Creating a world free from nuclear perils by seeking the cooperation of nuclear states in strengthening the nonproliferation regime is a lofty ideal. However, while Israel refuses to acknowledge its nuclear status, the whole progress stands impeded. If the Obama administration does not succeed in persuading Netanyahu to sign the NPT and continues its debate on Iran’s nuclear program then it will make the nonproliferation efforts little more than hypocrisy and the participating Muslim countries in the region like Pakistan are not likely to let it slide. In post cold war world, the key issue for NATO and its allies was to deter the challenges while formulating alternative approaches. For this purpose, they decided to introduce arrangements like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT. One of the main problems after the disintegration of Soviet Union was to manage the fissile material. To tackle this issue, they decided to formulate such provisions in the NPT which could ensure the peaceful uses of nuclear technology.

Obama has been one of the most active leaders in the post cold war era perpetuating this American dream which required not only political cooperation but also willingness of world leaders. Obama said, “All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime”. He has held the view that the world without nuclear weapons will not only strengthen peace and security but it will also promote international and regional level cooperation. Therefore, the success of this vision is purely based on the cooperation of nuclear states and their approach to remove the nuclear warheads.

Analysis

The whole scenario of cooperation has recently been put at risk when the Israeli prime minister refused to attend the nuclear summit called by President Obama in Washington (where notably North Korea, Syria and Iran were not invited). Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ostensibly took a decision to skip this Washington call and decided to send his deputy prime minister and minister for intelligence affairs Dan Meridor to represent him. It was not only a surprise for American administration but it also complicated the non-proliferation debate. This Israeli behavior has drawn more attention toward its controversial nuclear status. It also seems like an attempt of embarrassed Israel to defy NPT once again. The concerns of the Muslim leaders in this gathering were a major factor calculated by Netanyahu and were leading to a demand for Israel to open its nuclear facilities for international inspections and make it necessary for them to sign the NPT for the development of a nuclear free region. The nuclear status of Israel is already a critical question but now it is a major challenge for Obama’s mission on how to develop a world without nuclear weapons.

The strategy of deliberate ambiguity adopted by Israel about its nuclear weapons has forced its leaders not to declare its country’s nuclear status. Israel always denied its nuclear capability and opted for a controversial stance over its nuclear program. Although there are several reports which have already provided profound details about the Israeli nuclear capability, we need to consider this issue in more detail. In Mordechai Vanunu’s interview to Sunday Times in 1986, he reported that the French supplied Dimona nuclear reactor in the 1950s and Norway provided heavy water to Israel. These are explicit evidences which can easily expose the nuclear status of Israel. As a result of this and other information, it is believed that the Dimona nuclear reactor has produced 200 nuclear warheads. Yet Israeli authorities maintain their ambiguous stance about its undeclared nuclear weapons, saying that Israel is not the first nuclear state in the region.

US administration never put pressure on Israel to quit its policy of nuclear opacity. Israel clearly has US assurance that it will not face critical debate on its nuclear status as demonstrated on many occasions in the past. In 1961 Israel was allowed to stay outside the NPT in a New York meeting between Kennedy and Ben Gurion. Later, in 1969 Richard Nixon during his visit of Israel met with Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. Nixon administration accepted the Israeli pledge not to test nuclear weapons or publicly admit their possession and refrain from exerting pressure on Israel to give up its nuclear status. The Obama administration repeated the same behavior however particularly of late, the Middle Eastern countries have been questioning the US special treatment nuclear Israel.

The ever prevailing ambiguity of Israeli nuclear program and hesitancy to sign the NPT are two major issues which have become a hurdle to create a consensus between liberal Osama’s administration and rightist Israeli leaders. This nuclear posture of neither confirming nor denying has always been keeping Israel at an arm’s length from becoming a part of global disarmament regime.

But recent refusal of Israel to attend the nuclear summit not only refreshed the controversial status of non-signatory nuclear states to NPT but it also inaugurated a debate of futility of Obama’s mission of nuclear free world. Israel refused to sign the NPT because it does not serve its best interests and jeopardize country’s security. On 11 December 1981 Shalheveth Freier an Israeli representative to the UN claimed that the NPT is an inadequate guarantee for Israel and would undermine country’s nuclear posture. Therefore, Israeli leaders maintained that the Israeli refusal to sign the NPT provides security to Israeli nuclear weapons and its policy of deliberate ambiguity.

Now ironically, both Israel and the US are seeking opportunities to curtail the nuclear program of Iran, which is a signatory to NPT. Israel’s disarmament policy is directly linked to Iranian and other regional state’s nuclear ambitions. Indeed, Ehud Barak and Dan Meridor have been strongly advocating the issues to counter nuclear Iran and Syria in the Washington summit and to demolish their nuclear aspirations. In other words, nuclear armed Israel is using their American card to face the Iran’s nuclear program as a strategic threat. But the unanswered question for the Obama administration is why it is so keen on restricting nuclear development of Iran and while quiet on Israeli nuclear program and stance.

In future, Israeli refusal to participate in the NPT and its aggressive stance on its covert nuclear program will undermine Obama’s vision to develop momentum for wider disarmament. If Israel will not talk about its nuclear status on the negotiation table then this will adversely impact the dialogue on non-proliferation. Obama’s mission is to reduce the nuclear threats while developing political confidence in dealing with global nuclear insecurities. However, sidelining the Israeli nuclear debate whilst laying great stress on the EU and China to impose tougher sanctions on Iran for its peaceful nuclear program, continues to be misplaced.

Attiq-ur-Rehman is a Ph.D. candidate in American Studies at the University of Quaid-i Azam, Islamabad, Pakistan. He also holds a Masters of Philosophy degree in Defense and Security Studies from Quaid-i-Azam University and a Masters in Politics and International Relations from International Islamic University of Islamabad, Pakistan.

(Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of POLITACT.)

The post Nuclear Israel a Challenge for Obama’s Nuclear Campaign appeared first on Politact.

Credibility of the UN Security Council at Stake

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev paid a visit to the Middle East last week, as reported on previously by PoliTact, but could there have been more on the table with Turkey than just business and energy? After Medvedev left the region, Turkey and Brazil signed a nuclear swap deal with Iran, in a bid to stave off the looming fourth round of UN sanctions with diplomatic measures. Despite the promising negotiations between the emerging powers and Iran, the US has pushed ahead with its bid for sanctions, drafting a resolution with the so-called ‘Iran-Six’: the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany.

While Russia and China are less-than-enthusiastic about the sanctions, they are tacitly towing the line, while waiting for the US to barge on into a hole of its own making. India is perhaps wizening up to the damage it has done in previous years to its relationship with Iran, while Pakistan is once again under blueprints for a number of possible pipelines from Iran to China, and even through to India.

In this Analysis of Perception and Perspective we study how this development has been viewed in different parts of the world and how it has eroded the credibility of the UN Security Council while also providing hints towards the emerging balance of power.

Analysis

Brazil, Turkey and Iran signed a landmark agreement on Monday, for Iran to ship half of its low-enriched nuclear material to Turkey for a swap of higher-enriched nuclear fuel for use in a medical reactor. The deal goes a long way to brokering a new trust between Iran and the international community, but one which may be short-lived given that the US has largely brushed off the deal, and pushed ahead with sanctions anyhow.

The two non-permanent members of the Security Council, Brazil and Turkey are emerging powers in their own right, and have succeeded diplomatically where major world-powers have failed, or not even honestly tried. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called upon the ‘Iran-six’ to enter into talks with Iran, based on “honesty, justice and mutual respect,” in tacit praise of the Brazilian and Turkish efforts, and an unspoken sentiment that previous attempt at diplomacy had been lacking in these three qualities.

There are questions as to whether Russia played a part in encouraging the deal, given that the Russian President was so recently in Turkey, the Iranian situation must certainly have come up for discussion. Russia stands to gain either way with Iran, because if the sanctions go through, the European energy market remains Russian-dominated, and if the Turkey-Brazil deal proves successful, and the US is red-faced, then Russia gains credence simply from the fall in its old rival’s standing.

China is also a somewhat quiet player in the game, with the Chinese ambassador at the UN, Li Badong commenting after Hilary Clinton announced the draft resolution for a fourth round of sanction that this “did not close the doors on diplomacy”, placing emphasis on employing “dialogue, diplomacy and negotiations” over exerting political muscle.

Some have speculated whether China and Russia are towing the line simply to watch the US blunder on into a political quagmire over the Iran sanctions, and it appears to be working, given the conflicting sentiments coming out of Washington with regards to Iran. The US may be working largely to its own discredit, with prominent media outlets framing the diplomatic solution between Iran, Brazil and Turkey as “complicating sanctions talks” (the Times) and creating the “illusion of progress in nuclear negotiations” (the Washington Post). Calling a practical, workable and moderate deal brokered between sovereign nations an ‘illusion’ may well come back to bite those in the US who hold this line, especially since there is growing disgruntlement in many countries over the perceived ‘we lead, you follow’ practices of the US. The fact that there are five nuclear armed members of the Security Council sanctioning a sovereign nation for developing nuclear reactors has not escaped the notice of many, nor has it escaped comparison with the fictitious WMD hunt that spawned the Iraq invasion. This situation is at best ironic, at worst the ‘Archduke Ferdinand’ of modern politics.

With Iran showing all signs of willingness to negotiate, at least giving the this impression, the US’s perseverance with sanctions appears more like it has nothing to do with nuclear proliferation, and everything to do with making a new monster in the Middle East.

Meanwhile in the Af-Pak region, India seems to have awoken to the fact that it’s blind following of US sentiment on Iran has done considerable damage to its relationship with the energy-rich country. Turkey and Brazil’s unilateral stance regarding Iran has shown India that emerging powers can successfully play a part in the world stage, and do so in opposition to the US line, without actually damaging their own relations with the US. Perhaps this is why the Indian government has sent two ministers to Tehran this year, the latest just this week as External Affairs Minister SM Krishna pays a visit to Iran.

Negotiation on the long-disputed trans-Pakistan pipelines from Iran to India may again be on the table, even just as a way for India to make overtures of renewed friendship with Iran. Pakistan is of course even less able to guarantee the safe delivery of oil or gas across its borders than in previous years, and with trilateral negotiations not an option, the actual construction of a pipeline seems a distance possibility, and more a front to open discussions between countries. The Chinese have a better chance of seeing their proposed pipeline from Iran through Pakistan and into Xinjiang province coming to fruition, but the worsening internal situation in Pakistan is likely to halt even this development.

While the Iranian sanctions are not likely to reach approval in the Security Council–especially given that Turkey and Brazil are current non-permanent members, and have worked so hard to establish an alternative solution–the interesting development to come out of the Iranian happenings this week is that emerging powers are proving that they can accomplish much in the way of diplomacy on their own feet. And they seem to be better at it than the heavy-handed US.

The US stands in a precarious position, especially if its push for the implementation of sanctions derails in any way the agreement made between Turkey, Brazil and Iran-they are on the balance of perception between being the harbinger of diplomacy, or the destroyer of it.

Tell Us What You Think
Feedback@politact.com

The post Evolving Iranian Entanglements – Turkey, Brazil and Iran Sign Nuclear Swap Deal appeared first on Politact.