Iran's Nuclear Development and Its Impact on Japan
MAGOSAKI Ukeru / Former Ambassador to Iran
February 14, 2006
Iran's nuclear development has become a hot-button issue involving economic sanctions and possibly military action against Iran. Factors contributing to the growing tension are:
・ Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hard-line statements including the reference to nuclear development.
・ The steps that the Iranian government has actually taken towards nuclearization.
・ The negotiations between Iran and Great Britain, France, and Germany have not only made little progress, but now have nearly collapsed.
・ The discussions and possible sanctions by the UN Security Council seem to proceed as the order of the day.
Among the above items, the most important one is the Iranian President's statements like "Iran will not by any means forfeit its right to have access to peaceful nuclear technology" that came with the breaking of the seals on its uranium enrichment-related facilities. In addition, his statements regarding Israel included, "Israel must be 'wiped off the map,'" "the Holocaust was a myth," and "if European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II....why don't they provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe."
The United States, having no diplomatic relations with Iran at present, has dealt severely with these pronouncements and appears to be even considering military action. In the meantime, European countries have maintained an on-going dialogue with Iran recognizing that they could not afford a strained relationship with Iran as it would surely exert adverse effects too grave for them to ignore. However, Iranian President's hard-line statements made it difficult for the German and French governments to support Iran vis-a-vis their domestic opinions. Besides, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is in the mood to patch up Germany's rather poor relations with America.
Why then is the Iranian President reiterating such hard-line statements? He must not have been serious when he said "Israel must be 'wiped off the map,'" or "why don't European countries provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe." His intended audience was the Iranian people. Although Ahmadinejad won in the presidential elections in June 2005 with the support of 61 percent of voters, he is having a hard time securing political control of the country and is rapidly losing popular support. Thus, he intends to raise his approval rating by heightening tensions and intensifying the conflict with the West. Iran after all survived the Iraq-Iran war in the 80s, when it suffered devastating bombardments and more than 200,000 casualties. A possible American attack, he may be calculating, would not surpass this degree of damage.
The present tension-packed situation, however, has not been brought about by the nuclear questions alone. It encompasses a larger fundamental question of how the West should engage with the current Iranian regime.
Since the 9.11 incident, the United States has taken a position that war against terrorism is most important problem in international politics and that the democratization of the Middle East should be advanced with all the US's might, even by force if necessary, because as long as there exists a religiously strong Islamic regime in the region, terrorism could not be exterminated. This democratization scheme, among others, naturally includes Iran. It is also related to Iran's nuclear development. Even though they insist at present that the nuclear development is for peaceful purposes, it should not be allowed as long as there are possibilities of military use in the future. That is the policy of the American government.
On the other hand, with oil production nearing its peak and domestic energy consumption increasing, Iran has ample motivation for peaceful nuclear power development. But the United States will not allow the development of general nuclear technology no matter how they might emphasize "peaceful purposes" as it could be used for other purposes. These contentious differences lie behind the problem of Iran's nuclear development that has arisen so suddenly.
Allow me to attempt to forecast the future development of this issue and its probable impact on Japan. At the present time, a tug of war is taking place between the United States and European countries, on one hand, and China and Russia, on the other, as Iran's nuclear development is debated at the UN Security Council. The former want to discuss the matter leading to sanctions, while the latter intend to block it. Under these circumstances, if a UN resolution is adopted, or economic sanctions are decided upon by a group of "like-minded" nations, Japan's participation will be expected. Furthermore, Japan's petroleum development project in Iran will come under fire in the US, while stronger pressures will certainly be brought to bear on Japan to halt Japan's fuel recycle program using plutonium.
How to advance international nuclear power development? How to construct economic relations with a "hostile" Iran? And how to deal with the Iranian regime? Those are the questions Japan must face with clear-cut answers.
In my personal opinion, Iran should be permitted to develop nuclear energy for peaceful use and Japan should seek, on the assumption of the viability of the present regime chosen by democratic means by the people of Iran, new policies that would not condemn Iran to international isolation.
The writer is Professor at the Defense Academy and former Ambassador to Iran.
・ Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hard-line statements including the reference to nuclear development.
・ The steps that the Iranian government has actually taken towards nuclearization.
・ The negotiations between Iran and Great Britain, France, and Germany have not only made little progress, but now have nearly collapsed.
・ The discussions and possible sanctions by the UN Security Council seem to proceed as the order of the day.
Among the above items, the most important one is the Iranian President's statements like "Iran will not by any means forfeit its right to have access to peaceful nuclear technology" that came with the breaking of the seals on its uranium enrichment-related facilities. In addition, his statements regarding Israel included, "Israel must be 'wiped off the map,'" "the Holocaust was a myth," and "if European countries claim that they have killed Jews in World War II....why don't they provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe."
The United States, having no diplomatic relations with Iran at present, has dealt severely with these pronouncements and appears to be even considering military action. In the meantime, European countries have maintained an on-going dialogue with Iran recognizing that they could not afford a strained relationship with Iran as it would surely exert adverse effects too grave for them to ignore. However, Iranian President's hard-line statements made it difficult for the German and French governments to support Iran vis-a-vis their domestic opinions. Besides, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is in the mood to patch up Germany's rather poor relations with America.
