SUNDAY, OCTOBER 02, 2005
Nuclear Ball In Pakistan's Court
K SUBRAHMANYAM
It should be a matter of some solace to A Q Khan, now under house arrest, that left and right-wing parties in the land of his birth are supportive of shielding his clandestine nuclear proliferation activities. They have opposed their government's vote which asks Tehran to disclose the full extent of its nuclear proliferation from 1987 to 2003.
This is the real issue underlying the vote on September 24 in Vienna. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an organisation which earned its credibility when it refused to endorse the US thesis in 2002-03 that Iraq had concealed nuclear weapons.
It is now well established that A Q Khan sold Iran the uranium centrifuge enrichment technology in 1987 and the deal was concluded for 2000 centrifuges. This was followed by another deal in 1994 for 500 centrifuges. These were for P-1 (Pakistan-1) centrifuges; talks for more advanced P-2 centrifuges were in progress.
Iran was engaged in this clandestine programme from 1987 to 2003, when a defector disclosed information about it to IAEA. If the Iranian objective was only enrichment for fuel purposes and not weapon acquisition, it could have carried out its programme openly with due notification to the IAEA.
But Iran's failure to notify IAEA for 16 long years generated justifiable doubts about Iran's objectives. The IAEA in its latest report states: "In view of the fact that the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify some important outstanding issues after two and half years of intensive inspection and investigation, Iran's full transparency is indispensable and overdue.
Given Iran's past concealment efforts over many years, such transparency measures should extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol and include access to individuals, documentation related to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military owned workshops and research and development locations.
"As indicated to the Board in November 2004 all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities. The Agency is, however, still not in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials and activities in Iran."
This report of an exasperated IAEA called for measures to apply pressure on Iran to intensify its co-operation with the Agency and enhance its transparency. Iran's three-year-long inadequate cooperation has so totally isolated it that only one out of 35 members of the Board of Governors found it possible to vote against the resolution.
Other 34 either voted in favour or abstained. One person who could help IAEA's investigation is A Q Khan but Pakistan's autho-rities have denied IAEA inspectors access to him.
The US authorities, who are so concerned about Iranian proliferation, should be asked to explain how are they so generous in their praise of Pervez Musharraf when he is hampering IAEA investigation into Iranian proliferation. Countries which have taken the lead on Iran proliferation issue are Germany and France, which vehemently opposed the US on the Iraq WMD issue.
They also blocked the US taking the Iraq issue to UN Security Council as a prelude to military action. Therefore, charging them of collu-ding with US against Iran reveals a total lack of understanding of the events of 2002-03. The EU-3 strategy is to apply pressure on Iran to nip Iranian nuclear weapon proliferation in the bud.
Iran's non-transparency necessitated a mention of a future possible referral to the Security Council even as they were given time to demonstrate their good faith through better cooperation with the IAEA. The Board has kept the decision on referral and its timing within its purview.
Pakistan is the country behind Iranian proliferation and behind it is China which perhaps designed the advanced centri-fuge. China has made use of the services of A Q Khan. Even these two countries found it difficult to vote against the resolution.
Yet, some argued that India should have abs-tained from the resolution — do they want India to support Khan's patrons? On nuclear issue, the record of the Non-Aligned Movement is dismal. NAM countries legiti-mised the nuclear weapons of big powers in 1995 by extending the NPT indefinitely and unconditionally.
They opposed India on CTBT. They were against our nuclear tests. Yet, some people talk of India's solidarity with the non-aligned on the nuclear issue. India's vote is a friendly warning to Iran that it has nothing to gain from shielding A Q Khan and Pakistan's military establishment.
A Q Khan and his associates made money out of Iran, sold them obsolescent equipment and finally left them high and dry without transferring to them adequate expertise in uranium enrichment after 16 long years. It is time for Iranians to wake up to reality.