The 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) late last month adopted a resolution that criticized Iran’s response over its nuclear development problem and, although postponing referral to the United Nations Security Council, warned that the issue might be referred in the future. The situation gives cause for concern because Iran’s immediate rejection of the resolution underlines the possibility that it might start full-scale uranium-enrichment activities any time. The resolution recognized that Iran has violated the safeguards agreement and called into question the Iranian position that its nuclear development program is purely for peaceful purposes. Iran should seriously pay heed to this resolution and again search for a way to a diplomatic solution so that a decision to refer the issue to the Security Council can be avoided at the next IAEA board of governors meeting in November. Iran should refrain from raising tensions in the international community by spreading suspicions that its ultimate aim is to develop nuclear weapons.
Because of the breakdown of negotiations with Britain, France, and Germany that had continued since last year, the Iranian government in August resumed its uranium-enrichment program. In response, the IAEA unanimously adopted a resolution calling on Tehran to immediately stop its conversion work and continue its cessation of uranium-enrichment activities. The problem is that the vicious circle of agreement violation, censure resolution and temporary compromise has simply gone on for far too long. The question of Iran’s secret promotion of nuclear development in the past and repeated violation of the safeguards agreement was brought up at the IAEA board meeting again this time. Because Iran has been suspected in the past of concealing its operations, its response is always met with mistrust and arouses further suspicions about its nuclear-weapons development. In order to prove that its nuclear development is for peaceful purposes only, Tehran has to ensure transparency and implement confidence-building measures.
Underlying the nuclear debate is the problem of how far the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, which is stipulated in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), should be recognized. Against the background of nuclear development by Iran and North Korea, and bearing in mind the breakdown of the NPT review conference in May, the problem of the rebuilding of the nuclear nonproliferation regime was also a major theme at the IAEA general conference held after the board meeting. Since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took power, Iran has assumed a hardline stance, insisting that its establishment of a nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium enrichment, is an indigenous right of the state. The three European countries (Britain, France and Germany) proposed assistance for the construction of a light-water reactor and the provision of nuclear fuel in return for Iran’s abandoning its development of a nuclear fuel cycle, but Tehran rejected the offer.
There is a deep-rooted mistrust among the nonaligned countries that the nuclear states are restricting nonnuclear nations’ right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Also at the board meeting, some nations voiced support for Iran’s position. It was unusual that the resolution was adopted by majority vote when China, Russia and nonaligned countries abstained. However, there is widespread concern that if Iran were to possess its own nuclear fuel cycle, it could initiate the development of nuclear weapons at any time. In the past the IAEA has repeatedly pointed out Iran’s violation of the safeguards agreement. If Tehran is going to talk about its rights, it must first dispel these suspicions by taking convincing action.

A welcome move

DESPITE assertions by some members that it would not, Iraq’s Parliament yesterday reversed its decision to change the rules governing next week’s constitutional referendum. While the U-turn is welcome, it would have been far better had the amendment not been passed in the first place. The suggested change effectively abolished the provision that the constitutional referendum would fail if it were rejected by two-thirds of all registered voters in three of Iraq’s 18 provinces. Iraqi Sunnis, who make up 20 percent of the population, are in the majority in four provinces. Instead of two-thirds of all registered voters, the amendment would have changed the condition to two-thirds of all who voted. On the basis of the 60 percent average turnout in January’s parliamentary elections, that would have made it virtually impossible for the constitution to be rejected. A vote where there could be no doubt of the outcome would, it is clear, have been no vote at all. Washington was markedly muted in its response to the Shiite-dominated Parliament’s moving of the goal posts.
Unfortunately much damage has already been done. Many moderate Sunnis believe that they have now seen the writing on the wall for them in the new Iraq. What little faith they still had in their place in the new democratic process will have been undermined. The calls for a boycott of this vote, like those for a boycott of January’s election, may now be all too tempting. If the Sunni community en masse ignores the referendum, then however convincing the endorsement of the constitution by other Iraqis, it will still lack legitimacy. The new Iraq has to be all-embracing. To be genuinely pluralist, all communities must willingly sign up to the enterprise. Washington is at least right about this. The alternative is the bloody horror of civil war. It is frightening to contemplate that in trying to change the rules, some legislators may have been seeking to provoke the Sunnis into abandoning the democratic process. “After all,” one Shiite MP was quoted as saying, “the Sunnis aren’t interested in democracy anyway.” No attitude could be better calculated to radicalize Sunni moderates, whose hopes of peace are somewhere between the bigoted men of violence in their own community and the increasing disdain of the Shiites. The greatest victory for peace would be a large turnout of all Iraqis next week. In a way the outcome of the vote matters less than that the majority of Iraqis, regardless of community, are seen to value the ballot box over the bomb, the bullet and bloodshed. Because it was born of compromise, the proposed constitution falls short of everyone’s aspirations but its strength lies in the areas where there is agreement. It thus offers a real foundation for peace.

—Arab News