Yep --- It's your favorite EU leader supporting Iran's enrichment program today. You heard right !
Reuters AlertNet - Chirac pushes EU to drop hard line on Iran-diplomats: "VIENNA, April 13 (Reuters) - French President Jacques Chirac has been pushing the EU to drop its refusal to consider letting Iran enrich uranium, despite U.S. and European fears Iran could use enrichment technology for weapons, EU diplomats say.
Sharing U.S. suspicions that Iran may have atom bomb ambitions, the European Union's three biggest powers — France, Britain and Germany — have demanded Iran give up its nuclear fuel programme in exchange for economic and political benefits.
Iran says it has no interest in the bomb and wants nuclear power plants to meet booming demand for electricity. Tehran has frozen its enrichment programme, but refuses to permanently give up what it sees as a sovereign right to produce low-enriched uranium fuel for its nuclear power programme.
The Iran-EU talks had been deadlocked over the issue of 'objective guarantees' that Iran's atomic programme will not be used to make weapons, with the Europeans insisting that the only acceptable guarantee was a permanent cessation of enrichment.
But the talks took a new turn last month when negotiators from the EU's 'big three' (EU3) and the office of EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana agreed in Paris to consider an Iranian proposal that it keep a small-scale enrichment programme that would be closely monitored by the U.N. nuclear watchdog.
Several diplomats said this shift — which came just after Washington bolstered the EU position by offering its own incentives if Tehran scrapped enrichment — was mainly the result of pressure by Chirac, who pushed the French Foreign Ministry to drop its refusal to consider Iran's plan.
'Jacques Chirac ... is the one who's taking the Iranian proposal under consideration,' said an EU3 diplomat, adding the French president had the final say on foreign policy matters."
Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
1 - Big Time Patriot
And where does that most American of all companies stand on the issue of trading with this Axis of Enemy member? Halliburton still doing business in Iran (but they say they will stop soon).
So just where does our old, very old, government contractor Halliburton, really stand on the issue of supporting the axis of evil? Or should we say hide? So far they appear to be making their choice obvious.
Those dang French and Halliburton people, they must hate us for our freedom.
2 - Marc
Gee that would seem to place Jacques "sure not to act" Chirac in breech of this, even before the ink is dry.
Not surprising.
3 - Z.Z. Bachman
Let's just say that nukes in the hands of Islamic extremists would make the use of those devices for "terrorist" purposes that much more likely. The fact that it requires costly technology and enriched uranium puts these weapons out of the reach of MOST NON STATE sponsored terrorist organizations. So by definition, you are correct, Iran if allowed to proliferate will develop the same threat that Pakistan and India with each other. The targets would be different. Israel and any goverments that support Israel right to exist. So where would we see the higher likely hood of such devices being covertly developed from an nuclear power plant program. Iran or say a country like NewZealand. The choice is obvious.
4 - Dave Nalle
BTP, right now we have no sanctions or trade restrictions on Iran, so Halliburton - like any responsible company - is doing business where there is money to be made.
Dave
5 - Z.Z. Bachman
In the end when you peel this all back, the problem is hateful religious doctrine. Maybe religion in general. At some point in the future ANY country will be able to develop a nuke. Why? Because you can be developed! So the real underlying issue is why would any nation or group WANT to develop weapons like this? The rationale has always been, (perhaps up until now) for defensive retaliation to PREVENT war. The doctrine of assured mutual anhilation as a deterent from it's use created ironically the nuke build up between USSR and US. In effect neutralizing the value. (So with the end of the Cold War Many thought the problem was resolved. Well, think again. Now we have religious fanaticism to worry about! -- So what is the REAL enemy here ?)
That old strategy is useless when you concider nukes in the hands of a terrorist organization, because it it difficult to directly implicate a sovergign gov't. Do you nuke an entire country if a nuke goes off in NYC? If so, which one? So a NEW strategy needs to be adopted. Read the comments on Amazon from the 2nd of the two books listed on this post. Imperial Huberis. Or better yet. Read the books...
6 - RJ
France is no ally of the US. They haven't been for a long, long time.
Sadly, the EU seems to give them a leadership role in international matters...
7 - Big Time Patriot
"BTP, right now we have no sanctions or trade restrictions on Iran, so Halliburton - like any responsible company - is doing business where there is money to be made"
You might check out this handy goverment document: "An overview of O.F.A.C. Regulations involving Sanctions against Iran" An overview of O.F.A.C. Regulations involving Sanctions against Iran
8 - Big Time Patriot
oops, here's the url for that document (darn cut and paste is SO difficult sometimes)
9 - Dave Nalle
BTP, you might want to check the 4th paragraph of that document. Clinton lifted parts of the sanctions in 2000. I didn't realize he hadn't lifted all of them, so to some degree I stand corrected.
However, Halliburton has subsidiaries outside the US, so they can use those subsidiaries to sell services to Iran - which is most of what they do rather than 'trading' per se. That gets them around the letter of the law.
Dave
10 - SFC SKI
ZZ, I think that Iran would not give out nukes to it's Hezbollah proxies until they had more than one.
IN this manner, Hezbollah, or some other group, could buy a nuke for its own purposes, andd use it. Iran would frist be able to deny it had supplied it, and at the same time use its own nukes to threaten the region should we or Israel decide to retaliate.
Just my $.02
11 - Z.Z. Bachman
BTP --
That's the exact scenerio that creates the dilema. No sovereign "state" in it's right mind would ever admit to selling nukes to anyone for fear of retaliation. However they NEED enriched uranium to persue it for either true defensive counter balance (as unforutunately the US and USSR taught all the world) or for other darker motives. So what IS the OFFENSIVE strategy here ? Get to the root cause of the threat... objectively... and remove it. We wonder even if there was "peace" between Isreal (a nuclear capable nation by the way) and Palestine that the threat against Western Culture would really be eliminated. We think not....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ZZ Bachman / ZardozZ News & Satire Portal
Have a Blog? Ring Surf it @ ZZ OpenRing