China, Germany agree Iran should not have bomb

[genghis_tom]

article
by Claudia Kade
BEIJING — German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in China for talks on Iran, human rights and piracy, said yesterday she and Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao had agreed Tehran should not have nuclear weapons capability.


Western powers have been at odds with China and Russia on how to halt Iran’s atomic programmes, which the west believes is aimed at developing nuclear weapons.

Senior officials from the US, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany will meet in London tomorrow to discuss the next steps on Iran’s disputed nuclear programme, officials confirmed.

The meeting of political directors was postponed last week.


Merkel, who is on her first visit to Beijing as chancellor, said: “We talked about Iran, and agreed Iran should not have the capability to make nuclear weapons and shouldn’t proliferate weapons of mass destruction.”


Beijing has been opposed to tougher measures such as sanctions against Iran to force it to stop its research, and trying to forge a consensus on the issue is seen as one of the goals of Merkel’s trip. Russia has taken a similar stance.

Weekly magazine Der Spiegel cited unnamed German officials as saying that some in Berlin would like to break the deadlock with Iran by allowing it to engage in limited and monitored uranium enrichment research, a view also held by the United Nations (UN’s) nuclear watchdog’s chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

“Some Germans have this view. But we will not break ranks with the EU-3 and the Americans,” a German official said, referring to the European Union (EU) powers of Britain, France and Germany.

“We want to keep as unified a front as possible, preferably one that includes the Russians and Chinese,” said the official, who declined to be named.

But as she tried to make breakthroughs with China on Iran, Merkel also raised the tricky issue of human rights. “I have made it clear that human rights are indivisible,” she said.

There was an increasing willingness to talk about the issue, but also differences of opinion, said Merkel, who in opposition was critical of efforts to scrap a EU ban on arms sales to Beijing.


In a departure from China’s usually stern protocol, Merkel’s visit got off to a relaxed start with an early morning walk in the park with Wen, followed by a Chinese breakfast together.


US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday Washington was not offering security guarantees to Iran to end its nuclear programme.

“Iran is a troublemaker in the international system, a central banker of terrorism. Security assurances are not on the table,” she told Fox News Sunday.

The top US diplomat spoke as Iran said on Sunday it would not suspend uranium enrichment despite EU plans to offer incentives to the Islamic republic if it halts the sensitive nuclear work.


Rice said: “It’s obvious that in addition to the nuclear issue, we have other issues with Iran. We have a state in Iran that is devoted to the destruction of Israel.”

Iran said its nuclear programme remained on track despite the international pressure. “We will not stop enrichment,” foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in Tehran.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Sunday Iran could have a nuclear bomb in “months”, and vowed that Israel would take the “necessary measures” to stop this in its tracks.

A draft proposal by the nuclear negotiators says world powers should support Iran building several light-water reactors and should set up a nuclear fuel bank that would guarantee Iran access to reactor fuel but not sensitive fuel cycle technology. With Sapa-AFP

[Justcurious]

China, Germany agree Iran should not have bomb

And who should have one? No one!

[genghis_tom]

China, Germany agree Iran should not have bomb

And who should have one? No one!

It's a bit late for those speeches.
And who is going to give them up? No one!

[Justcurious]

It's a bit late for those speeches.
And who is going to give them up? No one!

Why late? The United States may have one, but who's told they ought to use one?

[genghis_tom]

Why late? The United States may have one, but who's told they ought to use one?

It is late for those speeches because it is such a handy deterrent that giving a nuclear arsenal up is inconcievable. Nukes may never be used again, it's the "what if" that keeps everyone hanging on.

[Mediocrates]

It's a bit late for those speeches.
And who is going to give them up? No one!

South Africa 'de-built' 7 weapons and the components of an 8th. But that's it. Agentina and Brazil both stopped their own weapons development programs voluntarily. But the point is, technological obstacles really don't stand for much. You can't prevent someone from developing a bomb, eventually if that's what they want to do. It's more of a political question than an engineering problem.

