rssHas Iran Actually Violated Any Specific International Obligations Here?
Friday, September 25, 2009 at 12:40 pm
- 22 Comments
[Updated 4:08 p.m., Saturday September 26: I think this post is wrong. Carnegie's James Acton explains carefully what obligations Iran has violated. My apologies.]
The disclosure of Iran’s nuclear facility under construction for years in secret near Qom — the second such undisclosed facility operated by Iran — deepens “a growing concern,” President Obama said in Pittsburgh this morning, “that Iran is refusing to live up to those international responsibilities, including specifically revealing all nuclear-related activities.” But notice that neither Obama, French President Nicholas Sarkozy nor British Prime Minister Gordon Brown accused Iran of a specific violation of its international nuclear responsibilities, and pivoted their case instead on Iran’s concealment. That’s because it’s not actually clear whether Iran has committed a specific violation of either the Nuclear Nonprofileration Treaty or its follow-on agreements negotiated separately with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Under the NPT, each state negotiates a safeguards agreement to the IAEA so the atomic watchdog can work out where and how to establish monitoring devices like cameras at declared facilities. “Iran’s specific safeguards agreement doesn’t say anything about the time limits for the provision of design information,” says Ivanka Barzashka, an analyst with the Federation of American Scientists’ Strategic Security Program. Specific time-frames for site or design disclosure typically occur in additional “subsidiary arrangements,” and usually provide for disclosure around 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material into a given facility. But Iran’s subsidiary arrangement with the IAEA “has not been made public as far as I know,” Barzashka says.
That said, in its Aug. 28 report, the IAEA criticizes Iran for not adopt implementing a section of its subsidiary arrangement that dealt with design notificiation. “The absence of such information results in late notification to the Agency of the construction of new facilities and changes to the design of existing facilities,” the IAEA warned. Barzashka translates that such adoption would require Iran to notify the IAEA “of the construction of a new plant, any kind of new facilities, as soon as a decision has been authorized by the government.”
And that clearly hasn’t happened. According to an U.S. intelligence official who would only speak on background, “We’ve known about this facility for years. Over time, a clearer picture evolved of Iran’s intentions and activities at this covert site — one that, it turns out, wasn’t unknown to us.”
That’s still not the same thing as a broken obligation binding under international law. But the lack of a specific broken obligation, in turn, isn’t a reason to dismiss today’s disclosure. “It adds to the fact that Iran’s behavior is ambiguous,” Barzashka says. “The issue for Iran should be to do anything to dissuade this concern, like [implementing] further transparency measures … that should be the issue Iran should address.”
Update: Just in case, maybe this post from Barzashka and her boss, Ivan Oelrich, can clarify the point:
The latest IAEA report (GOV/2009/55) states that Iran has not yet implemented early provisions of design information in accordance with the revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, which would require Iran to notify the agency of the construction of new facilities or modifications to existing ones as soon as such a decision has been authorized by the government or the plant operator. The original agreement required Iran to submit such information no later than 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material into the facility (GOV/2003/40).
So that looks like an if-then trigger for a violation. If there was some reason to suspect that Iran was going to place nuclear material for enrichment at the Qom facility within the next six months — and I’m not sure what that may have been, to be clear — then that, as well, might explain why this announcement came when it did. Thanks to reader/pal MWH for the tip.
Update 2: Much much more on that here.
–
Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter
22 Comments
Pingback posted September 25, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by WashIndependent. WashIndependent said: Has Iran Actually <i>Violated</i> Any Specific International Obligations Here? http://bit.ly/8XDEk [...]
Pingback posted September 25, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
[...] Originally posted here: Has Iran Actually Violated Any Specific International Obligations Here? [...]
Pingback posted September 25, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
[...] a perfect example of why President Obama didn’t want to be locked into saying that Iran’s heretofore-undisclosed nuclear facility has violated international law. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just delivered this statement to the press in Manhattan: Iranian President [...]
Comment posted September 25, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
Iran is under no legal obligation to provide the information until 18o-days before the introduction of nuclear material into the site. THAT is the applicable standard, and there's no evidence that IRan has violated that standard.
In the past, as part of Iran's ill-fated negoatiions with the Eu-3, Iran agreed to TEMPORARILY provide such information quicker — however when the negotiations fell apart Iran returned to abiding ONLY by its strict legal obligations.
The bottom line is that Iran has NOT “broken rules” and is in fact abiding by them by disclosing this site.
