India nuclear deal does not send message to Iran Says Germany

[Nafees]

Source: Afp, Berlin
:The Daily Star: Internet Edition

Germany expressed grudging acceptance yesterday of a landmark atomic energy deal with India and denied it undermined the West's efforts to convince Iran to stop sensitive nuclear work.

Foreign ministry spokesman Jens Ploetner said Germany -- as chair of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which controls the export and sale of nuclear technology -- had tried to balance conflicting interests during tense negotiations that led the agreement.

"There were several countries that put critical questions to India, but also the United States, about how this arrangement is compatible with the common goal of nuclear non-proliferation," he told a news conference.

"It is not an ideal solution. The negotiations were very difficult and we cannot say that we could not have imagined something better."

But asked whether the pact contradicted the West's united opposition to Iran's controversial nuclear programme, Ploetner said the Nuclear Suppliers Group had underscored the goal of non-proliferation with the agreement.

"Does this agreement send an approving message to Iran? No, it absolutely does not," he said, calling India a "special case."

Ploetner added that the approval of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), had been decisive in winning approval.

Germany is among six countries working to convince Tehran to abandon uranium enrichment, which the West fears is a pretence for building an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Iran says its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes only, as it refuses to comply with UN Security Council demands to halt uranium enrichment.

After intense lobbying from Washington and New Delhi, the Nuclear Suppliers Group approved a waiver of restrictions on nuclear trade with India.

India finally made a "formal declaration" Friday to stand by its non-proliferation commitments and uphold its moratorium on tests, leading to a breakthrough in the negotiations.

But certain countries, including Japan, warned it would weaken global efforts at non-proliferation, particularly in light of the standoff with Iran over its nuclear programme.

 

[Always Neutral]

I disagree it shows double speak. If its allowed for India its should be allowed for Iran to.

Regards

 

[muse]

not so "neutral" anymore?? Just kidding - could not agree more with you.

 

[Always Neutral]

not so "neutral" anymore?? Just kidding - could not agree more with you.

I have no problem with Iran having nuclear power or nukes what I dont like about Iran is its present leader or how they elect leaders in Iran.

Regards

 

[Flintlock]

I disagree it shows double speak. If its allowed for India its should be allowed for Iran to.

Regards

Indeed, Iran needs power as much as any country.

However, they will need to have a democratic government, or atleast a non-Islamist one, before they can gain that kind of credibility.

 

[Always Neutral]

Indeed, Iran needs power as much as any country.

However, they will need to have a democratic government, or atleast a non-Islamist one, before they can gain that kind of credibility.

I agree. I am sure its matter of time US will act to torpedo their nuclear ambitions now that Iraq is cooling down.

Regards

 

[muse]

Gentlemen:

Iran is a democracy and iran does elect it's majlis -- or we going to tell it how to do those as well??

Wanting the world to reflect oneself is a attributed long discredited, it's what use to be called imperialism and is now called neo-imperialism -- next we will have a problem with thisor that aspect of a setup or culture??

You will note the German minister said India was a "special" case - Is Israel not "special"??

 

[Always Neutral]

Gentlemen:

Iran is a democracy and iran does elect it's majlis -- or we going to tell it how to do those as well??

Wanting the world to reflect oneself is a attributed long discredited, it's what use to be called imperialism and is now called neo-imperialism -- next we will have a problem with thisor that aspect of a setup or culture??

You will note the German minister said India was a "special" case - Is Israel not "special"??

Dear Muse,

You are right about Iran having its majlis being elected however the process of which candidate can stand for elections is what stops it from being a true democracy.

Regards

 

[muse]

indeed? and the objections to the process are?

 

[Always Neutral]

indeed? and the objections to the process are?

election process::: International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran

I hope this article helps.

Regards

 

[Always Neutral]

Iranian elections are conducted through a two stage process. In the first stage, the authorities, namely the Interior Ministry and the Guardian Council (GC), determine which of the registered candidates qualify to be placed on the ballot. The second stage is the actual voting process, in which voters choose from among the approved candidates. The Guardian Council is composed of twelve religious jurists, six of whom are clerics appointed by the Supreme Leader and the remaining six members are legal experts nominated by the Judiciary and confirmed by the Parliament. The GC is not accountable to any authority other than the Supreme leader. Any appeals challenging its decisions must be filed with the GC itself, demonstrating a complete absence of any system of check and balances consistent with basic Rule of Law principles, and allowing for the arbitrary nature of the GC’s decision- making process.

The election laws prescribe the process of vetting registered candidates in two phases. After an aspiring candidate registers with the election committee at the Interior Ministry, this committee is charged with verifying that the candidate fulfills a set of criteria stipulated by the election law. A number of criteria in the election laws are vague and arbitrary in their formulation. Items 1, 3, and 5 of Articles 28 of the Parliamentary Election Law respectively stipulate that each candidate must fulfill the following criteria:[5]

Practical belief in the Islamic faith and the sacred order [nizam-e moghadas] of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Declaration of loyalty to the progressive principle of the absolute rule of the Jurisconsult [velayat-e motlaqeh faqih] and the Constitution.
Absence of ill repute in the election district.

 

[muse]

This is all fine, if the Iranian do not have a problem with their process, why should we?

I'm not sugessting that they ought not be criticized, I think constructive criticism is the most important element of refining our understanding - what I am questioning is whether coersion, which is what sanctions are, is not a step too far.

After all US elections have not been without their problems (they stole my presidency Al Gore and George Bush of the hanging chad) and since you live in the UK, you will concede that back room deals involving a handful are less than the democratic process -- lets be circumspect. Then maybe we can be worthy of the respect of others in what is a moral and ethical proposition which is promoted as democracy and not just the understanding of some in the West as an imposition on others.

 

[Always Neutral]

This is all fine, if the Iranian do not have a problem with their process, why should we?


After all US elections have not been without their problems (they stole my presidency Al Gore and George Bush of the hanging chad) and since you live in the UK, you will concede that back room deals involving a handful are less than the democratic process -- lets be circumspect. Then maybe we can be worthy of the respect of others in what is a moral and ethical proposition which is promoted as democracy and not just the understanding of some in the West as an imposition on others.

The process in Iran has been criticised by Iranians themselves not by the west.

Regards

 

[muse]

That's plain disingenuous - it's not criticism that's the problem, it's the useof sanction to coerse, to impose the will on others who freely choose not to be coersed.

 

[Always Neutral]

That's plain disingenuous - it's not criticism that's the problem, it's the useof sanction to coerse, to impose the will on others who freely choose not to be coersed.

No one is coercing anyone. If the West does not want to do business with certain regime its their own free will. As regards the Iran method of choosing their candidates the biggest criticism came from within the country. Please read on google if you wish.

Regards