Re: Ritter is wrong on IAEA and Iran: IAEA charges Iran "on the wrong side of the law"

[grantcart]

Ritter has suggested that because Iran has not been found in non compliance with a particular inspection protocol that they have no problems with the IAEA. Several threads posted excerpts quoting Ritter that the IAEA has not found Iran in non compliance and that all of the charges are politically motivated.

Ritter's charges here: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/29/fmr_un_weapons_inspector_scott_ritter

This is simply not true.

On September 7th before the new nuclear processing plant was revealed Director General of the IAEA revealed that Iran was not in compliance in 3 larger areas:

Now let's let the Director General's words on what Iran's noncompliance on (1)suspension of heavy water projects "as required by the Security Council", (2) their failure to implement the "Additional Protocol" and (3) "other remaining issues" speak for themselves:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2009/bog070909.html

The Director General reported that although the Islamic Republic of Iran has cooperated with the Agency on some issues, several critical areas remain unaddressed.

"Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities or its work on heavy water related projects as required by the Security Council, nor has Iran implemented the Additional Protocol. Likewise, Iran has not cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues, detailed fully and completely in the Agency´s reports, which need to be clarified in order to exclude the possibility of there being military dimensions to Iran´s nuclear programme," he said.

Also, Dr. ElBaradei answered accusations that information has been withheld from the Board of Governors about Iran´s nuclear programme. "I am dismayed by the allegations of some Member States, which have been fed to the media, that information has been withheld from the Board. These allegations are politically motivated and totally baseless. Such attempts to influence the work of the Secretariat and undermine its independence and objectivity are in violation of Article VII.F. of the IAEA Statute and should cease forthwith."

and now today on not disclosing the Qum facility

IAEA: Iran broke law by not revealing nuclear

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/30/iran.iaea.nuclear/index.html

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.


IAEA's Mohamed El Baradei says he does not think Iran has an ongoing nuclear weapons program.

"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.

This is the reason that Russia and China will be willing to work with a coordinated multilateral approach in solving the problem.
Ritter's contention that the IAEA doesn't have any substantive problems with Iran is simply bizzare.

[ShortnFiery]

1. NO, Ritter is SPOT ON. Check out the video segment on Democracy Now?

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?

[Dreamer Tatum]

2. "Tell me, what's the definition of INSANITY?"

How about "jumping through hoops to justify the proliferation of WMD simply because someone else has them?"

[ShortnFiery]

4. Go back to DemocracyNow site and read the text again - all is accounted for. eom

[SIMPLYB1980]

3. K&R.nt