Posted on 07/15/2005 10:09:57 PM PDT by HAL9000
VIENNA, July 16 KYODO -The International Atomic Energy Agency seeks to put eight to 10 nuclear facilities, including ones in Japan, the United States, Russia and Finland, under international management, diplomatic sources close to the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Saturday.
They include a reprocessing facility in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture, while some of the others may be newly built under the initiative, they said.
The IAEA plans to submit a draft to address the initiative to a board of directors meeting in September and put it into practice by 2010, when the next Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference will convene, the sources said.
The IAEA's drive for the international management of sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, in particular uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technology, has drawn opposition from Japan, the United States and Iran as they view the move as infringing on state sovereignty on the use of nuclear energy.
Russia and some other countries basically support the idea.
IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei set out the basic idea of international management of the facilities in the fall of 2003 to prevent nuclear proliferation via nuclear projects in North Korea and Iran under the guise of peaceful purposes.
The goal is to allow uranium enrichment and plutonium to be extracted from nuclear waste only at the internationally managed facilities and to provide nuclear fuel from these facilities to countries that do not host them.
The draft calls for first imposing a five-year moratorium on building new nuclear fuel cycle facilities and establishing a system to guarantee that the international supply of fuel from the facilities is placed under international management.
It then seeks to put the eight to 10 facilities under the IAEA's control to work as the respective region's core facility to produce, provide and reprocess nuclear fuel, while storing and disposing of nuclear waste, according to the sources.
yea right!
SCREEEEECH! That's where I stopped.
No. No one has the right to come into our country and try to control it in any way - especially the "International community."
"F" That!
The UN in charge of weapon grade material is absolute madness.
Sorry but we were sold out long ago.
G8 Leaders Endorse IAEA´s Work for Nuclear Safety, Security, Safeguards
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2005/G8_summit2005.html
Amen to that.
Another attempt by the international camel to get his nose under the tent.
My question is, why are we holding the canvas up for the camel?
Because I don't trust you, you need to give your valuable fuel processing facility up to me for safe keeping, so I can supply anyone, including your enemies, with fissionables.
Don't worry about the income your plant used to make for you, either, because I've got a bottomless beurocracy that'll suck up every penny.
But wait, there's more! While you're at it, I want you to pass a law that guarantees me a worldwide monopoly, so I can continue to hold your national energy policy hostage for at least five years.
Now, who's gonna be the first to move on this special offer? The line forms to the left...
Towards a Safer World
16 October 2003
Op-Ed, published in The Economist
by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei
(excerpt)
In Too Many Hands
"Countries with nuclear industries have set up elaborate accounting and protection measures to ensure strong national oversight of their nuclear material."
My proposal has three parts:
"First, it is time to limit the processing of weapon-usable material (separated plutonium and high-enriched uranium) in civilian nuclear programmes, as well as the production of new material through reprocessing and enrichment, by agreeing to restrict these operations exclusively to facilities under multinational control."
"The new framework should also "turn off the tap", for all countries, on the production of new material for nuclear weapons."
"And lastly, once in force, this new framework should be regarded as a "peremptory norm" of international law - not vulnerable to any nation subsequently withdrawing, based on the whim of a new government or a vote of the latest parliament. In short, it should be enduring."
Oh great, "Uranium/Plutonium for Food" anyone?
I don't think the U.S. officials will get serious with the U.N., until the U.N. takes their toilet paper away. Being so full of stuff, that would be the last straw.
Certainly they must need our approval. Was that one of Clinton's EOs that went unchallenged?
"President Bush's proposal that exports of enrichment and reprocessing technologies be limited to only those states with fully functioning enrichment or reprocessing facilities remains the U.S. position, but we are working with others in an effort to develop a common approach."
(snip)
"We must have a global nonproliferation regime or comprehensive architecture in place and in practice that ranges from limiting access to dangerous materials and technology by securing them at their source, to enacting export and border controls, to impeding WMD-related shipments during transport, and to enforcing domestic regulatory and administrative practices to guard against illegal proliferation activity."
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2005/Jul/12-687585.html
If the Globalist forces of the world want to get their hands on the most valuable material on the planet, let them build their own manufacturing plant. Enriched Plutonium cost's billions to make.
"Gee, we see you have a nice shiny car, let us drive it for you because you cannot be trusted. Here, take my donkey..."
And if a nation does decide to withdraw from this "new framework," the UN will respond with a strongly worded resolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.