Comment posted September 25, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
David Albright, a physicist and a rather reliable arms control expert, offers this helpful summary of Iran's violations:
Iran’s violation of its obligations under the verification requirements of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is one of most significant breaches of this treaty.
Iran’s safeguards violations have been detailed in numerous IAEA reports, which can be found here, starting in June 2003. The November 2003 report states that “based on all information currently available to the Agency, it is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material and its processing and use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored….” Iran’s development of its enrichment capability took place over 18 years and in secrecy. This places Iran’s actions outside the category of “minor.”
As a consequence of Iran’s safeguards violations, the United Nations Security Council has passed five resolutions, four of them containing sanctions, calling on Iran to halt uranium enrichment, accept the Additional Protocol, and comply with IAEA requests to clarify key past activities concerning the military dimensions of its program, including the role of military organizations in the centrifuge program and a set of records, referred to as the “laptop documents” which we discuss further in this document.”
It is also useful to recall, in the not-so-distant past, that Iran’s initial response to the IAEA’s requests for information (following the August 2002 allegations of secret nuclear activity by an Iranian opposition group) were initially met with resistance and outright concealment efforts. The November 2004 IAEA report enumerates Iran’s safeguards violations and notes that Iran’s cooperation up to October 2003 was marked by “extensive concealment, misleading information and delays in access to nuclear material and facilities.” Examples include its imports of nuclear material, falsehoods about the origin of centrifuge technology and equipment, and its enrichment activities at the Kalaye Electric Company workshop and at Lashkar Ab’ad , and suspected centrifuge-related activity at Lavizan-Shian.
Comment posted September 25, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
David Albright, a physicist and a rather reliable arms control expert, offers this helpful summary of Iran's violations:
Iran’s violation of its obligations under the verification requirements of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is one of most significant breaches of this treaty.
Iran’s safeguards violations have been detailed in numerous IAEA reports, which can be found here, starting in June 2003. The November 2003 report states that “based on all information currently available to the Agency, it is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material and its processing and use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material has been processed and stored….” Iran’s development of its enrichment capability took place over 18 years and in secrecy. This places Iran’s actions outside the category of “minor.”
As a consequence of Iran’s safeguards violations, the United Nations Security Council has passed five resolutions, four of them containing sanctions, calling on Iran to halt uranium enrichment, accept the Additional Protocol, and comply with IAEA requests to clarify key past activities concerning the military dimensions of its program, including the role of military organizations in the centrifuge program and a set of records, referred to as the “laptop documents” which we discuss further in this document.”
It is also useful to recall, in the not-so-distant past, that Iran’s initial response to the IAEA’s requests for information (following the August 2002 allegations of secret nuclear activity by an Iranian opposition group) were initially met with resistance and outright concealment efforts. The November 2004 IAEA report enumerates Iran’s safeguards violations and notes that Iran’s cooperation up to October 2003 was marked by “extensive concealment, misleading information and delays in access to nuclear material and facilities.” Examples include its imports of nuclear material, falsehoods about the origin of centrifuge technology and equipment, and its enrichment activities at the Kalaye Electric Company workshop and at Lashkar Ab’ad , and suspected centrifuge-related activity at Lavizan-Shian.
Pingback posted September 25, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
[...] both an embarrassment and a setback, right? Of course not. Spencer Ackerman raises the question of whether Tehran is really the victim here: The disclosure of Iran’s nuclear facility under construction for years in secret near Qom — [...]
Comment posted September 25, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
Albright has been less than truthful and unreliable for some time. If you wish to be informed about the number of baseless claims he has made in the past few years (with documentation to back it up), read http://www.antiwar.com/orig/sahimi.php?articlei… .
Your statements regarding the safeguards agreements is incorrect – do not rely on Albright and do your own homework!
Pingback posted September 26, 2009 @ 5:07 am
[...] Has Iran Actually Violated Any Specific International Obligations Here? - The Washington Independent [...]
Pingback posted September 26, 2009 @ 6:24 am
[...] Has Iran Actually Violated Any Specific International Obligations Here? - The Washington Independent [...]
Comment posted September 26, 2009 @ 10:02 am
In its February 2008 report on Iran, the IAEA clearly stated that it had resolved all outstanding issues with Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear activities, the ones that Albright was talking about in the (dated) quote provided in the message above.
