UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL

Transcription

1 UFRGSMUN 2012 UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL INTRODUCTION The UN Security Council is the primary body of the United Nations for maintaining international peace and security. One of the main characteristics of the UNSC, which contrasts with other UN organs, is that it is the only committee whose resolutions are binding upon all Member States, regardless if they are current members of the UNSC or not. Moreover, it is also in the Council s mandate the right to authorize the use of force through peacekeeping operations or military coalitions and also to impose economic and military sanctions, but always as a last resort when all negotiations have failed (especially in the case of military action). Therefore, the UNSC s first actions when a complaint related to a threat to international peace and security is brought before it is to recommend to the parties to try and reach a peaceful solution. It may also help ceasing of the dispute by investigating or mediating the conflict. The Council has also ordered ceasefires and imposed economic sanctions or collective military embargoes on many occasions in which disputes have led to the use of force. At last, the UNSC may recommend the suspension or expulsion, by the General Assembly, of a Member State that recurrently violates the principles of the UN Charter. This committee is, then, essential for maintaining international peace and security and saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war the main goal of the United Nations, while its relevance goes way beyond security and geopolitics, because its decisions have effects on the populations directly involved in the conflicts it strives to solve. The UNSC is formed by fifteen members, of which five are permanent and ten are selected by the General Assembly for two year terms. The five permanent members of the Security Council are China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, and United States, and they hold what is commonly known as veto power. That means that for any resolution to be approved it needs the concurring vote of the five great powers, meaning that if they are against, it will automatically fail. Since 2011 the first five temporary members of the UNSC are Colombia, Germany, India, Portugal, and South Africa. In 2012, five new members were elected by the General Assembly, namely Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Morocco, Pakistan, and Togo. ~ 1 ~

2 Exploring new possibilities. Treasuring the past. TOPIC A: Non-Proliferation The Situation in Iran Laura Quaglia, Luciana Brandão, Bruno Gomes Guimarães, and Willian Moraes Roberto 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1.1. The formation of Iran To comprehend the formation of Iran as a major actor nowadays it is necessary to consider the multiple factors that influenced the development of the Middle East and, specially, of the ancient Persia (LEWIS, 2004). Since its formation, Iran (or, how it was called before 1935, Persia) holds unique characteristics that differentiate it from its neighbours in the Middle East and North Africa. One of these differences is the fact that Iran is a country of Muslim majority and, in spite of that, it is not an Arab one. The distinction between those two concepts, therefore, has to be made: whereas Arabism regards ethnic and cultural features; Islamism concerns religious aspects (VIZENTINI, 2002). The Arab-Islamic conquest that happened in the 7 th century was responsible for drastically changing the cultural patterns of the societies in the region. In Iran, however, the millenary Persian culture remained strong, merging with the Arab one (LEWIS, 2003). A second particularity about Iran is its political structure, which also has its roots in a past connected with the Arab expansion. The Shiite political orientation, which is directly related with Iran nowadays, was brought by the Arabs to the country around five centuries ago (KHALAJI, 2011). According to Lewis (2003) this was the key moment for the consolidation of a centralized dynasty responsible for unifying the different Iranian territories in a unique bloc. Unlike the other neighbours with Sunni orientations, Iran was shaped with a mix of Persian culture and Shiite ideology. A third factor that held a major influence over Iran s formation as a State is the fact that the territory where it is now established has always been a disputed place, being occupied by different cultures and societies all along its History (LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 2008). More recently and until the first half of the 20 th century 1 the reasons for this kind of disputes may be summed up to two aspects, namely strategic location and natural resources. The ancient Silk Road used to connect the West and the East through an overland transport of goods and this route crossed Persia (KHANNA, 2008). With the improvement in navigation techniques, after the 14 th century, this route was substituted by maritime ones, 1 Another reason will be added to these relations with the development of nuclear energy and nuclear armaments in the second half of the 20th century. ~ 2 ~

