Nuclear double standards

The demolition by North Korea of the 60-foot cooling tower of its main reactor complex in Yongbyon on Friday represents an important breakthrough in dismantling its nuclear programme.

It has come after more than five years of international diplomatic efforts aimed at persuading the North Koreans to shelve its nuclear ambitions.

Two years ago, the world shuddered when Pyongyang successfully tested a nuclear bomb. A combination of threats, such as sanctions and even the use of force, in addition to rewards and incentives finally persuaded the North Korean regime to embark on a plan to shut down its nuclear facility.

The denuclearisation of North Korea, when is completed, will be viewed as a success story in an otherwise bleak chapter in global nuclear proliferation. In the past two decades a number of countries have gatecrashed into the nuclear club. They announced their arrival by dramatically detonating their nuclear test bombs. India and Pakistan are the starkest examples.

The contrasts with the Iranian case could not be missed. Certainly the Americans and the Europeans would like to see a deal, similar to North Korea, reached with Tehran.

Already Washington has demonstrated that it was willing to consider all options and has, along with the Europeans, combined the use of sanctions, and the threat of a punitive strike, with the offer of rewards and incentives. So far the Iranians have not relented.

But drawing comparisons with North Korea has its limitations. Certainly the geopolitical realities are different. Iran has so far insisted that its nuclear programme is peaceful and that its pursuit of nuclear capabilities will be limited to civilian use.

The West does not buy that and believes Tehran is intent on acquiring military nuclear capabilities, while the international watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is careful not to have a repeat of the Iraq fiasco and would like to see the crisis solved diplomatically.

There are few similarities between North Korea and Iran. Unlike the xenophobic and isolated regime in Pyongyang, Iran today is economically strong, regionally influential and is comparatively much more open.

Its government might not be to the liking of the conservative right-wingers who rule Washington, but is that enough reason to deny it access to nuclear power?

Furthermore, Tehran's claim to acquiring nuclear capabilities for civilian use has some legitimacy as the divergence in regional public opinion on this issue proves.

But it would be naive to believe that Iran, under the hawkish President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not go the full length in developing nuclear warheads once it has gained the knowledge. That remains a risk, just as with India and Pakistan and before that with Israel.

The question here is simple and straightforward: Who has the right to obtain nuclear power and who has the right to say no to such claimant? The anti-proliferation treaties have not succeeded in preventing many countries from forcing themselves into the nuclear club.

Some countries, namely Israel, have to date not admitted to their nuclear programme and are refusing international inspections. Recently the former US president Jimmy Carter said that Israel has an arsenal of 150 nuclear heads.

If anti-proliferation measures have not forced Israel to open up its secret facilities or accept international inspections, then why should other countries abide by the rules?

Uncertain

There is case to be made for the supervised use of nuclear energy for civilian use. As the world goes into an uncertain oil crisis, characterised by rising prices and demand, the world economy is at the brink of a major recession or worse.

Certainly resource poor countries such as Jordan, Syria, Egypt and others have a legitimate claim and many reasonable concerns about the future.

The West, which has the most advanced systems to produce clean nuclear power for civilian use, has been hesitant to allow technology transfer. Almost all those who joined the nuclear club did it on their own and initially for military reasons.

But the Cold War days are behind us and as we probably face the biggest energy crisis in our history, the West should recognise the fact that knowledge and expertise have to be shared.

As for the case of Iran, it is difficult to imagine a repeat of the North Korean scenario any time soon. Many regional leaders have underlined that the Middle East, of all regions, should become free of nuclear weapons.

So far Israel is the only country that is in possession of these lethal weapons of mass destruction. It is ironic that Iraq was conquered and destroyed on the basis of false accusations that it had caches of WMDs and the facilities to manufacture them, while Israel continues to evade retribution when it is now common knowledge that it has definite nuclear capabilities.

If the West wants to put pressure on Iran and summon regional support for that cause, then it must come clean on its position on Israel's secret programme and capabilities.

The double-standard position is so clear to all that no one in the West can defend it anymore. Furthermore, the Middle East should become free of all WMDs while at the same time legitimate access to peaceful and clean nuclear energy should not be denied.

Osama Al Sharif is a veteran journalist based in Jordan.

The world is facing a double standard rule, so it must come out from that conspiracy.
Mohammed
ctg,Bangladesh
Posted: June 29, 2008, 14:18

Iran has the right to developed nuclear weapons to defend itself- because Israel already has nuclear weapons which is of great concern for Arab world. While Arab land is being occupied, no one can do anything. The major problem is that the Arab world has no unity. That?s why they can not fight Israel, which is only 60 years old. Iraq is an example.
saif
dubai,uae
Posted: June 29, 2008, 13:46

G W BUSH has already encountered and almost put under his foot the two evils(Iraq and North Korea) of his declared AXIS OF EVILS, so he will definitely try his best to bring his third declared Evil(Iran)also before he leaves his office. People around the world already projected him as war monger, so if he thinks of peace, it will be a waste effort for him.
Ansar
Ramnad,India
Posted: June 29, 2008, 11:23

The question raised by Osama Al Sharif is a journalism one. Ask if there is any discrimination. Jimmy Carter's disclosure is triflingly written off while double standard is applied to Iran's issue. It doesn't mean that nuclear program is to be encouraged. What people want is an impartial non-proliferation. Otherwise talks turn futile.
Muhammad
Dubai,U.A.E
Posted: June 29, 2008, 10:18