Iran is acting in full compliance with the NPT. It — along with Brazil and Argentina and many other countries — is perfectly entitled to have enrichment. The US which insists on depriving Iran of that right under the guise of non-proliferation, is acting in violation of the NPT (which should not come as a surprise since the US has violated the NPT for years including most recently by entering into nuclear deals with India)
Pingback posted September 26, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
[...] contrast, The Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman spent all day yesterday diligently and critically grappling with the question of whether Iran even breached any of its [...]
Comment posted September 26, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
I get what the Carnegie analysis was pointing out, but what I'm not 100% is the simple question of what does 'start construction' mean as far as the notification point? Does that mean that before they even pour cement for the foundation of the building they have to say “this will be a nuclear facility at some point” or is the 'start point' when the actual machinery needed to produce nuclear material is introduced to said building? Some estimates say they won't even have centrifuges through the doors for a year or more, so is it a matter of intent or actual delivery and capability? Cheers.
Comment posted September 26, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
Keeping Iran honest :
Beware politically motivated hype. While on the surface, Obama's dramatic intervention seemed sound, the devil is always in the details. The “rules” Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the “additional protocol”) to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.
This agreement was signed by Iran in December 2004. However, since the “additional protocol” has not been ratified by the Iranian parliament, and as such is not legally binding, Iran had viewed its implementation as being voluntary, and as such agreed to comply with these new measures as a confidence building measure more so than a mandated obligation.
In March 2007, Iran suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information. As such, Iran was reverting back to its legally-binding requirements of the original safeguards agreement, which did not require early declaration of nuclear-capable facilities prior to the introduction of nuclear material.
While this action is understandably vexing for the IAEA and those member states who are desirous of full transparency on the part of Iran, one cannot speak in absolute terms about Iran violating its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So when Obama announced that “Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow”, he is technically and legally wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamer…
Comment posted September 27, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
Given the various threats from the US and Israel, it would be wise for Iran to have prepared a number of facilities deep underground. Since it takes time and real experience to construct facilities deep underground, it wouldn't surprise me if they started this process several years ago so I can well believe that the NRO might have satellite imagery of several such construction sites but not even the Iranians knew what they were going to use the facilities for. So, yes the IC has “known” about the sites for several years but they might have found out which particular site was involved from the Iranian letter to the IAEA. If the Iranians had a sense of humor, they could end up giving IAEA inspectors a tour of an empty but very deep hole in the ground. How exciting!
Comment posted September 27, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
The US, of course, has been in breach of its treaty obligations from day 1.
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 7:38 am
If you wish to learn about Iran visit http://www.IranNegah.com (most comphrensive video archive)
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 11:46 am
The US should take out the Iranian and Israeli nuclear installations at the same time! They're kicking ass in Iraq and Afghanistan so why not make it four wars simultaneously.
Comment posted November 13, 2009 @ 9:18 am
Darius the Great answer our question and said stop the war for languages
Please read below:
http://www.jaff-sassanie.com/ShowContent.aspx?i…
Thank you
Darius the Great answer our question and said stop the war for languages
First Greek scholars, second Jewish scholars, third Arab scholars, fourth those Jewish and Arab scholars whom they claimed to be one of us, through history they called themselves Persian and made Persian to fight other branches of their own under the name of false languages of Persian, Kurds, Elamitie, Lor, Lak, Giliany, Mazanderani, Bluch, Tajick, Peshtu, Taylish, Azeri and hundred more names.
Today let celibate for the finding of scholar Hamma Mirwaisi who found out that
BEHISTUN_INSCRIPTIONS by HAMMA MIRWAISI
http://sites.google.com/site/behistunmin/from-b…
Is not what we have been told as Old Persian language? It is Aryan language with 80 % are used today by Kurds in Turkey and 20 % by Persian and Elamitie.
“They called in purpose
OLD PERSIAN TEXTS
http://www.avesta.org/op/op.htm#amh”
Median Empire, Cyrus the Great, Darius the Great and Parthian Empire, Sassanid Empire used the language of Prophet Zoroaster called Aryan language of Avesta.
Those scholars lie, to make us fight for 2500 years. The Islamic Arab army used us to fight each other. Today the Islamic Republic of Iran (Arab Government) is using us to fight each other, about the language.
Thank you Oh God, for your kindness, you guide honorable scholars like Hamma Mirwaisi to find out the truth. Today is the beginning of the end of Jewish and Arab scholars plus those Persian traders whom they went along to make money by having our people fight each other because of language.
We are Persian apologizing on behave of our Persian people after we read the content of BEHISTUN_INSCRIPTIONS.
They use us to fight each other for language, for religion, for regional’s, for no reason so they can destroy our unity. Since Alexander the Great they never let us have peace.