3 UFRGSMUN 2012 turning Egypt and the Red Sea into more important places in the region (HOGAN, 2007). The decay of the Persian terrestrial trade routes, however, did not put an end to the centrality of that region. On the contrary, Persia would become even more pivotal to the world politics in the following centuries, especially due to its natural resources. The use of oil as the main energy source in the 20 th century and the discovery of several oil fields to the west of Tehran put Iran right in the centre of attentions of the great powers. The British company Anglo Persian, for example, started the exploitation of the region s sources in The Russian Empire also had interests in Persia and also tried to extend and exert its influence over Central Asia at that time. 2 Along the first two decades of the 20 th century the attempts pursued by the Iranian society for political reforms were restrained by the British and Russian empires. They feared losing control over the region and its resources. With the Russian Revolution in 1917 this country s influence over Iran receded, thus, letting the United Kingdom support politically and financially the establishment of a new government headed by the commandant of the Persian Cossack Brigade, Reza Shah Pahlavi. Pahlavi deposed the Qajar dynasty 3 and started a series of modernizing reforms. His government, however, ended up revealing more nationalistic and authoritarian traces than the British administration had hoped for; Pahlavi did not accomplish any substantial social improvement either. His growing relations with fascist governments during the Second World War led to a military intervention by the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union in 1941, known as Operation Countenance. This operation deposed the Shah and formed a new coalition government under his son, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, and the Allies (KINZER, 2003). The government of Mohammad Reza was sustained with British and American support in the subsequent decades. Thus, any contrary action or attempt to promote a reform that threatened the interests of these two great powers would be suppressed with relative success until The supplies of Iranian oil provided the necessary means for modernizing the British Navy and ensured the fuel necessary to that country during the First World War. As for Russia, since the 19th century it was trying to expand i ts influence not only over Persia, but also i n Central Asia, in order to a cquire a warm water port (YERGIN, 1992). 3 The Qajar dynasty used to be the bureaucratic elite that detained the governmental control over Persia since It maintained the power inside the Qajar family, as in a monarchy. When the dynasty started to manifest disagreements with the British, the UK supported its deposition, which was already claimed by some sectors of society dissatisfied with the old regime. 4 The most well known case took place in 1953 with Ajax Operation, staged by the Central Intelligence Agency (RISEN, 2000). This was the operation responsible for taking out of the Iranian political scene Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh's autonomy was a threat to the Sha's government and, therefore, to the western presence in Iran. The Operation led to Mossadegh's deposition and exile. ~ 3 ~

4 Exploring new possibilities. Treasuring the past The Cold War period and the Iran-Iraq War The emergence of the Cold War transformed Iran into an indispensable ally for the United States and other Western countries. At that time, nationalistic and revolutionary movements sprung up in the Middle East for instance the Egyptian Revolution of 1952 and they brought new concerns to the great powers with interests in the region. The disruption of these revolutions led to the creation of the Baghdad Pact in 1955, uniting the conservative governments of Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom with the purpose of blocking these revolutions in the area (VIZENTINI, 2002). 5 At the same time, the production of nuclear technology by the great powers rose, generating a new source of fear because of its military uses, but also creating vast expectations around its peaceful applications. The idea of funding an international agency for the control over atomic energy came from US President Dwight Eisenhower, in his speech to the General Assembly called Atoms for Peace in Eisenhower s proposal was that governments of the main countries involved would donate stockpiles of fissile material and natural uranium to a specialized agency responsible for keeping and protecting this material. His idea would evolve into the formulation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) statute signed by 81 countries in This document stated the responsibilities for the control and development of nuclear energy, which should happen only for peaceful purposes (FISCHER, 1997). In this sense, the Iranian government of Mohammad Reza started a partnership with the United States as a branch of the Atoms for Peace programme 6, which was incorporated into United States legislation by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (USA, 2002). The cooperation program for the development of pacific nuclear energy in Iran was established in 1957, and a research centre for nuclear energy at the Tehran University was created (TIMELINE, 2009). In 1968 the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) was created. Iran signed the Treaty in 1968 and ratified it two years later, together with several other countries. The main goals of the NPT are the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and related technologies, the promotion of cooperation for the peaceful utilization of nuclear energy, and complete nuclear disarmament. One of the main provisions of the treaty is the establishment of a safeguards system under the responsibility of the International Atomic 5 After the Suez Crisis in 1956 the Eisenhower Doctrine was launched, with the goal of sending American troops to the Middle East and stopping any riot attempts by communist uprisings. 6 The Atoms for Peace programme was incorporated into United States legislation by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (USA, 2002). The program would be extended to a series of partnerships among United States and other emergent and allied countries. It reached a total of more than 42 countries in 1959 (FISCHER, 1997). ~ 4 ~