Why then is the Iranian President reiterating such hard-line statements? He must not have been serious when he said "Israel must be 'wiped off the map,'" or "why don't European countries provide the Zionist regime with a piece of Europe." His intended audience was the Iranian people. Although Ahmadinejad won in the presidential elections in June 2005 with the support of 61 percent of voters, he is having a hard time securing political control of the country and is rapidly losing popular support. Thus, he intends to raise his approval rating by heightening tensions and intensifying the conflict with the West. Iran after all survived the Iraq-Iran war in the 80s, when it suffered devastating bombardments and more than 200,000 casualties. A possible American attack, he may be calculating, would not surpass this degree of damage.
The present tension-packed situation, however, has not been brought about by the nuclear questions alone. It encompasses a larger fundamental question of how the West should engage with the current Iranian regime.
Since the 9.11 incident, the United States has taken a position that war against terrorism is most important problem in international politics and that the democratization of the Middle East should be advanced with all the US's might, even by force if necessary, because as long as there exists a religiously strong Islamic regime in the region, terrorism could not be exterminated. This democratization scheme, among others, naturally includes Iran. It is also related to Iran's nuclear development. Even though they insist at present that the nuclear development is for peaceful purposes, it should not be allowed as long as there are possibilities of military use in the future. That is the policy of the American government.
On the other hand, with oil production nearing its peak and domestic energy consumption increasing, Iran has ample motivation for peaceful nuclear power development. But the United States will not allow the development of general nuclear technology no matter how they might emphasize "peaceful purposes" as it could be used for other purposes. These contentious differences lie behind the problem of Iran's nuclear development that has arisen so suddenly.
Allow me to attempt to forecast the future development of this issue and its probable impact on Japan. At the present time, a tug of war is taking place between the United States and European countries, on one hand, and China and Russia, on the other, as Iran's nuclear development is debated at the UN Security Council. The former want to discuss the matter leading to sanctions, while the latter intend to block it. Under these circumstances, if a UN resolution is adopted, or economic sanctions are decided upon by a group of "like-minded" nations, Japan's participation will be expected. Furthermore, Japan's petroleum development project in Iran will come under fire in the US, while stronger pressures will certainly be brought to bear on Japan to halt Japan's fuel recycle program using plutonium.
How to advance international nuclear power development? How to construct economic relations with a "hostile" Iran? And how to deal with the Iranian regime? Those are the questions Japan must face with clear-cut answers.
In my personal opinion, Iran should be permitted to develop nuclear energy for peaceful use and Japan should seek, on the assumption of the viability of the present regime chosen by democratic means by the people of Iran, new policies that would not condemn Iran to international isolation.
The writer is Professor at the Defense Academy and former Ambassador to Iran.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
イランの核開発問題と日本への影響
孫崎 享 / 元駐イラン大使
2006年 2月 14日
イランの核開発問題が、イランへの経済制裁、軍事行動を孕む問題として、緊迫した問題となってきた。次の諸点が緊迫化の要因である。
・イラン・アハマディネジャド大統領、核問題を含め強硬発言
・イラン核問題で行動
・イランと英独仏交渉進展なくほぼ決裂
・ 国連安保理での協議、制裁が日程に上ってくる。
この中、一番大きい影響を与えているのはイラン大統領の発言である。彼は核開発問題で「イランは核の平和利用の技術取得の権利を放棄しない」と発言しウラン濃縮関連施設等3箇所の封印解き、さらに、イスラエルについて、「イスラエルは地上から消えるべきである」「ホロコーストは作り話である」「欧州がユダヤ人に贖罪意識があるなら欧州にユダヤ国家を作ればいい」と発言した。
米国は現在イランと国交がなく、厳しい対応をし、軍事攻撃も考慮してきた。この中欧州諸国はイラン問題の緊迫は欧州に対する影響が大きすぎるとして、対話路線を維持した。しかし、イラン大統領のイスラエルに対する強硬発言で、独仏もイラン擁護は国内的にもたない。あわせドイツのメンケル首相は対米関係の修復を図っている。
では何故イランの大統領が強硬発言を繰り返しているのか。「イスラエルは地上から消えるべきである」「欧州にユダヤ国家を作ればいい」と言って実現できると思っているわけでない。彼の意図した聴衆はイラン国民である。アハマディネジャド大統領は昨年6月の大統領選挙で６１％の支持で選ばれたものの、国内掌握に苦慮し、支持率を急速に低下させている。この中、西側との対立を激化させ、緊張を背景に、支持を高めたいとの意図が働いている。イランは80年代のイラン・イラク戦争で20万人以上の犠牲者を出し、莫大な砲撃をうけても生き延びた。米国の攻撃があってもこれを上回ることはないとの計算もある。
しかし、この核問題の緊迫は単に、核問題だけに起因しているわけでない。より大きく、現在のイラン政権に西側がどう対応するかという根本問題を抱えている。
９・１１以降米国はテロとの戦いを国際政治の最大課題として位置づけ、中東にイスラム色の強い政権が存続する限りテロが消滅しないとして、中東民主か構想を進め、武力の使用も正当化した。民主化対象国にはイランも含まれる。これが核開発と関連する。例え現在平和利用のための核開発といっても、将来の軍事利用に資する可能性があるなら、それを阻止する。それが米国の方針である。石油生産の頭打ち、国内エネルギーの増大を背景に、イランに平和利用のための原子力開発の動機は十分ある。現時点如何に平和利用といっても、汎用性にある技術開発は米国は認めない。この主張の違いがイランの核問題が急浮上した背景にある。
今後の展開と日本への影響を見てみたい。現在、イランの核問題を国連安全保障理事会で協議するかで、協議、制裁にもちこもうとする米国、欧州と、それを阻止しようとする中国ロシアの間で綱引きが行われている。この中で国連決議、あるいは有志連合で経済制裁が決定されれば日本の参加が期待される。更に米国内で、イランでの日本の石油開発に対する批判は強まろう。
又、日本でのプルトニウム利用の燃料サイクル中止の圧力も強まろう。
国際的原子力開発をどう進めるか、「敵対的」イランとの経済関係をどうするか、更にこの政権とどう付き合うか日本の明確な対応が求められていく。
私個人はイランの原子力平和利用を認め、かつイラン国民が民主的手段で選択した政権を孤立化の道に追い込むのでなく、その存続を前提として政策を立案すべきと考える。
（筆者は防衛大学校教授。元駐イラン大使。）
・イラン・アハマディネジャド大統領、核問題を含め強硬発言
・イラン核問題で行動
・イランと英独仏交渉進展なくほぼ決裂
・ 国連安保理での協議、制裁が日程に上ってくる。
この中、一番大きい影響を与えているのはイラン大統領の発言である。彼は核開発問題で「イランは核の平和利用の技術取得の権利を放棄しない」と発言しウラン濃縮関連施設等3箇所の封印解き、さらに、イスラエルについて、「イスラエルは地上から消えるべきである」「ホロコーストは作り話である」「欧州がユダヤ人に贖罪意識があるなら欧州にユダヤ国家を作ればいい」と発言した。
米国は現在イランと国交がなく、厳しい対応をし、軍事攻撃も考慮してきた。この中欧州諸国はイラン問題の緊迫は欧州に対する影響が大きすぎるとして、対話路線を維持した。しかし、イラン大統領のイスラエルに対する強硬発言で、独仏もイラン擁護は国内的にもたない。あわせドイツのメンケル首相は対米関係の修復を図っている。
では何故イランの大統領が強硬発言を繰り返しているのか。「イスラエルは地上から消えるべきである」「欧州にユダヤ国家を作ればいい」と言って実現できると思っているわけでない。彼の意図した聴衆はイラン国民である。アハマディネジャド大統領は昨年6月の大統領選挙で６１％の支持で選ばれたものの、国内掌握に苦慮し、支持率を急速に低下させている。この中、西側との対立を激化させ、緊張を背景に、支持を高めたいとの意図が働いている。イランは80年代のイラン・イラク戦争で20万人以上の犠牲者を出し、莫大な砲撃をうけても生き延びた。米国の攻撃があってもこれを上回ることはないとの計算もある。
しかし、この核問題の緊迫は単に、核問題だけに起因しているわけでない。より大きく、現在のイラン政権に西側がどう対応するかという根本問題を抱えている。
９・１１以降米国はテロとの戦いを国際政治の最大課題として位置づけ、中東にイスラム色の強い政権が存続する限りテロが消滅しないとして、中東民主か構想を進め、武力の使用も正当化した。民主化対象国にはイランも含まれる。これが核開発と関連する。例え現在平和利用のための核開発といっても、将来の軍事利用に資する可能性があるなら、それを阻止する。それが米国の方針である。石油生産の頭打ち、国内エネルギーの増大を背景に、イランに平和利用のための原子力開発の動機は十分ある。現時点如何に平和利用といっても、汎用性にある技術開発は米国は認めない。この主張の違いがイランの核問題が急浮上した背景にある。
今後の展開と日本への影響を見てみたい。現在、イランの核問題を国連安全保障理事会で協議するかで、協議、制裁にもちこもうとする米国、欧州と、それを阻止しようとする中国ロシアの間で綱引きが行われている。この中で国連決議、あるいは有志連合で経済制裁が決定されれば日本の参加が期待される。更に米国内で、イランでの日本の石油開発に対する批判は強まろう。
又、日本でのプルトニウム利用の燃料サイクル中止の圧力も強まろう。
国際的原子力開発をどう進めるか、「敵対的」イランとの経済関係をどうするか、更にこの政権とどう付き合うか日本の明確な対応が求められていく。
私個人はイランの原子力平和利用を認め、かつイラン国民が民主的手段で選択した政権を孤立化の道に追い込むのでなく、その存続を前提として政策を立案すべきと考える。
（筆者は防衛大学校教授。元駐イラン大使。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