U.N. takes hard line against Iran
(From The Japan Times August 4 issue)

イランの核開発問題と日本への波紋

    While the resolution is welcome, it is only a first step: Iran must return to the table, and negotiate in good faith, or the U.N. must be prepared to sanction Tehran.

    There has been mounting alarm over Iran's nuclear activities. Tehran insists that it is merely exercising its right as a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to develop a peaceful nuclear-energy program. That means carrying out all facets of the nuclear-fuel cycle -- including uranium enrichment and nuclear-fuel reprocessing, which can also be used to develop a nuclear bomb.

    Iran's assertion of benign intentions is belied by a record of deception that stretches back years: clandestine facilities, belated admission of the acquisition of technologies that can be used to build bombs, and other actions that raise suspicions about Iran's intent. The International Atomic Energy Agency has been unable to provide assurances that Iran has not been working on a bomb.

    Arguing that it enjoys the right to peaceful nuclear technology, Tehran has suspended talks with the IAEA over the terms of inspections to determine the real state of its nuclear program. Britain, France and Germany have taken the lead in negotiating a deal; those countries along with the United States put forward in June a package of proposals to settle the issue. Iran has said it will respond to the offer by Aug. 22.

    That was not good enough. Concerned that Tehran is stalling to achieve a fait accompli, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council along with Germany agreed on a resolution that demands that Iran suspend those enrichment and reprocessing activities by Aug. 31. The resolution passed by a vote of 14-1. Qatar, the lone holdout, voted against the measure, arguing that events elsewhere in the region made the timing of the resolution suspect.

    Iran rejected the vote immediately, claiming its "peaceful nuclear program poses no threat to international peace and security" and that Security Council action "is unwarranted and void of any legal basis or practical utility." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the resolution "unacceptable."

    The resolution reflected weeks of negotiation. The EU countries and the U.S. wanted immediate sanctions against Iran. Russia and China held out, arguing that harsh action was premature. The final wording calls for all countries to prevent the transfer of resources and technologies to Iran that could aid its nuclear and missile programs.

    While the resolution was drafted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, additional action is required by the Security Council before any state can take action against Iran. If there is no compliance by Aug. 31, the Security Council will consider "appropriate measures" such as economic and diplomatic sanctions.

    Hard-liners are disappointed by the need to return to the U.N. for future action. Nonetheless, this resolution marks the first time the Security Council has made legally binding demands on Iran, with a threat to consider sanctions, over its nuclear program. The move is long overdue; there have been too many questions surrounding Iranian ambitions to accept bland assurances about Iranian intentions.

    The U.N. must demand Iran's full compliance with its NPT obligations. Failure of the world body to do so would confirm fears that it is unable to respond to real international dangers: Nuclear proliferation in flagrant violation of international obligations is one of the most important threats to international peace and security. U.N. inaction would mean U.N. irrelevance.

    Some assert that the U.N. resolution puts Japan, which depends on Iran for 14 percent of its crude oil imports, in a difficult situation. Tokyo's rights to the Azadegan oil field -- which could provide as much as 10 percent of Japanese total crude imports -- could be lost if Tokyo follows the U.N. and imposes sanctions. On the other hand, turning a blind eye will undermine the U.N., the international nonproliferation treaty, and Japan's relations with the U.S.

    In fact, there is no choice. Fortunately, it appears that the U.N. recognizes the stakes and is rising to the challenge. There must be no wavering if Iran sticks to its present course.

The Japan Times Weekly: August 12, 2006
(C) All rights reserved

    核不拡散条約加盟国のイランは、原子力平和利用計画を推進していると主張しているが、ウラン濃縮・核燃料再利用技術を核兵器開発に転用する可能性がある。イランは原子力平和利用の権利を主張して、国際原子力機関（IAEA）による査察をめぐる交渉を停止している。英仏独米の4ヵ国は6月にイランに問題解決策を提示、8月22日までに回答を求めている。

    その後、国連安保理の常任理事国5ヶ国と独は、イランに対し8月31日までにウラン濃縮・核燃料再利用中止を求める決議案に合意、安保理は賛成14、反対1で決議案を採択した。しかし、イランは直ちに決議を拒否した。決議は国連憲章7章に基づいたものだが、8月31日までにイランが受け入れなければ、安保理は経済・外交制裁などの措置を検討することになっている。

    イランの核計画には多くの疑問があり、拘束力を持つ安保理決議は当然の措置である。国連がイランに対し、核不拡散条約の順守を求めなければ、国際的危機に対応できないことでその存在理由が問われる。

    日本はイランに原油輸入の14%を依存しており、その割合は共同開発計画を進めているアザデガン油田からの原油輸入でさらに10%増える見込みだ。国連に同調して制裁を課せば、同油田からの原油輸入権も失う恐れがあるが、制裁に参加しなければ、核不拡散体制を弱体化させ、日米同盟にも影響があるだろう。

    実際には、制裁に参加するほかに選択肢はない。イランが核開発を継続するのであれば、躊躇すべきでない。