link here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5050100867.html
Iran is planning to mount a staunch defense of its nuclear energy program at an international conference beginning today and will insist on rights to the same technology afforded to all members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a senior Iranian official said in an interview yesterday.
The high-level counteroffensive, to be led by Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, comes in anticipation of a tough speech the Bush administration is preparing to give today calling for international measures against Tehran unless it gives up sensitive aspects of its nuclear program.
M. Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, said his country's efforts are peaceful and well within its rights. Kharrazi, who will address the gathering tomorrow, will spend much of this week discussing the issue with diplomats from around the world.
The White House decided several days ago to send a mid-level delegation to the United Nations, where diplomats will review ways to strengthen the nonproliferation treaty. But efforts were underway late yesterday to persuade Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to deliver the U.S. address today. U.S. officials did not rule out raising the profile of the delegation but said it would be difficult for Rice, who returned Saturday from Latin America and is scheduled to accompany President Bush to Europe tomorrow.
Conference organizers had hoped the crises with Iran and North Korea would remain in the background this week. But the hardening rhetoric and actions on all sides indicate the tensions are escalating and probably would dominate the forum.
Diplomats from more than 180 countries will spend the next month reviewing the treaty, which gives nations broad access to nuclear energy technology in exchange for pledges to forgo nuclear weapons. The deal, signed in 1970, also includes a commitment by the five original nuclear states -- the United States, France, Britain, China and Russia -- to eventually eliminate their stockpiles.
The treaty is considered one of the most successful arms-control agreements ever. But the basic bargain is often cited as its greatest flaw because countries can peacefully get a pathway to bomb-building and then leave the NPT without penalty, as North Korea did two years ago.
And although the NPT is credited with slowing the spread of nuclear weapons, it has not stopped proliferation altogether or led to the eliminations originally envisioned. Pakistan, India and Israel have not signed the pact, and there are fears that more countries could opt out. Several solutions have been offered to address the flaws, but there is no consensus on any. Delegates who have been preparing for the conference for more than a year still have not agreed on an agenda for the meeting.
As a result, the conference, which takes place every five years, is mired in turmoil and comes as tensions are gathering over Iran and North Korea. Yesterday, North Korea, which is now believed to have the means for at least six nuclear weapons, unnerved its neighbors with a missile test in the Sea of Japan. Over the weekend, Iranian officials said they could end a suspension of their once-secret nuclear energy program unless there is some progress in talks with Europe meant to resolve concerns about the country's growing nuclear capabilities.
U.S. officials, who discussed the White House's strategy, said they did not believe this conference would end with any agreements and instead braced for confrontation and criticism. Bush last week chose harsh language to describe his frustration with Tehran and Pyongyang. North Korea responded by calling Bush "a philistine whom we can never deal with."
The U.S. speech, which will be delivered to conference delegates today, focuses heavily on Iran and North Korea "in very tough language," said one U.S. official, who agreed to discuss the details on the condition of anonymity. The speech will also go over proposals Bush made in February 2004 but will not offer any new ideas about how to deal with growing nuclear crises and will avoid mention of a dozen nuclear commitments the United States signed on to, along with other nations, at the previous review conference in 2000.
Those commitments, which focus on nuclear disarmament, have become touchstones for nonnuclear states that say the United States is not honoring the treaty's main purpose of eliminating nuclear weapons.
But the Bush administration said the 2000 commitments, which did not focus on terrorism, a changed Middle East or a nuclear black market, are not relevant in a world altered by the attacks on the United States a year later on Sept. 11, 2001.
Most critics of the administration's position agree that some of the commitments are outdated and say the unilateral decision to walk away from a set of ideas adopted by consensus weakens the treaty and the U.S. position.
"If the conference fails and the U.S. is seen as the reason for that failure, it is going to be much harder for the United States to get the international cooperation it needs to deal with Iran, to deal with North Korea and to deal with all the other issues we are concerned about," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Cirincione said U.S. research into new nuclear weapons and new uses for nuclear weapons, coupled with a refusal to ratify a treaty banning nuclear testing, has led countries to doubt the U.S. commitment to the treaty. He said the United States must lead by example if it expects others to sustain their pledges.
