F6 - BRILLIANT! .. just finished the 2nd WOW! gulp link
Brazil Challenges International Order by Backing Iran Fuel Swap Print
July 15, 2010
Sarah Diehl .. Research Associate, Monterey Institute of International Studies
Eduardo Fujii .. Research Associate, Monterey Institute of International Studies
here is the conclusion ..
Conclusion: Mixed Results for Lula's Nuclear Diplomacy
Lula undertook the negotiation of the proposed fuel swap deal with Iran for several reasons: to burnish his legacy, to raise Brazil's international standing and challenge the international power structure, to try to prevent additional sanctions that would put a damper on Brazil's expanding trade with Iran, and to defend Iran's - and Brazil's - right to pursue all peaceful nuclear activities, including uranium enrichment. It is questionable whether Lula achieved his goals. The fuel swap deal is still pending with the IAEA and Iranian officials have hinted that they will renew talks with the P5 and others at a later date. But the proposed deal did not stop the United Nations from adopting another sanction resolution or the United States from passing unilateral sanctions that could greatly restrict Brazil's commercial dealings with Iran. The deal put Brazil at odds with U.S. policy again just when the two countries had signed a new defense cooperation agreement in April 2010.[105] While some in the international community expressed appreciation for Lula's negotiating efforts, others questioned whether he had been duped by the Iranians and used as a pawn in an attempt to stall new sanctions. In an interview with the Financial Times, Amorim seemed to realize that Brazil spent too much political capital defending the Iranian nuclear program; he said that Brazil would no longer pro-actively act as mediator in the Iranian nuclear program.[106] However, Brazil and Lula might wade into other difficult international security disputes. Ambassador Arnaldo Carrilho told Reuters that Brazil sees room for nuclear and security dialogue with North Korea;[107] and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, noting that Brazil is an emerging force in the world stage, asked President Lula to facilitate a peace agreement with Israel.[108]
It is not clear whether Brazil's role in negotiating the fuel swap will help or hurt its chances of becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council. What is certain is Brazilian officials' belief that mastering nuclear technology, including a nuclear submarine and even possibly a nuclear bomb, is a prerequisite to great power status. As Lula said, in defending Iran's right to nuclear enrichment, he was defending Brazil's right to the same.[109] At the same time, Brazilian officials once again demonstrated their disdain for the perceived inequities of the NPT and the UN sanctions meant to enforce compliance with NPT obligations. As many commentators noted, Brazil's support for Iran raises concerns about Brazil's nuclear intentions, particularly in light of recent statements by high-level officials that Brazil might need to pursue a nuclear weapon. It seems that until the nuclear weapons states take further steps toward complete nuclear disarmament and agree to share their power at the UN Security Council, rising powers such as Brazil will view military nuclear technology as a necessary tool for challenging the current global power structure.
By Jumana Al Tamimi, Associate Editor Published: 00:00 April 5, 2012
Dubai: Iran, preparing to hold new talks with world powers over its controversial nuclear programme later this month, is "sending messages" to Turkey and the West by trying to change the meeting venue, according to political experts.
The talks are due to take place in Istanbul, but Tehran has suggested a number of other options including Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus or even China.
The move is designed to show dismay at Ankara's position towards the situation in Syria, and to show the West the growing Iranian influence on the region, political experts in both Turkey and Iran said.
Apart from trying to "blackmail" Turkey, Iran is also attempting to win some time by creating a debate over the venue of the talks, the experts added.
Both Turkey and western powers have lacked balance in their views on several issues, including Syria, said Mohammad Sadeq Hussaini, a veteran Iranian expert.
"The Turks have shown an imbalance, confusion and hastiness towards the Syrian file, which is a sensitive one and of importance to all the people of the region and to Syria's neighbours," he told Gulf News, in reference to the solid opposition of Syrian president Bashar Al Assad in dealing with the protests. Iran is among few supporters of the Syrian regime, along with Russia and China. "The West also, by insisting on holding the talks in Europe or in a European ally, is also taking an imbalanced [position]," Hussaini said.
On Tuesday evening, a statement posted on the Iraqi Foreign Ministry website said an "Iranian delegation expressed the desire for Iraq to host the international meeting on the Iranian nuclear file of the five permanent members of the [UN] Security Council plus Germany].
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari "confirmed that he will undertake the necessary contacts with the relevant parties on the proposal", the statement added.
Change still on table
But yesterday, Iran's foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, said Istanbul was Iran's first choice, but kept the possibility of changing the location on the table.
"Holding talks in Baghdad, and also China, as venue has been out there," Salehi was quoted as saying after a cabinet meeting in Tehran.