5 UFRGSMUN 2012 Energy Agency. Thereby, the signatories placed themselves at the disposal of the IAEA for periodical inspections (UN, 1968). In 1974 the U.S. government signed an agreement with Iran to provide the country with two nuclear power plants and also a specific amount of enriched uranium to be used as fuel. In addition to that, during the 1970s, the Iranian government sought partnerships with other countries such as Germany, France, and South Africa to construct additional nuclear power plants (BRUNO, 2010). It also established the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), responsible for the control over Iran s civil nuclear program (GHANNADI- MARAGHEH, 2002). This quest for partnerships for technological development, energy diversification, and infrastructure-building has to be understood in the surrounding context of Iranian politics for modernization based on the Western model and aligned with American diplomacy (CURTIS; HOOGLUND, 2008; NASRI, 1983). 7 The financing for these activities came mostly from oil production and export income. Despite the modern character of the Iranian project, in the political and social scene the reality was pretty different. The inequalities among the population had been growing deeper since the beginning of the century and, at the same time, a stronger Islamic and nationalistic feeling was rising, and it was opposed to Western influence. (ZONIS, 1983). Furthermore, once Iran s economy was almost completely dependent on oil, the 1973 crisis compromised the social and economic situation, creating a power vacuum that allowed for internal fights between groups searching for a greater influence in the State administration (VIZENTINI, 2002). The whole process would reach its climax in 1979 with the Islamic Revolution, a movement characterized by a strong anti-imperialist ideal which ended with the establishment of an Islamic fundamentalist figure in the government of the country: Ayatollah Khomeini. Right after the Revolution, the Iranian interest in nuclear research and development diminished and the split with Western powers resulted in the reduction of nuclear cooperation. Former agreements made with the United States, Germany, and France, for example, were cancelled or reversed (NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, 2009). A couple of years later, however, Iranian administration would restart the development of its nuclear program, but at that time with less consent from the Western powers. 8 7 Starting in 1961, Iran began implementing a series of reforms supported by the United States through the Kennedy administration that became known as the White Revolution. In this context, Iran was modernized and its economy prospered. This exceptional growth was based on Iran s oil exportations (USA, 2012a). This is the background where nuclear energy development took place. 8 Later on, in 2003, these activities would be a centre issue for the IAEA, which reported that Iran nuclear development was hidden from the IAEA and, therefore, constituted numerous breaches and failures of Iran's obligation to comply with its safeguards agreement (CORDESMAN; AL-RODHAN, 2006). ~ 5 ~

6 Exploring new possibilities. Treasuring the past. The decade of 1980 was an extremely troubled period for the entire Middle East. The political changes in Iran meant for the United States and for Israel the loss of their major ally in that region (HAJI-YOUSEFI, 2003). The Arab-Israeli conflict also escalated, incited by different political groups in both sides, with the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) being supported by the new Iranian government. This clash led to an atmosphere of confrontation surrounding both countries; the Islamic Republic of Iran, hence, gave its support for the Palestinian cause and refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli state (HAJI-YOUSEFI, 2003). The development of nuclear armaments in the Middle East enhanced the atmosphere of distrust that followed from the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel, for example, was suspicious that other countries were developing nuclear technology with military goals. With this argument Israel took military action in June 1981, attacking and destroying a nuclear reactor in Iraq. This incident is known as the first attack on a civilian nuclear power plant under IAEA safeguards and has opened a substantial precedent. The United Nations Security Council decision about the matter demanded that Israel disassemble its nuclear arsenal. The U.S. opposed that resolution, threatening to boycott any United Nations body that tried to suspend or reject Israeli credentials (FISCHER, 1997). This disagreement between Israel and Iraq would also spread its consequences during the Iran-Iraq War, a conflict that started in 1980 and finished with a ceasefire promoted by the United Nations in This war cleaved and weakened the Muslim world, with the nations of the Middle East dividing themselves between two opposing sides. Israel would support Iran due to its belief that Iraq was maintaining or pursuing a nuclear arsenal. Iraq, supported by Russia and with closer ties with Western nations, presented itself as a possible tool for crushing the Islamic Iranian government and guaranteeing, therefore, oil supply from the Gulf. After the war, some of its main consequences were the strengthening of the modern Iranian armies as well as the legitimization of Khomeini s government in the internal scene (VIZENTINI, 2002) Recent developments and regional conflicts After Khomeini s death, in 1989, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei took his place and the conservative Rajsanjani was elected president for two mandates until The new leader worked towards opening the Iranian economy to the world market and attracting new international investments. The cooperation in nuclear matters between Iran and other Asian nations, such as China and the Democratic People s Republic of Korea, also intensified under his rule. The development of nuclear energy would also grow at that time, which led the ~ 6 ~

