The Real Reason America Can't
Make a Nuclear Deal with Iran
By Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett
May 02, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - The outlines of a nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran have long been obvious: Western recognition of Iran's nuclear rights in return for more intrusive monitoring and verification of Iranian nuclear facilities. With agreement so readily at hand, the Obama administration's refusal to take it is baffling to many international observers. But the reason for American obstinacy becomes clearer when one considers that that the Iranian nuclear issue has at least as much to do with the future of international order as it does with nonproliferation.
By Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett
May 02, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - The outlines of a nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran have long been obvious: Western recognition of Iran's nuclear rights in return for more intrusive monitoring and verification of Iranian nuclear facilities. With agreement so readily at hand, the Obama administration's refusal to take it is baffling to many international observers. But the reason for American obstinacy becomes clearer when one considers that that the Iranian nuclear issue has at least as much to do with the future of international order as it does with nonproliferation.
Conflict over Iran's nuclear
program is driven by two different approaches to interpreting the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). These approaches, in turn, are
rooted in different conceptions of world order.
In one concept, the rules of
international relations are created through the consent of independent,
sovereign states and are to be interpreted narrowly. This model is
understandably favored by non-Western states -- for it is the only way
international rules might constrain established powers as well as rising powers
and the less powerful. But it is at odds with the model favored by America and
its Western partners, which emphasizes the goals motivating states to create
particular rules in the first place -- not the rules themselves, but the goals
underlying them. This model also ascribes a special role in interpreting rules
to the most powerful states -- those with the resources and willingness to
"enforce" their concept of global order.
Which interpretation of the NPT
ultimately prevails in the Iranian case will go a long way to determine whether
a rules-based model of international order can replace a model in which the
goals of international policy are defined mainly by America and its partners --
frequently in defiance of international legal obligations that Western powers
once voluntarily embraced. The NPT is appropriately understood as a set of three
bargains among signatories: non-weapons states commit not to obtain nuclear
weapons; countries recognized as weapons states (America, Russia, Britain,
France, and China) commit to nuclear disarmament; and all agree that signatories
have an "inalienable right" to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. One
approach to interpreting the NPT gives these bargains equal standing; the other
holds that nonproliferation trumps the other two.
There have long been strains
between weapons states and non-weapons states over nuclear powers' poor
compliance with their commitment to disarm. Today, though, disputes about NPT
interpretation are particularly acute over perceived tensions between blocking
nuclear proliferation and enabling peaceful use of nuclear technology. This is
especially so for fuel cycle technology, the ultimate "dual use" capability --
for the same material that fuels power, medical, and research reactors can, at
higher levels of fissile isotope concentration, be used in nuclear bombs. The
dispute is engaged most immediately over whether Iran, as a non-weapons party to
the NPT, has a right to enrich uranium under international
safeguards.
For those holding that the NPT's
three bargains have equal standing -- including the non-Western world, virtually
in its entirety -- Tehran's right to enrich is clear. It is clear from the NPT,
from the treaty's negotiating history, and from at least a dozen states having
developed safeguarded fuel cycle infrastructures potentially able to support
weapons programs. On this basis, the diplomatic solution is also clear:
recognition of Iran's nuclear rights in exchange for greater
transparency.
Those holding that
nonproliferation trumps other NPT goals -- America, Britain, France, and Israel
-- claim that there is no treaty-based "right" to enrich, and that weapons
states and others with nuclear industries should decide which non-weapons states
can possess fuel cycle technologies. From these premises, in the early 2000s the
George W. Bush administration sought a worldwide ban on transferring fuel cycle
technologies to countries not already possessing them. Subsequently, the Obama
administration pushed the Nuclear Suppliers' Group to make such transfers
conditional on recipients' acceptance of the Additional Protocol to the NPT --
an instrument devised at U.S. instigation in the 1990s to enable more intrusive
and proactive inspections in non-weapons states.