"This is a course that both sides need to agree on."
US secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced recently that the talks were due to take place on April 13 and 14 in Istanbul.
But both European and Russian officials cautioned that the venue has not been definitely set, and a Turkish diplomat was quoted as saying no formal request had been received.
Meanwhile, Mohsin Rezai, former chief of Iranian Revolutionary Guards and a close ally of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, suggested Lebanon or Syria as possible venues.
The conflicting statements reflect divisions within Iran, said Ali Bakeer, a researcher at the Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organisation, a Turkish think tank. "Holding the talks in Istanbul is considered a plus to the Turkish diplomacy. There are people in Iran who don't want to give Turkey this gain for free," Bakeer told Gulf News.
Moreover, the main element among the suggested venues in the region is prominent Iranian influence in these places.
“Therefore, any talks being held on the territories of any of the three places will be according to Iranian schedule and under Iranian conditions,” Bakeer said, adding that the Iranians are trying to include the Syrian case on the discussion table with the western powers. However, disagreement will surface on the venue in the coming days, and “we will witness a procrastination game, and time will be wasted.”
REPORTING FROM TEHRAN AND BEIRUT -- Talks between Iran and six world powers over the Islamic Republic's controversial nuclear program have hit a new snag as Tehran is seeking to change the venue for next week's opening negotiations.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced last week that talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany would be held in Istanbul on April 13 and 14.
But Iran does not appear enthusiastic about the site, spurring calls from Iranian officials to find an alternate venue and a debate on other potential host cities. Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's foreign minister, said at the end of a Cabinet meeting in Tehran on Wednesday that Istanbul remains a suitable site but that the Islamic Republic is looking for other locations, Iranian state television reported.
Iran's relationship with Turkey has become increasingly strained in the past year due to Turkish criticism of Syria's embattled President Bashar Assad, a close ally of Iran.
Mohsen Rezai, the secretary-general of Iran's influential Expediency Council, which advises Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said this week that it would be better to hold the talks "in another friendly country," according to a report by the Iranian Labor News Agency, or ILNA.
He suggested that Baghdad, Damascus or Beirut would be more "appropriate locations" than Turkey.
Tabnak, an Iranian news website close to Rezai, reported Thursday that Tehran had "officially" requested neighboring Iraq, which like Iran has a Shiite Muslim-dominated government, to play host for the talks, quoting a top Iraqi official.
China was also suggested as an alternate host, according to Iranian media reports.
Rezai stressed the importance of the location of the negotiations, saying "a wrong signal" should not be given to the six world powers and that the group should not be under the impression that Iran is in "a weak position", according to ILNA. Some observers suggested Iran was seeking to flex its muscles by backtracking on the proposed venue at the last minute.
This month's planned round of talks would represent the first between the Islamic Republic and the six world powers -- the U.S., Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany -- in over a year.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stressed the importance of the talks going ahead.
What do Baghdad, Beijing and Istanbul have in common? They have all, at various points in the last few weeks, been Iran’s preferred location to hold upcoming talks on its nuclear program.
While Iran has fussed over the location of previous talks, this time is different: European diplomats say the government is lending strength to skeptics in the West who believe Iran is using negotiations to buy time for its uranium enrichment program. That’s a dangerous game to be playing in an environment of heightened military tension between Israel and Iran, diplomats say.
More than a week ago now, EU diplomats signaled they had a deal with the team of Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili to hold talks in Istanbul in mid-April. The EU’s foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton was leading the negotiations with Iran.
But in recent days, Tehran seems to be unpicking that deal.
On Wednesday, Iran’s foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi said Baghdad was now his government’s preferred choice for talks – likely to start with a dinner on April 13 and formal negotiations the next day. The negotiations will be the first between Iran and six major powers – the U.S., France Germany, the U.K., China and Russia – since January 2011.
“Holding negotiations in Istanbul was our preliminary suggestion, which the Europeans first rejected and later accepted. But by that time we had other countries in mind,” Salehi was quoted saying by the website of Iranian state television, according to AFP.
As Salehi said, Istanbul was Iran’s first pick. The Europeans were initially unenthusiastic. Istanbul was the setting for the January 2011 talks, which quickly ended in failure; the optics of returning there to start all over again are bad. But once Ashton said yes, Iran was eyeing alternatives.
Tehran’s next pick was China, the country seen as least supportive of ramping up pressure on Iran over its nuclear ambitions. But Beijing quashed the plan, concerned that hosting talks would make them appear too close to Tehran, EU diplomats said.
