Comments 7

核不扩散迟到的胜利

Jul 16, 2015 Chris Patten

伦敦—对于值得赞扬的，我们应该毫不吝啬。尽管面临诸多批评，但美国总统奥巴马和他的国务卿克里顽强坚守，与伊朗谈成了限制其核计划的谈判。与来自英国、俄罗斯、中国、法国和德国的代表一起，他们现在取得了成功。

这一在以色列、伊朗的地区竞争对手（特别是沙特阿拉伯）以及美国政治右派的反对下取得成功的历史性协议的主要内容是遏制伊朗的核活动，使其局限于民用而无法迅速武器化。作为让核设施接受检查和监督的交换条件，近几年来对伊朗施加的国际经济制裁将会取消。

这是核时代的重大时刻。自1945年以来，核武器的可怕破坏力令政治领导人们寻求各种方法控制它们。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.

Featured

What’s Been Stopping the Left?

Apr 10, 2018 Dani Rodrik
Political Machismo

Apr 10, 2018 Ian Buruma
Will China Really Supplant US Economic Hegemony?

Apr 2, 2018 Kenneth Rogoff
Should Tech Companies Be More Tightly Regulated?

Mar 30, 2018 Simon Johnson
Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

Mar 21, 2018 Richard N. Haass

0 Comments on this paragraph, 10 in all 10 Comments on this article

Cary Fraser Jul 21, 2015

The point being made is that, on the issue of nuclear weapons, engagement is likely to offer negotiations as in the case of Iran; exclusion offers a path to confrontation and instability, as in the case of North Korea. As the Nuclear Era continues, it is useful to remember that even Ronald Reagan recognized the error of his ways.
j. von Hettlingen Jul 19, 2015

Critics say, it's still too early to speak of a "belated victory for non-Proliferation"! The "historic" deal will rein in Iran's nuclear activities, by reducing its stockpile of enriched uranium. It will also cut by two-thirds the number of centrifuges to enrich uranium for a decade. Sanctions will be lifted as Iran's compliance is verified by the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Should any aspect of the deal be violated, the sanctions will "snap back".
Iran is one of the 188 signatories of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the cornerstone of international efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to open up access to the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies as widely as possible. The five "nuclear-armed states", all permanent members of the UN Security Council, are bound under the treaty not to transfer nuclear weapons or to help non-nuclear states to obtain them. Non-nuclear signatories have agreed not to develop or acquire such weapons, and stick to civilian purposes.
The weakness of the treaty is that the technology used to make reactor fuel can also be used to build a nuclear bomb. A country could either carry out the work in secret or simply leave the treaty all together. Therefore, in order to prevent the technology from being used for nuclear weapons, the process is monitored by inspectors from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), under a "Safeguards Agreement". If there are doubts as to whether a country is making its commitments, the IAEA can insist on tighter inspections, including surprise ones, called an Additional Protocol. Iran was subject to an Additional Protocol. Some key states - India, Israel and Pakistan had refused to join the treaty, and are all believed to have a nuclear weapons capability. This is wrong and needs to be changed! The treaty has also failed to stop the black market nuclear trade, in which the Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan played a key role. Saudi Arabia is said to have invested in Pakistan's nuclear weapons projects, and could obtain atomic bombs at will.
However, the NPT regime has had many successes. South Africa, which had secretly built weapons in the 1980s, had destroyed them and joined the NPT in 1991. Many Latin American countries had abandoned their nuclear weapons activities. Perhaps the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and John F. Kennedy's warning in 1963 that "there would be 15, 20, or 25 nuclear states by the mid-1960s," had an impact on the region. His words may still echo today: “to stop and think for a moment what it would mean to have nuclear weapons in so many hands, in the hands of countries large and small, stable and unstable, responsible and irresponsible, scattered throughout the world.”
The biggest crisis facing the NPT came in January 2003 when North Korea announced that it was withdrawing from the treaty. This meant the departure of IAEA inspectors. So, let's hope that Iran would not follow North Korea's playbook. The West had been mired in the culture of fear and distrust for decades. Many countries have nuclear programmes and a few of them have nuclear weapons. The reason why such attention has been focused on Iran is because it hid a clandestine uranium enrichment programme for 18 years, in breach of the NPT. This might not have happened, had a deal been reached "a decade ago".
Dov Fowler Jul 17, 2015

The article confuses curbing Iran nuclear program with Non-proliferation. Before the Vienna deal Iran was clearly in violation of NPT, and under the deal it will still have nuclear capacities beyond of those allowed by the NPT. This also creates the precedent for the other NPT members who may want to disregard the treaty and start developing nuclear weapons (e.g., for Saudi Arabia and Egypt). Mr. Patten addresses none of these issues.
- m r Jul 22, 2015
  
  Please note that Iran's dallying with Nuclear programme forming the basis for forever beating it since, was forced on it through the existential threat posed by USA in 1980s through Iraq. It is well documented that it all stopped when US took charge of Iraq in 2003. You can't have your cake and eat it as well or in other words don't point at a man naked after you snatch clothes from his body.
- hari naidu Jul 18, 2015
  
  I don't think you understand the provisions of NPT which was negotiated in 1960s -@ my institute with Russian & Americans.
  Iran has not been classified as violating NPT by IAEA. What is at issue is R&D and military sites which IAEA doesn't have ready access - it's all under sovereign protection - under NPT. Unless there is a warrant to the contrary - none have been produced by either CIA or Moosad.
  Patten is knowledgeable, as a former external affairs commissioner of EU, on matters elating to NPT and especially Iran nuclear program.
Michael Public Jul 16, 2015

Iran was more to do with US embassy takeover than any nuclear capability. Many, many countries have nuclear power stations and could potentially move to being a nuclear state. Israel, India, Pakistan - these are countries who are high risk as non-members of the NPT.
Bennett Little Jul 16, 2015

Our system of Free Speech is a wonderful thing; anyone, under the guise of that inherent right, can wilfully and deliberately proceed to then distort the truth by shading and shaving the facts (not to mention the deliberate categorization of non-truths as fact).

