IAEA: Iran broke law by not revealing nuclear facility

[maddezmom]

Source: CNN

Story Highlights
IAEA claims Iran failed to disclose existence of second nuclear facility

IAEA chief: No credible evidence Iran has ongoing nuclear program

International community fears Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons

Iran has denied claims, says nuclear program would be used for peaceful purposes

NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency said Iran broke the law by not disclosing sooner its recently revealed uranium enrichment site.


"Iran was supposed to inform us on the day it was decided to construct the facility. They have not done that," International Atomic Energy Agency's Mohamed El Baradei told CNN's sister station, CNN-IBN. "They are saying that this was meant to be a back-up facility in case we were attacked and so they could not tell us earlier on.

"Nonetheless, they have been on the wrong side of the law, you know in so far as informing the agency about the construction and as you have seen it, it has created concern in the international community," he said.

Last week, Iran wrote a letter to the IAEA revealing the existence of the facility. The admission prompted President Obama and the leaders of Britain and France to publicly chide the Islamic republic and threaten further sanctions.

Iran claims its nuclear enrichment program is intended for peaceful purposes, but the international community accuses the country of continuing to try to develop nuclear weapons capability.

Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/30/iran.iaea.nuclear/

[Poll_Blind]

1. Which law? And if it's a treaty they broke, have they signed it?

I don't remember "laws" existing at the national level. The closest I can think of is being a signatory to a treaty of some sort. Can anyone elaborate?

PB

[bananas]

11. It's explained here by James Acton

Iran Violated International Obligations on Qom Facility
James M. Acton Proliferation Analysis, September 25, 2009

Update: On 30 September, speaking in New Delhi, the IAEA Director General confirmed that Iran has violated its obligations.<1>

Iranian President Ahmadinejad has said that Iran's new centrifuge facility is "perfectly legal." Here is why he is perfectly wrong.

Iran’s basic safeguards obligations are set out in its Safeguards Agreement (INFCIRC/214). This agreement was ratified by the Iranian parliament and entered into force in May 1974.

Like all others, Iran's Safeguards Agreement sets out general principles. It does not contain the exact details of how safeguards are to be applied. These details are included in much more complex Subsidiary Arrangements, which do not require ratification by national legislatures.

<snip>

[bananas]

13. It sounds like you never heard of International Law

Is this what you're asking about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

[ShortnFiery]

2. Where does it say that they are in NON-COMPLIANCE? This is hype.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/29/fmr_un_weapons_inspector_scott_ritter

Iran is bound by its agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency. These agreements are between Iran and the IAEA. You cannot compare Iran’s arrangement with the IAEA with any other nation, so it’s an absurd argument to begin with.

Second of all, Iran’s agreements with the IAEA are—you know, the current agreements go back to 2003 period, where Iran, in exchange for Europe and the United States recognizing the legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear aspirations—that means to enrich uranium for peaceful energy uses—Iran would voluntarily agree to what’s called the additional protocol of inspections, as well as what’s known as the Subsidiary Agreement. The Subsidiary Agreement requires Iran to declare any facility at the time that it intends to produce it, create it, to build it, as opposed to the old agreement, which said Iran must declare this facility 180 days prior to the insertion of nuclear material. Iran said, “We will abide by this additional protocol of inspections and the Subsidiary Agreement on a voluntary basis, until which time the Parliament of Iran ratifies these new agreements.” These have never been ratified, so this was a voluntary submission on the part of Iran.

In 2007, Iran withdrew from this voluntary arrangement, citing the noncompliance of its partners—Europe, the United States—in recognizing the legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s not in violation of anything. Iran is in compliance, and the IAEA has stated this. The IAEA has said that the fact that Iran was in compliance with the old Code 3.1, the Subsidiary Agreement, the old Safeguards Agreements, means that you can’t find them to be in noncompliance with this new set of arrangements.

The key here isn’t the technicality of the legal documents; it’s about the diversion of nuclear material. And the IAEA has a 100 percent accounting for the totality of Iran’s nuclear material. So, even if Iran produces this new facility, which, by the way, is not in operation and won’t be in operation for over a year, no nuclear material has been diverted, there still is a full material balance, and the IAEA is in complete control of the situation. Iran is not in violation.

--------------------------
No matter how much of the AEI drivel and technical requirements thrown at the American People, you will NOT find this: There is no place in all the diplomat-ese where the IAEA states that Iran is in noncompliance.

Scott Ritter is an American Patriot who spoke truth to power about Iraq.

Did we listen to him then?

Are we going to make the same mistake on Iran that we did on Iraq?

Tell me, what's the definition of INSANITY?

[ronnie624]

7. No one lays it out with such clarity and concision as Scott Ritter.

Thanks for the link.

There is also an interesting interview on the crisis in Honduras.

[bananas]

12. Ritter is wrong - James Acton is right - see post #11. nt

[SpartanDem]

8. So thehead of the IAEA doesn't know its own rules?

[ronnie624]

9. He certainly seems to have the educational background to offer an opinion:

ElBaradei earned a Bachelor's degree in law from the University of Cairo in 1962, followed by a DEA degree in International Law at the Graduate Institute of International Studies HEI in Geneva and a PhD in International Law at the New York University School of Law in 1974.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_ElBaradei#Early_career>

The opening article also had this to say:

But the U.N. does not have credible evidence that Iran has an operational nuclear weapons program, Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tuesday.

"I do not think based on what we see that Iran has an on-going nuclear weapons program."

And I can't help but notice that the article does not quote ElBaradei directly on the issue of legality.

Scott Ritter says that Iran's agreement to adhere to code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements - which is what is at issue here - is strictly voluntary, and therefore nonbinding.

[JonQ]

3. Ok, go arrest them then

[rmp yellow]

4. It happens. Israel committed war crimes in Gaza

Two wrongs don't make a right, but do you see the double standard? Would CNN scream that Israel committed war crimes in a headline?

[maddezmom]

5. actually they did on Sept 15

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/15/un.gaza.incursion/index.html
Gaza acts amounted to war crimes, U.N. report says

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ronnie624]

6. The United States

does not allow the IAEA to inspect ANY facility that is considered significant to national security. I find that fact very interesting. I wonder if it is a violation of "the law".