Then came Baghdad. The advantages for Iran are easy to see. There’s proximity. Talks in Baghdad also underscore the close ties between Baghdad and Tehran these days – a major shift in the region’s balance of power. And the Iranians feel the Iraqi backdrop would remind many in the region of American unilateral adventurism.
The location game isn’t new. It happened before previous rounds of talks, and few in Brussels were surprised there was some jockeying this time round.
Yet some warn that Tehran’s traditional games may be more dangerous this time. There are many voices of skepticism in the West about how seriously Iran intends to engage in the talks.
Some believe Tehran will exploit negotiations to frustrate plans for military action, allowing them more time to keep enriching uranium and move closer to a nuclear weapon. Tehran has consistently denied it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
Over the weekend, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Iran’s window of time to show they are serious about the talks will not “remain open forever.”
“So far they have given little reason for confidence,” she said.
By vacillating over process questions like where to meet for talks, Tehran may harden the views of skeptics and frustrate those – not least in Europe – who are desperately keen to see negotiations succeed and military conflict averted.
Envoys from Tehran and Tel Aviv clash at UN atomic agency annual gathering in Geneva to promote nuclear-free region.
Last Modified: 21 Sep 2012 02:54
Iran has said Israel should accede to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty aimed at stopping spread of nuclear weapons [Reuters]
Iran and Israel have clashed at the annual meeting of the UN atomic agency, further throwing into doubt a hoped-for 2012 conference on creating a Middle East free of nuclear weapons.
In lively debates at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) gathering of its 155 member states, Iran said on Thursday that Israel should accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty aimed at stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.
"At present the Israeli regime is the only non-party to the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] in this region despite repeated calls by the international community," Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's envoy to the IAEA, said.
"Peace and stability cannot be achieved in the Middle East while the massive nuclear arsenal of that regime continues to threaten the region and beyond," he said.
Ehud Azoulay, the Israeli envoy, in turn pointed the finger at Iran and Syria, saying "the most significant threats to the nuclear non-proliferation regime are those ... that pursue weapons under the guise of their NPT membership".
"It is Iran which represents the greatest threat to peace and security in the Middle East and beyond," he said. "No words in this room could distort the real facts behind Iran's drive to nuclear weapons."
'Irresponsible behaviour'
Neither Iran nor Israel has said whether they plan to attend a conference being organised by Finland on creating a Middle East free of atomic weapons that is meant to be held before the end of the year.
But Shaul Horev, the head of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), said at the IAEA on Wednesday that the "current volatile and hostile" situation in the region was not "conducive" to the creation of such a zone.
"Such a process can only be launched when peaceful relations exist for a reasonable period of time in the region," Horev said, according to a transcript of his speech.
Soltanieh, Iran's envoy, said on Thursday that the "irresponsible behaviour of this (Israeli) regime ... has put the establishment of such a zone in the region for the near future in serious doubt," calling Israel the "only obstacle".
At the IAEA meeting, member states approved with a crushing majority on Thursday a call for all Mideast countries to accede to the NPT, in a move that was slammed by the US envoy, Robert Wood.
"Israel recognises the importance of the non-proliferation regime ... yet proven experience in the Middle East has shown that the NPT does not provide a remedy to the security challenges of the region," David Danieli, the deputy head of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission, said on Thursday.
The US and other Western states abstained from the vote on the general call, however.
'Goodwill gesture'
Arab states said on Thursday they had decided as a "goodwill gesture" to refrain from specifically targeting Israel with a resolution over its assumed nuclear arsenal.
Arab envoys said the move was in support of wider efforts to rid the region of nuclear weapons.
But it drew no public praise from Israel or the US, which criticised the placing of the issue - even if not worded with direct reference to Israel - on the agenda in the first place.
Addressing the debate on "Israeli nuclear capabilities" called by the Arab countries, US envoy Wood said Washington was firmly committed to the goal of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.
However, "using meetings of the IAEA to single out Israel for censure will not take us one step closer to that goal. In fact, it is a step in the opposite direction," Wood told the meeting.
"Repeatedly invoking this issue only serves to reduce trust and confidence among states in the region and to distract the agency's attention from serious issues of ongoing non-compliance by two other states in the region," Wood said.
That was a reference to Iran and Syria, which are under investigation by the IAEA over their disputed atomic activities.
Meanwhile, the US, Britain and France warned Iran at the UN Security Council on Thursday that time is running out for a negotiated settlement to the showdown on its nuclear programme.
"Time is wasting," US ambassador Susan Rice told a meeting on nuclear sanctions against Iran. Iran is "at a crossroads", warned Britain's UN envoy Mark Lyall Grant.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