7 UFRGSMUN 2012 Clinton administration to impose unilateral sanctions on Iran, forbidding American companies to negotiate with the country, including oil and gas related affairs (TIMELINE, 2009). The election of Khatami, a reformist, in 1997 brought new hopes for the dialogue with the U.S., but these were undermined by the election of American president George W. Bush in 2002, who branded Iran as one of the nations in the Axis of Evil. The election of the new president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005 demonstrated the will of the Iranian society to see their country transformed in an internationally respected great power (VIZENTINI, 2009). He was elected in June with several reformist proposals, amongst which were the development of an Iranian nuclear program. The efforts for the creation of the program started in August of the same year, when Iran notified the United Nations about plans to start the conversion of raw uranium into its gaseous form for enrichment (MOUBAYED, 2006; TRAYNOR, 2005). The possibility that there would be a connection between Iran and the military Lebanese group Hezbollah, considered a terrorist organization by the USA (PANETTA, 2011), explained a series of sanctions against Iran. 9 Therefore, the import and the export of nuclear material were suspended and the financial assets connected with nuclear activities were frozen. In 2007 and 2008 the sanctions were tightened and an arms embargo was included. Another recently demonstrated challenge is the lack of certainty about Iran related information, about its doctrine or who is actually in charge of its nuclear planning. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released a report in 2007 attesting that Iran would not be capable of producing a nuclear bomb until 2015 (NIE, 2007). The Iranian ballistic missile capabilities, however, continue to grow and the advanced missile called Sejil-2,15 was successfully tested in Some reports also defend the idea that Iran s nuclear and ballistic missile programs are clearly connected (RAND, 2012). The relation between Iran and its neighbours is another aspect of the situation that has become more pertinent while the political scenario in the Middle East becomes even more complicated. The foreign minister of Egypt, for example, has decided to re-establish diplomatic ties with Tehran after 30 years of distancing. Israel, on the other hand, shows great concern over the lack of a second plan in case the sanctions against Iran fail to prevent the 9 It is stated by the American government that Iran has continuously supported some radical political groups, such as Hamas and Hezbollah since the Islamic Revolution. The connection between Iran and Hezbollah would be not only financial, but also ideological and religious, since both of them share the same Shiite orientation. The group Hezbollah, according to the United States, receives an amount of 200 million U.S. dollars a year from Iran (TIMES, 2012). Although there is not an absolute certainty about these relations, the United States government reaffirms its validity (PANETTA, 2011). Therefore, in 2006, the existence of this connection was used as one of the main arguments to impose financial sanctions on Iran, preventing its access to the U.S. financial system, which was being used to provide funds to Hezbollah, according to the United States Administration (KATZMAN, 2012). ~ 7 ~

8 Exploring new possibilities. Treasuring the past. country from advancing its nuclear program (RAND, 2012). Furthermore, the control that Iran exerts over strategic straits and over the oil trade bring a second issue to the table when discussing the sanctions and the other attempts of stopping the proliferation (COLE, 2012), dividing other States opinions and creating a bigger challenge when trying to reach a decision. 2. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE 2.1. Nuclear Capacity in Iran The Energy vs. Weapon Dilemma Since the beginning of its nuclear program, the Iranian government has stated that it would only use nuclear technology to attend peaceful ends, such as for the development of medical equipment and energy generation. However, as commonly known, much of the materials and technologies used to create nuclear energy can also be used in the construction of nuclear weapons. It is, therefore, hard to determine if a country is actually using nuclear energy for non-military ends, or whether nuclear weapons are being secretly developed. Iran has the 4 th largest oil reserves and the 2 nd natural gas reserves in the world, and is one of the leading members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and the Organization of Gas Exporting Countries. Almost half of Iran s revenues come from oil exports, and petroleum makes up for about 80% of the country s commodities exports. However, even though Iran is a net energy exporter, an increase in domestic demand has caused shortage issues in peak hours in main cities (OPEC, 2012). Iranian energy sources are formed by four main elements: gas (53%), oil (44%), hydroelectricity (2%) and coal (1%) (CIA, 2012). Therefore, it is noticeable that the country is heavily reliant on fossil fuels for its energy generation. Those are the arguments used by Iran to justify its nuclear program, and it follows an international trend of countries trying to gain more independence from petroleum and natural gas, i.e. non-renewable energy sources. In this context, nuclear energy presents itself as a valid option for many of those countries. As such, about 30 countries already have nuclear power plants today, and at least 50 more are studying this option with the assistance of the IAEA (WNA, 2012). The spread of nuclear power, however, could generate conflicts with the prerogatives of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and other similar institutions, for it can be used as camouflage for a nuclear arms program (MILLER; SAGAN, 2009). Throughput the years, international concern over the purposes of the Iranian nuclear program have grown. As such, the international community puts into question Iran s intentions not only because of its refusal to allow proper inspection of its nuclear facilities (SANGER; COWELLL, 2012l), but also because of its posture towards Israel, which is ~ 8 ~

9 UFRGSMUN 2012 believed to already possess atomic weapons. Furthermore, the Iranian uranium enrichment program is believed and the Iranian government confirms to go beyond the 20% of enrichment necessary to generate energy or to develop medical equipment (IAEA, 2012a). The government has stated that it is capable of creating highly enriched uranium (over 80%) 10 at its facility in Natanz, contributing to international concern Nuclear Program The Iranian nuclear program was actually initiated in the 1950s with the support of western countries, particularly the United States. As already explained in the historical background, it was part of Eisenhower s Cold War policy Atoms for Peace, that aimed to spread technology, supplies, and information on nuclear energy intended for peaceful ends. The practical results were the spread of nuclear fuel to countries like Iran, Korea, Pakistan, Romania, amongst others, some of which ended up developing their own atomic bombs (LINZER, 2005). Iran s first nuclear reactor was built by North American company American Machine and Foundry and the country received not only help with nuclear matters, but also military aircrafts from the United States up until the Iranian Revolution in Before then, the Iranian government of the Shah had repeatedly stated its commitment to use nuclear technology only to generate energy by signing the Non Proliferation Treaty in 1968; that commitment was reiterated in 1974 by the Shah s statement that already predicted an oil shortage and the need to find alternative energy sources: Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn... We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23,000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants. (WESTGARD, 2012) was also the year of the signing of the Iran-IAEA Safeguard Agreement which stipulates that Iran must provide information on materials subject to safeguards, as well as the characteristics of their facilities (IAEA, 1974, art. 9); also, the government is required to provide information on materials being used in activities not covered by the safeguard system, which are understood as non-proscribed military activities (IAEA, 1974, art. 14). After the Revolution, western help came to a halt, leaving the construction of nuclear enterprises unfinished, like the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. Constructions for the plant started back in 1975 by German companies, but stopped in 1979 and were only resumed in 10 Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) is used in commercial light water reactors, the most common type of thermal power reactor; and in research reactors. Enriched uranium is considered LEU when it has a concentration of 235U that is lower than 20%. Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) is used as fissile material to fabricate nuclear weapons. Enriched uranium is considered HEU when it has a concentration of 235U or 233U between 20% (weapon-usable) and 85% (weapon-grade) or more. ~ 9 ~

10 Exploring new possibilities. Treasuring the past after the Iranian government signed a contract with a Russian contractor 11. Additionally, when the United States cut the supply of highly enriched uranium fuel to the Tehran Nuclear Research Center, the facility had to shut down for nearly a decade, until 1988 when Argentina agreed to help Iran convert the reactor to run from highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium, and began selling the low enriched fuel to Iran (JAHANPOUR, 2012). As mentioned before, in recent years the Iranian nuclear program has regained strength. One of the reasons is the availability of resources that allow for further development. Even though the country s uranium resources are not yet completely known, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) has conducted exploration activities that have estimated the presence of around 25,000 tons of triuranium octoxide (U 3 O 8 ) 12 the first step to enriched uranium throughout the country, an amount considered to be enough to supply its own power plants (GLOBAL SECURITY, 2012). For Iran, nuclear power is the most competitive fuel to fossil energy sources, especially if the domestic prices of gas and oil keep increasing (STERN, 2006). The growing concerns about Iran s nuclear program have led to the beginning of investigations by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2002, after the public revelation by the National Council of Resistance of Iran of previously undeclared sites and activities that allegedly go against NPT clauses and lead to the belief that Iran might be on the path to creating atomic weapons (SMITH, 2006). Such concerns have not been eased by the signing of the Additional Protocol 13 in 2003, which was ratified that same year. In fact, the signing of the protocol followed a Board of Governors resolution condemning Iran over its hidden nuclear developments The main issues were the discovery of a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and a heavy water facility in Arak. Since then, the government s secrecy and refusal to comply with IAEA requests to inspect its nuclear facilities have given space for increased concerns over the possibility of the production of nuclear weapons. In its latest reports, the IAEA has repeatedly denounced Iran s unwillingness to let agents inspect their nuclear sites and has urged Iran to stop its uranium enrichment program; all the while Iran defends the activity s legality for it is within the scope of the NPT, thus being only used for peaceful purposes (IAEA, 2011a). However, not only dissident groups inside Iran, but also innumerous countries and the IAEA itself have declared and produced evidence of possible military purposes in the Iranian nuclear program. In its report of November/2011 (IAEA, 2011b), the IAEA published the following list of activities in which Iran has allegedly engaged: 11 Even so, the Bushehr Power Plant was only finished in U3O8 is mined and milled to turn into yellowcake. 13 Additional Perotocols are an instrument used by the IAEA to expand its investigation capacities in order to detect the existence of undeclared nuclear facilities and materials. ~ 10 ~