BTW Germany does not have nukes but like Japan is technically permitted to develop weapons up to the point they are approx. 30 days from a complete deployable device. China has a nuclear capability but it's always been very very small perhaps as small as 30 ICBMs. In fact China is probably the second smallest nuclear force after North Korea. (maybe larger than Pakistan, maybe not). China is a large country with large natural boundaries between it and most of their historical enemies.

[Mediocrates]

You only have to look at a map to understand that Iran is surrounded by nuclear states who have no interest in Iran becoming a nuclear state. Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Israel, US (Iraq and Diego Garcia). And then there's Saudi Arabia with the money to develop a program and enough hatred and fear of the Shiites to do it.

[genghis_tom]

South Africa 'de-built' 7 weapons and the components of an 8th. But that's it. Agentina and Brazil both stopped their own weapons development programs voluntarily. But the point is, technological obstacles really don't stand for much. You can't prevent someone from developing a bomb, eventually if that's what they want to do. It's more of a political question than an engineering problem.

If I may go further, it is almost exclusively a political question, especially international politics. South Africa, Argentina, and Brazil do not really need to defend themselves from nuclear powers, like the US, and European nations, and the "rogue" powers (N. Korea, etc.) don't give a hoot about Brazil, etc. Japan and China are stable in the international community, also.

[genghis_tom]

You only have to look at a map to understand that Iran is surrounded by nuclear states who have no interest in Iran becoming a nuclear state. Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Israel, US (Iraq and Diego Garcia). And then there's Saudi Arabia with the money to develop a program and enough hatred and fear of the Shiites to do it.

Russia is condoning Iran's actions, Medio!
China has no quarrel with Iran.
Pakistan is 80+% Sunni, but the lack of conflict between the countries indicates stable relationships (besides, Iran, as the greenie nuclear power, won't spring anything on someone already with nukes).
India: Same as Pakistan parentheses. Also, the last time Iran and India fought was during the Achaemenids.
Israel and US: They indeed have no interest in Iran becoming a nuclear power.

[Mediocrates]

If I may go further, it is almost exclusively a political question, especially international politics. South Africa, Argentina, and Brazil do not really need to defend themselves from nuclear powers, like the US, and European nations, and the "rogue" powers (N. Korea, etc.) don't give a hoot about Brazil, etc. Japan and China are stable in the international community, also.

Brazil and Argentina were linked. They pretty much hate each other. Once one developed a program the other did. South Africa developed a kind of line defense in the 70's as a last ditch deterrent against all the communist wars in Angola, Namibia and north east South African regions. They were prepared to use them on their own soil if necessary.

[Mediocrates]

Russia is condoning Iran's actions, Medio!

Maybe - it's hard to tell. They're broke and need the cash mostly.

China has no quarrel with Iran.

Not yet but a nuclear Iran can foment a lot of muslim anger in western China.

Pakistan is 80+% Sunni, but the lack of conflict between the countries indicates stable relationships (besides, Iran, as the greenie nuclear power, won't spring anything on someone already with nukes).

Iran has to be a little worried about how stable Pakistan really is and what happens if Mushareff falls.

India: Same as Pakistan parentheses. Also, the last time Iran and India fought was during the Achaemenids.

India has to consider than an attack on Pakistan or from Pakistan could precipitate Iranian nuclear participation.

[genghis_tom]

Maybe - it's hard to tell. They're broke and need the cash mostly.

I doubt they need a mere trickle of cash (that's what it will be) at the cost of arousing suspicion from the US and EU.

Not yet but a nuclear Iran can foment a lot of muslim anger in western China.

Right... "To arms! A nuclear Iran will combine with our 24 million to defeat 1.3 billion and gain our sovereignty!"
Ahmadhatter is not that stupid.
Xinjiang already has more rights than inner China, anyways.

Iran has to be a little worried about how stable Pakistan really is and what happens if Mushareff falls.

That's what the Iranian army is for. No way will Pakistan (in anarchy or otherwise) launch nukes for fear of retribution from India and who knows who else.

India has to consider than an attack on Pakistan or from Pakistan could precipitate Iranian nuclear participation.

To put it bluntly, any nuclear attack within the next 50 years will precipitate everyone's nuclear participation. Sort of like WWI with nukes.