. but in his rhetorics he underlays the usian diplomatics. he is well informed, knows a few things most of us or i don't.
he is also quite as curious as usia what actually facilitates and comprives these advances in nucleair processing iran have meanwhile shown to deliver.
like with former hints, i won't go into detail. basically they just stem from the patch up procedure: if we are bombed yet we still want to make some how do we do that. and that it is funny when u can produce weapons grade uranium in a pinch, so that nucleair threats against your nation become obsolete.
i think these were the technical specifications of the project;) :P ofcourse unlike
north korea the iranian republic is rich enough and willing to manage the safety requirements.
the iranian talent for process control did the rest.
Last but not least, had i been iran, i would have been willing to buy weapons grade fissile material on any market, and henceforth conduct to rigid protocol certainly.
No matter i will remain a principle opponent of the iranian state as a religious entity, and one upholding a stiff, autocrat, authoritarian system, so do i think that of to many nations that routinely escape suspicion.
the right to doom and threaten other nations and people, (for religious differences should not matter), i grant to noone.
iran and other muslim nations have not been left in peace and quiet, not been free of threat, intimidation and extortion.
we, usia, "the west", israel, have made to many mistakes to claim the right is on our side.
the right is in the middle, justice will not be done by western attitudes and lies nor by islamic authority.
to achieve justice we need (parity and mutuality in) respect, and a love for peace.
it is incredible that ruling classes made such a waste of the love in the hearts of all people.(6)
love.
(1)i noted once before in the blog iran is having a campaign:"nucleair weapons for none, nucleair energy for all". btw. this obviously also translates into: we are held to the same rights and obligations the others adhere to.
(2) the downplaying of the gaza crimes against humanity, (and the unmentioned 'crimes against peace..] report , the conditional aproach (and surrender of abbas) to palestineans, is a bit much to bear. i see that as obama implementing the israeli policy of delay untill nothing is left of the palestineans.
(3) since he knows more of the attitudes and cordiality expressed in the meetings it is a positive signal for that as well.
(4) the "israeli " bomb, the "pakistani" bomb, the "south african" bomb, the "brasilean" bomb, the "english" bomb, the "usian" bomb, etc..
(5) typically "reinform" the iaae of the plans to go ahead with the second plant.
(6) with merely dialectic exceptions.
No comments:
Post a Comment