11 UFRGSMUN 2012 Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2); Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex, Section C.3); The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components (Annex, Sections C.5 C.12) Nuclear decision-making The Iranian political system consists of a complex combination of democratically elected officials and religious figures in high power positions. Elections are held for President, the Parliament, and the Assembly of Experts. The Assembly of Experts is formed by Islamic scholars who, among other duties, choose the Supreme Leader into a lifetime position. The Supreme Leader is virtually the most powerful person in the government, for it has the power to appoint the heads of the media, mosque, justice and military, in addition to being the chief of all armed forces. It is in the hands of the Supreme Leader, therefore, to lay decisions regarding the nuclear program. He also controls the candidature for president, having the power to veto candidates; after the election, the Supreme Leader confirms the president. The laws made by the Parliament are also submitted for the Supreme Leader s approval (MALEKI, 2009). In his official position as Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei has condemned the use of nuclear weapons. He issued a fatwa a type of Islamic law against the acquisition, development, and use of nuclear weapons in the Islamic Republic, and other important religious figures have reiterated this position (WEINBERG, 2005). To that regard, re-elected president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defends the country s right to develop its nuclear program, arguing that they will be solely used for peaceful purposes. Besides the two leaders, the nuclear program is guided by the Nuclear Energy Council, and regulated by the AEOI. The group responsible for the key decisions, however, is the Supreme National Security Council, nominally led by the President, but actually under the Supreme Leader s authority (NADER, 2012) The Opposition The opposition in Iran is heavily censored and repressed, so that many of the opposition groups are in exile, and only few political parties are allowed to exist in the ~ 11 ~

12 Exploring new possibilities. Treasuring the past. country. In general, the opposition is considered to be less conservative than the government, and defends political reforms that would benefit human rights and democracy at least rhetorically and proposes a more open dialogue with the West and a better relationship with Israel. Situation and opposition, however, generally converge in the opinion that Iran is entitled to develop its nuclear program. Nevertheless, with regards to important groups in exile it is important to highlight that, although there is a common understanding towards Iran s right to develop a nuclear program, such position does not undermine criticism to the way the government is running the program. For instance, the National Council of Resistance (NCR), a coalition of five opposition political organizations deemed to be western-friendly, was one of the first groups to denounce Iran s nuclear activities as illegal, for the NCR is against nuclear proliferation (FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF RESISTANCE OF IRAN, 2012). Moreover, Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former Shah of Iran, defends the idea that before Iran became a Islamic republic, the U.S., Germany and France were eager to help the Iranian people obtain nuclear technology which he considers an inalienable right, but now they fear its use for military reasons (PAHLAVI, 2006). The same can be said about the Tudeh Party, of communist orientation. The party is against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but defends Iran s right to develop a peaceful nuclear program. Nevertheless, to its members, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad s aggressive rhetoric serves only the purposes of the United States imperialist policy towards the Middle East (INTERNATIONAL, 2012). Given that, former president of Iran, Mohammad Khatami believes that Iran s different factions will unite with the government if Israel were to attack the country (DPA, 2011). On the other end of the spectrum, Israel s former Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, suggests that Israel should offer help to Iran s opposition groups in order to weaken the present government, considered to be extremely anti-israel (THE SPYMASTER, 2012) Nuclear Proliferation: regional and transregional determinants of the Iranian crisis The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguard System, and the Additional Protocol The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is a process that started in 1958 and was open for signature a decade later. Nowadays the Treaty is widely accepted, with a total of 190 signatories. Its main objective is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide, and it finds its roots in the fear of the policy of deterrence between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War (TREATY, 2012). ~ 12 ~

13 UFRGSMUN 2012 The system lies on three pillars: non-proliferation; disarmament; and peaceful use of nuclear technology. Non-proliferation, regarded by some as the only pillar, consists of the agreement of the five Nuclear Weapon States (NWP) which are part of the treaty (United States, Russia, France, China, and the United Kingdom) to not transfer nuclear weapons to non-nuclear weapon states, nor induce or encourage non-nuclear weapon states to acquire the technology to develop nuclear technology for military ends (UN, 1968, art. I). As for the Nonnuclear Weapon States, article 2 of the Treaty stipulates that they shall not receive or endeavor to manufacture nuclear weapons (UN, 1968, art. II). Furthermore, they must accept and establish safeguards in accordance with the International Atomic Energy Agency in order to ensure the maintenance of the peaceful nature of their nuclear programs (UN, 1968, art. III). The disarmament pillar is vaguely mentioned in the treaty, but it consists of the building of enough trust in the international system as to make it possible to halt the production of weapons and to liquidate all nuclear-related weaponry in countries arsenal. The NPT text on the matter reads as follows: Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control (UN, 1968, art. VI). Finally, the peaceful use of nuclear technology refers to the right every country has to use nuclear energy to generate electricity, for that falls under the designation of peaceful usage of nuclear technology. Such right appears on the Treaty s fourth article, which states that 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty. 2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world (UN, 1968, art. IV). Since the process to generate such energy stops mid-way to the development on nuclear fuel required in nuclear weapons, it has become difficult to control such right (IAEA, 1970). Consequently, the main principle that guides the NPT is basically a trade-off between the Nuclear Weapon States and the non-nuclear states, where the latter agree not to acquire a nuclear arsenal, and the former agree to cooperate by sharing the technology for peaceful use ~ 13 ~

