15 Feb 05
It would be interesting and maybe necessary in order to have a clear and fruitfull debate about the Iran question on this forum, if the ones who are interested in understanding and discussing this issue now and in the future would answer the following question. It is a question that is an off-spring of the discussion in the "Iran, Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Arms ... " thread that you can find elsewhere on this debating forum.
"Do you want Iran to keep up to its obligations towards the international community which flow from the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons" that Iran has signed ?"
You can find the full text of this treaty here: http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/16281.htm
15 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt seems pretty simple Ivanhoe. I'd like for EVERY country to uphold and abide by a treaty that prevents building nukes.
My answer is "yes".
I'm sure the Native Americans would have liked it if the US government had abided by the treaties we signed with them too.
Edit: Thanks for the link.
15 Feb 05
Yes.. i hope they do.
But.. theres always a but isn't there..
If I was the head honcho in Iran i would probably be thinking.. Well, my neighbour has just been invaded under false pretences and now we seem to be next on the sights of the worlds greatest superpower.. Maybe if we had nukes we would be left alone, or at least we'd have a lot more time for negotiation and be taken more seriously..
15 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by CliffLandin1. Judicially seen: It doesn't matter.
I have a couple of questions regarding the NPT;
1) Was Iran a signatory of the NPT under the Shah or under the current administrion?
2) Did Isreal break the NPT by developing their nukes?
Thanks,
2. No, Israel did not sign the Treaty.
Cliff, are you willing to answer the question that is the subject of this thread ?
15 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeArticle VI
It would be interesting and maybe necessary in order to have a clear and fruitfull debate about the Iran question on this forum, if the ones who are interested in understanding and discussing this issue now and in the future would answer the following question. It is a question that is an off-spring of the discussion in the "Iran, Nuclear Energy and Nuclear ...[text shortened]... ?"
You can find the full text of this treaty here: http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/16281.htm
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
Do you want the present nuclear powers to fulfill their obligations under the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty and "pursue negotiations in good faith" to make a "Treaty on general and complete [nuclear] disarmament under strict and effective international control"? Note the nuclear signatories to the Treaty have been in violation of this Article for 35 years. Should they be "allowed" to violate the Treaty in this way or should they be threatened with force to make them comply with their international obligations?
15 Feb 05
Originally posted by CliffLandin
So if the Nazi's had signed a treaty, with let's say the Turks, then the Germans would now be obligated by that treaty?
I don't know. Germany is of course a special case.
In the case of Iran you can be sure they are bound to the treaty. The best reason I can think of is the fact that the present Iranian government doesn't dispute this, on the contrary. They claim they are not in violation of the conditions and demands posed by the treaty.
15 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
Do you want the present nu ...[text shortened]... should they be threatened with force to make them comply with their international obligations?
That is an interesting question No1, but not the subject of this thread. Maybe you can open a new thread on this issue.
15 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo, it is a very relevant question to this thread. Treaties impose reciprocal obligations on the states signing them; if states are violating the treaty in a fundamental way then they have no right to insist on strict adherence by other states to the provisions of the Treaty. The purpose of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty was to eventually banish nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth; therefore, it is two-pronged: 1) To keep states that did not have nuclear weapons from acquiring them and 2) To have states that did have nuclear weapons begin the process of abolishing them. These two purposes are interconnected: if the nuclear states are taking steps to bring down and eventually do away with their nuclear arsenals then the non-nuclear states can be assured that by giving up their nuclear aspirations they will be eventually be left in an equal position vis-a-vis nuclear weapons with the present nuclear states.
That is an interesting question No1, but not the subject of this thread. Maybe you can open a new thread on this issue.
The NNPT went into effect in 1970; the nuclear states have all increased their arsenals and have never even attempted to negotiate a "complete and total" disarmament of nuclear weapons. Their blatant breach of the Treaty changes the whole meaning of the Treaty and, in my view, makes it a nullity until such time as the nuclear states begin to fulfill their obligations. It is roughly akin to hiring someone to paint your house for a $1000 (reciprocal obligations; they paint - you pay); them refusing to paint the house (breach) but insisting that you pay them because it was in the agreement. Obviously, their position is absurd and just as obviously the position of the nuclear states which are in flagrant breach of the NNPT is just as absurd toward non-nuclear states.
15 Feb 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI understand what you are trying to say.
No, it is a very relevant question to this thread. Treaties impose reciprocal obligations on the states signing them; if states are violating the treaty in a fundamental way then they have no right to insist on strict adherence by other states to the provisions of the Treaty. The purpose of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty was to eventually ban ...[text shortened]... ear states which are in flagrant breach of the NNPT is just as absurd toward non-nuclear states.
No1: " Their blatant breach of the Treaty changes the whole meaning of the Treaty and, in my view, makes it a nullity ... "
Having read your post carefully, could you please explain the position the International Community, the United Nations, is taking on this issue (Iran must meet its obligations that flow from the treaty) ?
15 Feb 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeSince the United States government is saber-rattling and hinting at another war, some UN members are trying to avoid this by putting pressure on Iran to "prove" that they are not developing nuclear weapons. Of course, as shown by what happened in Iraq, NO proof will ever be enough to satisfy the Bush administration if they decide to use this as a pretext for war. As I stated in the other thread, I have no problem with other countries trying to convince Iran that it would not be prudent for them to develop nuclear weapons, but it would be consistent with the NPT if they put the same amount of pressure on the US and other nuclear states to start scrapping their arsenals. You seem to think that what is presently going on is based on international law and treaties when in reality it is simple power politics: the strong nations attempting to impose their will on the weak ones.
I understand what you are trying to say.
No1: " Their blatant breach of the Treaty changes the whole meaning of the Treaty and, in my view, makes it a nullity ... "
Having read your post carefully, could you please explain the position the International Community, the United Nations, is taking on this issue (Iran must meet its obligations that flow from the treaty) ?
This is from the text of the NPT:
Desiring to further the easing of international tension and the strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,
Anybody tried that in the last 35 years?
15 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSo your stance is that because the others, in your view, do not comply with the demands of the treaty, Iran doesn't have to do this either ?
Since the United States government is saber-rattling and hinting at another war, some UN members are trying to avoid this by putting pressure on Iran to "prove" that they are not developing nuclear weapons. Of course, as shown ...[text shortened]... ional control,
Anybody tried that in the last 35 years?