Korean Job Discussion Forums

[cbclark4]

Sarkozy: Arabs have nuclear right

MONDAY, JANUARY 14, 2008 22:04 MECCA TIME

Nicolas Sarkozy has said that Arab countries should have the right to
develop nuclear energy.

However, the French president said that right should not be extended to
Iran until the government in Tehran has proved definitively that it does
not intend to acquire nuclear weapons.

Sarkozy told Al Jazeera in the Qatari capital Doha on Monday: "In 40
years from now there will be no oil left and in 100 years no more gas,
nuclear power will replace those energy sources ... It is the energy of the
future.

"So, [why] should Arab countries be banned from using this energy?"

"That's why we say there is no reason to prevent Arab countries from
using nuclear energy for civilian and peaceful purposes."

Sarkozy is currently on a tour of Gulf countries as he attempts to
consolidate French political and economic ties in the region.

Distribution deal

"It would be giving credit to the current Iranian regime if civilian nuclear
energy is only used by western democracies," he said.

"France tells Iran 'give up your race for a nuclear weapon - it's a risk and
you don't really need it'. And, if you [Iran] stop the race for a nuclear
weapon, you would have access to civilian nuclear power."

Sarkozy's latest comments came as officials revealed Areva, the French
nuclear reactor manufacturer, has signed a $700 million electricity
distribution and transmission deal with Qatar.

French power firm EDF also signed a memorandum with Qatar "to engage
discussions on co-operations in the areas of nuclear power production
and renewable energy generation," the Reuters news agency reported.

Sarkozy is also due to sign a nuclear co-operation deal with the UAE, the
next stop of his tour, on Tuesday.

France generates the majority of its own energy from nuclear reactors
and has been actively seeking deals with Arab countries such as Libya
and Egypt.

Several Gulf countries are exploring the option of nuclear energy despite
having large oil and gas reserves.


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/45A99F21-B8D7-49A6-964A-9D563F315DEE.htm

[Gopher]

[ddeubel]

Sarkozy loses more respect by the minute.

How do you "definitively prove" an intention? What political fence sitting and diplomatic obfuscation.

I think that no country should be allowed to have nuclear "weapons". All countries should be monitored by the IAEA and have membership powers in parity with others in the agency. There shouldn't be any litmus test of "intentions". That is just a code word for "if we approve of you politically".

The greatest problem presently is the American intransigence on the issue. Hypocricy that should be declared and have that govt made into the biggest shame holders in the world. They continue to develop and test nuclear arms. They hold the ability (through accident, design or will) to blow the world up thousands of times over. Yet they "pretend" to be peacemakers and look out for humanity's self interest when it comes to nuclear weapons. Who is fooling who?

This world will only get safer if all governments are pressured by their people to lay down their bombs of destruction. Pie in the sky? NO, simply what has to happen if we value our children. The American position is hogwash and it allows states such as Iran to pursue nuclear arming, either overtly or covertly. If they have it -- why shouldn't we?

DD

[Gopher]

[ddeubel]

[Kuros]

[ddeubel]

Kuros,

Iran has kept all commitments with "international" organizations vis a vis inspection of its facilities excepting a few minor delays.

The IAEA, just like in the case of Iraq, always in reports errs on the side of caution and never declares in total, a nation is completely compliant and free of non aggression. They just can't ever be certain so they say so. Further, US. pressure and diplomatic suasion of this body was and is the continued cause of dissention and delay. But for you to claim that these statements mean there was/is some sort of Iranian gamesmanship is just partisan American hogwash.

What more do you expect - Bush's daughters to patrol the nuclear facilities and be feted like wonderkin?

The real issue is what El Baradei outlines.

[Gopher]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[ddeubel]

[Gopher]

Clarifications on your refs to "America," "the American govt," "the present W. Bush Administration."

The American govt represents the American people. The American people, or at least those who vote, elect it at the national, state, and local levels. The American people pay taxes, respect laws, and legitimate the American govt in a million ways in their everyday lives. Your line is fine. It derives from Chomsky and others on the far left who aim to discredit the American govt, hoping to hasten its overthrow. I disagree with it but it is not an implausible line. You are free and you ought to be free to articulate such positions. But please do not state it as uncontested fact. It sounds like propaganda and not argument when you do so. Like Ron Paul supporters, those who believe this line state and restate it again and again, desperately trying to wish it true.

Further, criticize the W. Bush Administration all you like. Many of us do -- although we tend to go about it differently and speak in different tones-of-voice, etc. But, again, please remember that many Americans elected and continue to support the administration. W. Bush is legally in the Oval Office, unpopular and hated by his critics or not.

All of this is well and good but ultimately, as Ya-ta Boy points out, entirely irrelevant to the Iranian nuclear-weapons issue. We, that is, we the international community, ought to do our best to prevent Tehran's acquiring nukes and the consequences that would follow (namely, a sudden nuclear-armed Middle-East and an almost certain Israeli preemptive war against Iran that might just lead to a world-wide conflict). I do not speak in the universal good inasmuch as my own country and its allies' interests. But that in-and-of-itself is insufficient to merely dismiss this view offhand, as you tend to do, speaking, as you usually claim to do, in the univeral interest. (There is no universal interest, Ddeubel.)