14 Exploring new possibilities. Treasuring the past. of nuclear energy, and to adopt a disarmament policy with the ultimate objective of eliminating their nuclear arsenals. Lately, criticism has surfaced stating that the NWS ate not obliging with their part of the bargain, and that the NPT is serving as a mean for these countries to keep their nuclear power all the while keeping the other countries at bay. In addition to safeguard agreements, the IAEA has established Additional Protocols with numerous countries, Iran included. According to the Agency, The Additional Protocol is a legal document granting the IAEA complementary inspection authority to that provided in underlying safeguards agreements. A principal aim is to enable the IAEA inspectorate to provide assurance about both declared and possible undeclared activities. Under the Protocol, the IAEA is granted expanded rights of access to information and sites (IAEA, 2012c). The Additional Protocols were deemed a necessity after Iraq, a signatory of the NPT, managed to hide several features of its nuclear program from the IAEA until basically the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Thus, in 1993 the Agency started formal procedures to enhance its investigation capabilities, culminating with the Model Additional Protocol in As such, the Agency hoped to cover the loophole on safeguard agreements concerning undeclared activities (HIRSCH, 2004; KIMBALL; DAVENPORT, 2010) Situation of Nuclear Countries It is speculated that there are currently nine countries in the world that possess atomic weapons. Five of them are part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty: the United States of America, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and China. The other three, which have not signed the NPT, are India, Pakistan, and the Democratic People s Republic of Korea. Lastly, one of them, Israel, does not confirm nor deny having nuclear weapons, although it is widely regarded as a nuclear State (FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS, 2011) 14. Thus, the international community generally points to a risk of nuclear weapon usage in global or regional scenarios. Regarding the five permanent members of the UNSC, they have publically declared a will to avoid proliferation worldwide and have called countries to honor their responsibilities under the NPT through resolution 1887 (UNSC, 2009). As for disarmament, those countries are also making private commitments. U.S. President Barack Obama has said that U.S. Nuclear Disarmament is a moral obligation (GEHRKE, 2012) and took practical actions towards it with the New START agreement signed in 2010 with Russia. The United Kingdom and the US have also signed an agreement on nuclear cooperation, the Mutual Defense 14 Information on total inventory can be found at: ~ 14 ~

15 UFRGSMUN 2012 Agreement (BASC). In accordance with the U.S. deterrence policy, the UK has recently announced further action to reduce its nuclear stockpile (PRIME MINISTER, 2010). France, for its part, announced back in 2008 the reduction of the country s nuclear weapons to less than 300 warheads; it is also the only permanent member of the UNSC that has shut down its fissile material production facilities (TETRAIS, 2008). China itself has declared that it possesses a fairly small nuclear arsenal, enough for its defense (MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF CHINA, 2004). The country also advocates for disarmament. Despite these countries official commitments, analysts still question their true will to eradicate, or even diminish, their nuclear weaponry capacity. As for Israel, the country is believed to be Middle East s first and only country to possess the nuclear technology to create an atomic weapon. Its nuclear opacity policy, the secrecy that envelops the country s nuclear program, makes access to hard evidence more difficult. Western countries in general, mainly the United States, have shown great leniency towards Israel. France, for example, has been a major partner since Israel began to develop nuclear technology. In 1969, Tel Aviv and Washington made an agreement where the former would not declare itself as a nuclear country nor it would use its weapons for diplomatic gains, earning in exchange an ending of pressure to sign the NPT. Ever since, the U.S. accepted Israel s nuclear capacity making sure it would not defy American nonproliferation policies (NTI, 2012c). India and Pakistan have not signed the NPT as well, a move directly linked to the fact that both countries share a relationship immersed in deep rivalry. India s nuclear program began shortly after its independence and it served not only to supply the country with cheap electricity, but also to develop the capacity of producing nuclear weapons. The project received internal support once it became clear Pakistan was also developing a nuclear program. Pakistan was highly encouraged to do so after India started developing its own nuclear capacities, being the key moment 1972, after Islamabad lost an armed conflict against New Delhi. Even though India refuses to join the NPT and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), it has formally articulated a no-first-use doctrine, with Pakistan also adopting it. Islamabad claims that its disarmament depends on whether or not India will do the same, since its nuclear capacities goal is to balance Indian military power by the means of nuclear force. Pakistan has the support of China, who agreed in 2010 to supply two reactors to the country s power plants. This deal has been criticized by the United States, which, in 2005, had unveiled an India-U.S. agreement on nuclear cooperation (NTI, 2012a; NTI, 2012b) ~ 15 ~