But the Bush administration has rejected that argument.
"This notion that the United States needs to make concessions in order to encourage other countries to do what is necessary to preserve the nuclear nonproliferation regime is at best a misguided way to think about the problems confronting us," Stephen G. Rademaker, assistant secretary of state for arms control, said in congressional testimony last week.
Rademaker, who was named to lead the U.S. delegation to the conference, said the United States would use the meeting to focus on Iran's alleged noncompliance with the treaty and North Korea's withdrawal from the agreement.
European officials have been concerned about U.S. aims at the conference, saying a toughly worded speech or narrow focus on Iran could inflame rather than alleviate tensions at a sensitive time in their negotiations with Tehran. "The last thing we want is an inflammatory speech from either side," one senior European official said.
Zarif said Iran plans to be firm on its rights under the treaty despite the suspicions. "An attempt to make compliance the central issue of this conference is a smoke screen designed to conceal the fact that there were decisions taken at the previous conference, and adopted by consensus, for disarmament," he said. "We know our rights."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and another:http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N01104981.htm
UNITED NATIONS, May 1 (Reuters) - U.S. officials want a global disarmament conference starting on Monday to condemn Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs, but most nations complain Washington is doing too little to scrap its arsenal.
The U.N.-sponsored conference, which runs from May 2 to May 27, will examine the strengths and loopholes of the 35-year-old nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the global pact aimed at ridding the world of atomic weapons.
U.S. officials told Reuters that Washington wants to keep the conference focused on what it sees as the two serial treaty violators -- Iran and North Korea.
Diplomats say participants may be too divided to reach a consensus on anything -- especially if the United States and the four other nuclear weapons states do not demonstrate a deep commitment to disarming as called for by the 1970 treaty.
If the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France agree to take further concrete steps towards disarmament, the other signatories might be able to reach a consensus on something -- possibly even tough language on the nuclear violations of Tehran and Pyongyang, diplomats said.
"There's no reason why there shouldn't be a positive outcome at this conference, including consensus," one Western diplomat told Reuters. But the weapons states would have to give "more than lip service" to disarmament.
Among the proposals conference participants are considering is a possible declaration calling for universal acceptance of the so-called Additional Protocol, diplomats said.
The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency created the Additional Protocol after discovering former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's covert nuclear weapons program in 1991 to give the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog the right to conduct more intrusive short-notice inspections.
Many signatories to the non-proliferation treaty believe the protocol should be obligatory. Less than half have signed and implemented it.
The U.N. lists 189 countries as signatories of the treaty, but this includes North Korea, which withdrew in 2003.
Israel, Pakistan and India are assumed to have atomic weapons but never signed the treaty. Like North Korea they will not be officially participating in this month's conference.
Russia and the United States, bound by the treaty to disarm, have said they were considering new types of atomic weapons. This, some states say, only encourages countries like Iran and North Korea to pursue the nuclear option.
ELBARADEI WANTS GLOBAL MORATORIUM
IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei has called for a global moratorium on the enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of plutonium, the two ways of making fuel for atomic weapons. But few countries with enrichment capabilities support this idea.
"ElBaradei's plan doesn't have a chance," said one diplomat.
Ironically, the United States and Iran are allies on the topic of ElBaradei's proposal, which is opposed by Canada, Australia, Japan, France, Brazil, the Netherlands and others.
But many states say it is a flaw in the NPT that parties to it can legally develop the ability to produce bomb fuel.
Washington has a solution to this problem: states that fail to comply with the NPT should be denied the right to nuclear technology guarantee by the treaty.
Diplomats say this would mean Iran would have no right to continue with its uranium enrichment program, which it hid from the IAEA for 18 years before declaring it in 2003.
Sharing Washington's suspicions that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, the European Union has offered Tehran economic and political incentives if it scraps its nuclear fuel program. Iran has rejected these and says its program is intended to fuel power plants, not weapons.
Tehran has suspended its enrichment program, but has become frustrated with the slow progress in talks with the EU and threatened on Saturday to resume enrichment-related work.