We are calling on each one of you to read the content of BEHISTUN_INSCRIPTIONS by HAMMA MIRWAISI
And then understand those people calling them self Persian and see really whom they are. You will find out very fast that majority of them are working for Israel.
We are going to fight for the establishment of Aryan Economic Union for our Aryan people much better than the European Economic Union (EU). Support us as much as you can.
We are going to give what we had during Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great.
BEHISTUN_INSCRIPTIONS by HAMMA MIRWAISI
http://sites.google.com/site/behistunmin/from-b…
Discovery of 2500 years old Aryan language (Kurdish, Elam, Persian and others language) below for you to read
From Behishtan cuneiform inscriptions to the Kurmanji Kurdish Alphabet
Note
In Darius, Behishtan (DB), Column 4, number 89 below:
He is saying I used Aryan language in my inscreptions writing.
89 ramazdâha : i(ya)m : dipîmaiy : ty(âm) : adam : akunavam : patisham : ariyâ : âha : utâ : pavast
Of God, this is the inscription which I made. Besides, it was in Aryan, and as you
know on clay tablets
Sincerely,
Jaff Sassani
Comment posted November 13, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
Darius the Great answer our question and said stop the war for languages
Please read below:
http://www.jaff-sassanie.com/ShowContent.aspx?i…
Thank you
Darius the Great answer our question and said stop the war for languages
First Greek scholars, second Jewish scholars, third Arab scholars, fourth those Jewish and Arab scholars whom they claimed to be one of us, through history they called themselves Persian and made Persian to fight other branches of their own under the name of false languages of Persian, Kurds, Elamitie, Lor, Lak, Giliany, Mazanderani, Bluch, Tajick, Peshtu, Taylish, Azeri and hundred more names.
Today let celibate for the finding of scholar Hamma Mirwaisi who found out that
BEHISTUN_INSCRIPTIONS by HAMMA MIRWAISI
http://sites.google.com/site/behistunmin/from-b…
Is not what we have been told as Old Persian language? It is Aryan language with 80 % are used today by Kurds in Turkey and 20 % by Persian and Elamitie.
“They called in purpose
OLD PERSIAN TEXTS
http://www.avesta.org/op/op.htm#amh”
Median Empire, Cyrus the Great, Darius the Great and Parthian Empire, Sassanid Empire used the language of Prophet Zoroaster called Aryan language of Avesta.
Those scholars lie, to make us fight for 2500 years. The Islamic Arab army used us to fight each other. Today the Islamic Republic of Iran (Arab Government) is using us to fight each other, about the language.
Thank you Oh God, for your kindness, you guide honorable scholars like Hamma Mirwaisi to find out the truth. Today is the beginning of the end of Jewish and Arab scholars plus those Persian traders whom they went along to make money by having our people fight each other because of language.
We are Persian apologizing on behave of our Persian people after we read the content of BEHISTUN_INSCRIPTIONS.
They use us to fight each other for language, for religion, for regional’s, for no reason so they can destroy our unity. Since Alexander the Great they never let us have peace.
We are calling on each one of you to read the content of BEHISTUN_INSCRIPTIONS by HAMMA MIRWAISI
And then understand those people calling them self Persian and see really whom they are. You will find out very fast that majority of them are working for Israel.
We are going to fight for the establishment of Aryan Economic Union for our Aryan people much better than the European Economic Union (EU). Support us as much as you can.
We are going to give what we had during Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great.
BEHISTUN_INSCRIPTIONS by HAMMA MIRWAISI
http://sites.google.com/site/behistunmin/from-b…
Discovery of 2500 years old Aryan language (Kurdish, Elam, Persian and others language) below for you to read
From Behishtan cuneiform inscriptions to the Kurmanji Kurdish Alphabet
Note
In Darius, Behishtan (DB), Column 4, number 89 below:
He is saying I used Aryan language in my inscreptions writing.
89 ramazdâha : i(ya)m : dipîmaiy : ty(âm) : adam : akunavam : patisham : ariyâ : âha : utâ : pavast
Of God, this is the inscription which I made. Besides, it was in Aryan, and as you
know on clay tablets
Sincerely,
Jaff Sassani
Pingback posted August 17, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
[...] contrast, The Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman spent all day yesterday diligently and critically grappling with the question of whether Iran even breached any of its [...]
Pingback posted May 21, 2011 @ 8:44 am
[...] contrast, The Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman spent all day yesterday diligently and critically grappling with the question of whether Iran even breached any of its [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