Under both Bush and Obama,
America has pressed the UN Security Council to adopt resolutions telling Tehran
to suspend enrichment, even though it is part of Iran's "inalienable right" to
peaceful use of nuclear technology; such resolutions violate UN Charter terms that the Council act
"in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations" and "with
the present charter." Washington has also defined its preferred diplomatic
outcome and, with Britain and France, imposed it on the P5+1: Iran must promptly
stop enriching at the near-20 percent level to fuel its sole (and safeguarded)
research reactor; it must then follow Security Council calls to cease all
enrichment. U.S. officials say Iran might be "allowed" a circumscribed
enrichment program, after suspending for a decade or more; London and Paris
insist that "zero enrichment" is the only acceptable long-term
outcome.
Non-Western states have, in
various ways, pushed back against these efforts by America and its European
partners to (in effect) rewrite the NPT. The "BRICS"
(Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and the Non-Aligned
Movement (with 120 countries
representing nearly two-thirds of UN members) -- have unequivocally recognized
the right of Iran and other states to develop safeguarded indigenous fuel cycle
capabilities. Since abandoning nuclear weapons programs during democratization
and joining the NPT, Brazil and South Africa have used their status as
nonproliferation exemplars to defend non-weapons states' right to peaceful use
of nuclear technology, including enrichment. With Argentina, they resisted U.S.
efforts to make transfers of fuel cycle technology contingent on accepting the
Additional Protocol (which Brazil has refused to sign), forcing Washington
to compromise.
With Turkey, Brazil brokered the Tehran
Declaration in May 2010,
whereby Iran accepted U.S. terms to swap most of its then stockpile of enriched
uranium for fuel for its research reactor. But the Declaration openly recognized
Iran's right to enrich; for
this reason, Obama rejected it.
At the same time, important
non-Western states have, to varying degrees accommodated Washington on the
Iranian issue. Officials in China and Russia, the two non-Western permanent
members of the Security Council, acknowledge there will be no diplomatic
solution absent Western recognition of Tehran's nuclear rights. Yet China and
Russia endorsed all six Security Council resolutions requiring Iran to suspend
enrichment. They did so partly to keep America in the Council with the issue,
where they can exert ongoing influence -- and restraint -- over Washington; at
Chinese and Russian insistence, the resolutions state explicitly that none of
them can be construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran. Still, they
acquiesced to resolutions that make
a diplomatic settlement harder and that contradict a truly rules-based
model of international order.
China, Russia, and other
non-Western powers have also accommodated Washington's increasing reliance on
the threatened imposition of "secondary" sanctions against third-country
entities doing business with Iran. These measures violate U.S. commitments under
the World Trade Organization, which allows members to cut trade with states they
deem national security threats but not to sanction other members over lawful
business with third countries. If challenged on this in the WTO's Dispute
Resolution Mechanism, America would surely lose; consequently, U.S.
administrations have been reluctant actually to impose secondary sanctions on
non-U.S. entities transacting with Iran. Nevertheless, companies, banks, and
even governments in non-Western states have cut back on their Iranian
transactions -- feeding American elites' sense that, notwithstanding their
illegality, secondary sanctions help leverage non-Western states' compliance
with Washington's policy preferences and vision of (U.S.-dominated) world
order.
If non-Western states want to
move decisively from a still relatively unipolar world to a genuinely multipolar
and rules-based order, the more powerful among them will soon have to call
Washington's bluff on Iran-related secondary sanctions. They will also need to
be more willing to oppose, openly, America's efforts to unilaterally rewrite
international law and hijack international institutions for its own hegemonic
purposes. By doing so, they will underscore that the United States ultimately
isolates itself by acting as a flailing -- and failing -- imperial
power.
Flynt Leverett is
professor of international affairs at Penn State. Hillary Mann Leverett is
senior professorial lecturer at American University. Their new book, Going to
Tehran: Why the United States Needs to Come to Terms With the Islamic Republic
of Iran (Metropolitan Books), will be published in January 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment