Talk:Iran demands that IAEA end surveillance of its nuclear program

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

back to develop[edit]

my understanding, from the sources, is that iran has ended its cooperation with the additional protocol it signed up to earlier, not coop per se, as this article suggests. i find a few other problems with this article (believe iran would have "instructed" IAEA rather than "demanded", its not a "so-called" additional protocol, that is its actual name, there is no mention of the fact that what iran is withdrawing is cooperation that it earlier volunteered, not co-op mandated by NPT or treaty obligations). i intend to tag this article to develop while these things are sorted out. Doldrums 09:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

have fixed some of these. more issues remain. am changing the lead paragraph, source is this statement in [1]

E. Khalilipour, vice president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran [states] "all voluntarily suspended non-legally binding measures including the provisions of the Additional Protocol and even beyond that will be suspended." ... "All the Agency's containment and surveillance measures which were in place beyond the normal Agency safeguards measures should be removed by mid-February 2006." (italics mine)

Doldrums 06:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with Doldrums.

I've heard a lot about Iran's pov on this issue which is not represented in the article at all. For one thing, I think they are allowed to drop out of the NPT ; for another, nothing is mentioned at all about the atomic/nuclear weaponry of Iran's neighbors; India,Pakistan,Israel,Russia and now the USA. Neutralizer 19:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked to review this article. - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that I did not look into the particulars of the NPT enough to give it sufficient context in the article. I also should have further stressed the significance of the timing of the IAEA decision in relation to ElBaradei's report. However, I think Neutralizer's concerns on the capabilities of other nuclear nations is not especially necessary. While it is worth noting, discussing it at any length in a news article starts to run dangerously close to the line between reportage and commentary, IMO. As DragonFire once mentioned to me, when you say things like what you want manetioned in the article about other nuclear powers, you tend to leave the inference to readers of a certain level of hypocrisy from these nations.
While I do agree with that view to an extent, that is not the issue at hand in the article. The issue at hand is a situation that the world deems a threat, and Iran's response to the international community's actions. Addressing any hypocrisies is not a matter of maintaining NPOV. It's a matter of debate and discussion amongst people who must be properly informed of current events, which is what journalists are supposed to do. I know it's NPOV that you're promoting when you raise such questions, but I think the desire for reporting the story first should also get prime consideration. If the story is the most important thing in your mind, the POV issues should resolve themselves (with the help of better context that I did not provide as well I probably should have...)MattM 23:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MattM wrote: The issue at hand is a situation that the world deems a threat, and Iran's response to the international community's actions.
For this particular report, i think we're probably OK, but since you bring up the subject and since this crisis is far from over, i think it's worth pointing out that the world and the international community here need to be NPOV-ed. Which states deem Iran's actions to be a threat? There are about 200 states in the world. What did the representatives of most of the world's states, or at least of those party to the NPT, say were there concerns about in May 2005? Please read w:Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and then a few source documents:
i think you'll find that the international community was concerned about Iran and North Korea, but it also deemed the non-disarmament by the powers most aggressively putting pressure on Iran right now - US+UK+France - to be a threat, and it considered Germany, the other major power pressuring Iran right now, to also be a threat (in the sense of violating the NPT) by its nuclear sharing.
Was the IAEA extraordinary meeting a few days ago genuinely representative of the international community? If so, why were the points of the May 2005 meeting missing? Was the IAEA extraordinary meeting an open meeting where bloggers and journalists were able to document the process to guarantee its fairness? Do the representatives of the NAM (non-aligned movement) constitute part of the international community? Was India blackmailed by the US in order not to vote against the proposal? (Google a bit and you'll find the answer.) Do the POVs of governments of states which are not accused of violating the NPT (i.e. excluding Iran, N.Korea, US, UK, France, Germany, China, Russia) constitute the POV of the world or the international community?
BTW - just to state my personal POV - personally i would prefer that no country uses nuclear power for civil or military purposes, even for civilian reasons, the radiation problems and difficulty of separating civil/military roles are too risky, i also am aware that human rights violations are systematic in Iran and that Ahmadinejad has made extremely anti-semitic public statements. Nevertheless, IMHO the month-long 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) counts for a much more NPOV representation of the opinions of the international community than the result of one single short meeting (presumably less than a day). Boud 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]