That Iran's Foreign Minister, on the day that a 'breakthrough' (sic) was announced some months ago, was quoted on Iranian TV as asserting that they would never ever give up their nuclear program even as Mr. Kerry was announcing that they would, is a fact, just as that Mr. Patten is wilfully ignoring this is also a fact. That this same individual has apparently never been further questioned on that (let's be polite) contradiction is also a fact that Mr. Patten regretfully glosses over. For, if there is an inconvenient fact extant, Mr. Patten can be counted to either 'edit' it in his favour or, if same ois ot possible, to ignore it altogether.

Far be it for me to wonder why Iran would want to insist that it demand that it be allowed to continue to embark on the expensive path of nuclear power/research (sic) when they can:
1) ill afford same according to all economic accounts
2) are awash with sufficient oil reserves to power their country's foreseeable power requirements for the next several hundred years
unless....unless...oh, could it be that they don't intend to keep their word? My dear boy, Iran, the destabilizing force of the Middle East, the arch-nemesis of Peace and Stability in the entire region, not keeping its word? I dare say, how could that possibly be?

Why that is as inconceivable as Mr. Chamberlain returning from Germany just prior to World War ll and exclaiming that there will be, "Peace in Our Time" and that, "Mr. Hitler is a man of his word".....oh, wait, that did happen.... and we saw how that worked out.

Whenever Messrs Cheney and Netanyahu scream, "black", Mr. Patten and his ilk of the EU can be counted on to immediately posit the kneejerk scream of, "white", regardless. That Appeasement never works is all too conveniently ignored - that inflammatory and contradictory comments are constantly proferred by the very same Iranian politicians who are assuring us of their integrity is also conveniently ignored.

After all, Mr. Patten, why let inescapable hard facts get in the way of what you want reality to be? Let's ignore them and move on, similarly as you woefully understate what really happened in Latin America, Cuba, and South Africa vis-à-vis nuclear proliferation.

Regrettably, under the guise of hoped-for peace and really in the name of trade/money, not to mention short-term dubious honours, people like Mr. Kerry and Mr. Patten will always be found to do the soft-soap routine, to sell others on the benefits while downplaying (if ignoring is not possible) the inconvenient inconsistencies that do more than just 'suggest' that the whole deal is a fraud and doomed to failure.

The governments head-quartered in Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus, Jerusalem, and Riyahd (not to mention those further afield) have been contending with Iran's machinations for over a quarter of a century and it is not only Messrs Cheney and Netanyahu who are worried about this "deal" (sic), another fact conveniently omitted from Mr. Patten's litany.

Mr. Patten commences his remarks by stating, "Let us give praise where it is richly deserved", and then goes on to applaud President Obama, whose sole foreign policy legacy comes down to dumping on friends and leaving them in the lurch while pandering to enemies. On his watch, Libya has become a failed state contributing an inordinate number of fighters to ISIS. On his watch, the credibility of the USA is at a low worldwide post-WW ll. On his watch, proven friends such as Taiwan and Israel, among others, have been dumped/trashed/ignored under the guise of....well no one is exactly sure why. And now this deal that surpasses all previous actions for its shortsightedness, wilful blindness, and deliberate misdirection - for this, richly deserved praise indeed?

Mr. Patten, is there no depth to which you will not stoop? For shame, sir, for shame.

Bennett Little
hari naidu Jul 16, 2015

Non-Proliferation is a dirty word in Beltway because US politicians don't want to admit (1) Israel is not a NPT signatory and (2) Bibi is challenging Obama on Iran - P5+1 deal just concluded. He also said, he'd make utmost effort with US Congress to STOP its approval - as if he was the sovereign of USA (not POTUS). How is it possible that a PM of Israel can make such an affront - with impunity - to discredit a decade of diplomatic negotiations by US?
Bottom line, during last June NPT Review session @ UN, Iran - as chairman of non-aligned nations group- proposed a nuclear free ME to be negotiated under NPT provisions - which US finally vetoed to protect Israel's Dimona Nuclear site...
- m r Jul 22, 2015
  
  Please get it- US is a colony of Israel, like India was of England.
Petey Bee Jul 16, 2015

"... This would inevitably have caused other countries in the region, probably beginning with Saudi Arabia, to go the same way. "

Aren't Israel and Pakistan in the region?

http://prosyn.org/slWiYOg/zh;

Log in/Register

核不扩散迟到的胜利

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

What’s Been Stopping the Left?

Political Machismo

Will China Really Supplant US Economic Hegemony?

Should Tech Companies Be More Tightly Regulated?

Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

America’s Weak Case Against China

Quratulain Fatima on Gender and Politics in Pakistan

Staying on Track to End Malaria

Macron’s Real Limits

Time for a Global Financial Makeover

The Low Costs of a Zero-Carbon Economy

The Drums of Trade War

Macron’s Vital Message