16 Exploring new possibilities. Treasuring the past. Other than those, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Turkey, and Italy have access to American nuclear weapons under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization s (NATO) nuclear sharing program, in its policy of nuclear deterrence. The concept is under the assumption that if non nuclear countries have access to nuclear weapons from their allies, they would not feel the need to create their own nuclear weapon program (CHALMERS; LUNN, 2010) 15. There are also countries that used to possess nuclear weapons, but allegedly chose to dispose of them. South Africa disassembled its nuclear arsenal in the early 1990s. Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan former Soviet countries that hosted plenty of the Soviet Union s nuclear weapons are said to have transferred them back to Russia after the dissolution of the USSR, and the latter did so with the assistance of the United States (NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARCHIVE, 2001) Regional Positions in the Middle East Even if at first one might perceive the Middle-East as a unified region under Islam, with the only exception of Israel, a deeper look will prove this perception wrong. There are many tensions inside the region, even among Islamic countries. In the case of Iran, these tensions have intensified since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the Iran-Iraq war ( ). The former brought the fear of a Shia Islam anti-monarchy insurgency throughout the region, and the latter essentially put Arabs and Persians in opposite sides of the conflict, making Iran stand out against the group of unified Arab countries. Furthermore, since the Islamic Revolution, Iran s foreign policy has been dubious and somewhat confusing, since it has oscillated between radical revolutionary ideals and pragmatic economic advances. Even if Iran was able to turn some foes into friends as years went by, recently published documents suggest Iran s aggressive foreign policy and its nuclear program have not only kept Israel at a distance, but have also driven many Arab neighbors away. Such is the case of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which were allegedly in favor of a military strike on the country s nuclear plants (MOHAMMED; COLVIN, 2010). Israel is the most obviously hostile country to Iran in the region, for the animosity between both countries is not veiled. The two countries fostered a good relationship up until the Islamic Revolution, when the new Islamic regime cut official ties with Israel. Iran does not recognize the State of Israel, instead referring to the area as occupied Palestinian State. Tehran views that Tel Aviv may undermine its rising influence in the region. In 15 The nuclear sharing practice involves military personnel from the non-nuclear countries to handle, in this case, American nuclear weapons, but all the codes to activate them are held by the U.S., and in peace times American soldiers guard the nuclear installations (CHALMERS; LUNN, 2010). ~ 16 ~

17 UFRGSMUN 2012 turn, Israel also feels threatened by the Islamic Republic s policies in the region, mainly by Iran s willingness in developing nuclear capacities, even though it has affirmed that its use would be for civilian purposes (KAYE et al, 2011). As such, some forces inside Israel have been claiming that a preemptive strike targeting the Islamic Republic would be useful to dismiss Tehran s aggressive moods and to destroy its nuclear facilities. However, a large part of the Israeli civilian society does not agree with such an attack, since it could destabilize the whole region. Washington has also been asking Israel to act with prudence on this issue. Besides Iran, Israel, and the Arab states, there are powers at play in the Middle East that are not geographically limited to the region but contribute to the geopolitical relationships within it. The economic relevance of the region, namely its oil and gas reserves, not only fosters a local concern-interest trade off, but also attracts the attention of the US, Russia, France, Britain, and even China. These powers seek to secure and dominate their supply of oil, which leads to their meddling in the political affairs of the region. Iran s long standing feud with the U.S. has pushed the Persian State towards an alliance with Russia, which culminated with the entrance of Iran as an observer member in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Recently, however, the relationship between both countries has been shaken by the sanctions passed by the UNSC, when Russia suspended its supply of military resources to Iran (STROKAN, 2012). This situation has not had a deep impact in the economic ties between Iran and Russia, who is one of Iran s major partners in the energy sector (SHAHRIARI; MASHAYEKHI, 2010). As such, many alliances and animosities are fostered by proxy, following the rule of thumb which states that an enemy of my enemy is my friend; a friend of my enemy is my enemy as well. Such is the case of Iran s relationship with Turkey. Both countries maintained a good relationship, with Turkey, in co-ordinance with Brazil, trying to forge an agreement of nuclear fuel swap in order to help Iran avoid sanctions in 2010 (IRAN, 2010). However, since Turkey s deeper involvement with NATO and its agreement to position a missile defense shield in its south-eastern border, the relationship between both countries has suffered major changes. Iran feels that Turkey has changed its traditionally neutral policy in the region in favor of a more aggressive stand which aids U.S. interests in the region, protecting Israel in case of a counter-attack attempt by Iran (POMEROY, 2011). In contrast, Iran s good relationship with Syria is based on their mutual animosity towards the U.S. and Israel. Iran, alongside Russia and China (TRENIN, 2012), has supported President Assad s regime throughout the civil uprisings that have swept Syria since The political crisis in Syria has brought the Persian regime and Syria closer together, since Tehran sees the Syrian uprising as a U.S. ploy to remove the anti-zionist government of al-assad ~ 17 ~