NEW YORK. (RIA Novosti political commentator Dmitry Kosyrev). Amid bitter differences aroused by Iran's disputed nuclear program, the United Nations was overwhelmed today by good news from Beijing about a preliminary but nonetheless decisive document paving the way to a solution of the North Korean nuclear crisis.
Both crises were in effect provoked by U.S. allegations - so far lacking solid evidence - that North Korea and Iran were aspiring toward a military nuclear capability. In both cases, Washington eventually had to opt for diplomatic pressure to get the countries to drop their nuclear programs but the weight of excessive warlike rhetoric shut the direct window in the face of U.S. officials, leaving America to rely on the European Troika (France, Germany, and the U.K.) in dealings with Iranian ayatollahs and on a broader gathering of regional powers (China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea) in talks with Kim Jong-il.
Prospects for resolving the North Korean crisis have been cloudy ever since the nuclear dispute deteriorated in the fall of 2002, which probably explains why at a Friday news conference after meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush Russian leader Vladimir Putin warned against provoking Iran and turning it into another North Korea.
Now that we have good news from Beijing, he might have added, the breakthrough on North Korea should teach a lesson against treading on Iran.
The General Assembly, a global UN gathering of foreign ministers, seemed to be still looking at the old picture on Monday as U.S. Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice, having praised the Beijing document, hinted at possible sanctions against Iran and told a news conference that Iran's "nuclear dossier" would be, in any case, brought to the UN Security Council in "the next step." At a luncheon with EU counterparts, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at about the same time that "there should be no rush" to place Iran on the Security Council's agenda.
Though governors of IAEA, the international nuclear watchdog, hardly heard these conflicting statements at their Monday session, U.S. representatives were already toning down their attack by introducing a generally condemning resolution rather than offering a direct referral to the Security Council. Obviously, they have seen this as the most they could do in the face of robust opposition from too many IAEA members and in any case as "a next step" that could help do the job later.
However, what happened to North Korea must change the dispute around Iran as well, for it is a clear demonstration that changing hawkish rhetoric for normal diplomatic language brings success. So, who said something that brought success with North Korea would not work with Iran?
Furthermore, United States negotiators could communicate directly with North Korea because the process was facilitated by those countries whom North Korea trusts. Primarily Russia and China. The EU troika failed to achieve the same success with Iran. Meanwhile it would make sense to develop Dr. Rice's initiative and involve Russia, China, and India with Iran - in order to achieve the desired effect rather than put pressure on Tehran as Washington has presented it.
Following U.S. nuclear weapons allegations North Korea pulled out from the Nonproliferation Treaty in winter 2002-2003 and showed the door to IAEA, the global watchdog for whom nonproliferation is raison d'etre - something Iran never did. Iran has never rejected cooperation with IAEA. So who said you could not come to terms with Iran if you could do that with North Korea, even without having an IAEA team inside?
Under the Beijing document, IAEA inspectors should return to the North Korea "as soon as possible," and North Korea should honor its Nonproliferation Treaty commitments. North Koreans, however, are bound to be watching IAEA actions in Iran. Those who will be continuing talks with North Korea in November should make sure the agency does not turn into a U.S. or EU toy. Otherwise the five's tentative agreements with North Korea may never come to fruition. A broader issue is the right of nations to have peaceful nuclear energy. North Korea and Iran claim that they have, like any other country for that matter, the right to develop peaceful atomic power engineering and do not intend to implement military nuclear programs. International law does not limit this right to only the friends of the U.S.
The Beijing document does not rule out a future North Korean nuclear power station, probably involving the U.S. and Europe, though it is far from specific on that issue. Compare this with Iran's latest proposal to internationalize its nuclear program in cooperation with IAEA-governed countries, Why can't Iran enjoy the same treatment?
