The "Right" to Nuclear Technology
For those who’ve long doubted that Hans Blix was little more than another advocate of moral ambivalence. His latest comments regarding Iran’s "right" to enriched uranium (see Note at end of post) should make it clear. Iran has professed such a right, and should they prevail, Brazil and others will do the same. It is important that we look at the issue from their perspective, not so that we might agree, but that we might see the reason such a case is made and how it is/was our moral ambivalence that has permitted it. And then, we must strongly deny the so-called right and demand that Iran earn the respect and trust of the world before it aspires to such technology.
In the end the technology or the amount of enrichment involved (low as in Brazil’s case and unknown in Iran) is not the issue, the issue is the potential misuse of the technology and the repercussions of such misuse. The Iranians have been led to believe that the U.N. and by extension the U.S. is unwilling or incapable of enforcing the treaties and resolutions it makes with regard to nuclear technology. They have had good reason to believe this as Saddam Hussein managed for 12 years to toy with the U.N. and face little to no consequences. Like Hussein, the Iranians are willing and able to usurp the system and in claiming a rights violation have done a brilliant job of transferring the argument away from the real issue while creating a diversionary discussion based on their perceived unjust treatment by the west. The Clinton administrations failure with regard to North Korea and the U.N.'s failure to stop Pakistan and India does not relieve us of the responsibility to stop additional nations nor does it confer on others the right to develop the weapons or the means to develop them.
We cannot afford a mistake on this issue. There is no, nor can there be, a right to possess, develop or research the tools required to develop nuclear weapons. Should a nation wish to exclude itself from the NPT or to tread the fringes of the agreement by stating its intentions and willingness to enrich uranium, then it must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny and if necessary be stopped by force. When that nation is the foremost breeding ground for Shi’a Islamo-fascism it must be stopped without hesitation.
The real difficulty on this issue may not be the political willingness of the U.S. to stand before a menace, but rather the European and Russia willingness to side with the menace in search of greatly desired financial and political power. What we can be certain of is the U.N. is not going to be the final arbiter of justice nor is it likely to agree until it is too late that just action is needed.
Note: Per Joe's comments I've clarified my initial comment which was "nuclear weapons" rather than enriched uranium. It is clear, as I note in the comments, that Blix was stating a right to enrich uranium, which points the debate to weapons production capabilities. The error was mine and as always, I'm glad to have it pointed out and to correct it.
