Weapons of mass destruction. Europe spies a threat

Date: 21/06/03

EU foreign ministers talk tough, for a change. Iran will be their first test

IS THE European Union at last girding itself to cope forcefully with new threats in a dangerous world? Having hitherto prided themselves chiefly on their soft power, EU foreign ministers this week agreed that, when diplomatic efforts to deal with weapons of mass destruction fail, “coercive measures under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and international law (sanctions, selective or global, interceptions of shipments, and, as appropriate, the use of force) could be envisioned.”

This tougher talk is in part aimed at repairing the rifts that emerged both within Europe and with the United States over the war in Iraq. But it is also belated recognition that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to carry them damages Europe's security just as surely as America's. The foreign ministers put Iran, whose nuclear activities are of growing concern, on notice that the trade accord it hopes to conclude with the EU could be sunk, unless it accepts more intrusive nuclear checks. Will the EU back up its words with deeds? Iran will be the big test.

This week the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose job it is to monitor compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, called on Iran to submit to tighter safeguards, drawn up in the 1990s after inspectors discovered how close Iraq had come to a bomb without their knowing. Iran insists that its nuclear activities are peaceful. But it says it will sign up for extra safeguards only if others agree to sell it nuclear technology, as Russia does already. America criticised Iran for attaching conditions “that no other country has sought” to the safeguards and for its “long-term pattern of safeguards violations and evasions”. George Bush said on June 18th that America “will not tolerate” an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Iran's evasions are indeed extensive. The IAEA report mentions the building of a sophisticated uranium-enrichment plant, supposedly without any prior testing of its centrifuge technology; Iran's intention to build a heavy-water research reactor (able to produce plutonium, an alternative to uranium as a fissile core for bombs); its failure to tell the agency it had imported 1.8 tonnes of natural uranium and what it then did with some now missing uranium hexafluoride that could be used to test centrifuges; its production of uranium metal, used in bomb-making, but not needed for reactors Iran has planned; and its refusal last week to allow IAEA inspectors to take samples at the Kalaye Electric Company in Tehran, where some of the centrifuge parts were made.

What is to be done? The EU would prefer more time for dialogue. Iran was not expected to be declared formally in “non-compliance” with its obligations this week, but America wants pressure kept on Iran to meet the IAEA's concerns. Its next report is not due until September, but America called for the board to meet in special session before then, if need be. Trying to avoid another damaging split among its allies, Britain wants its EU partners to tell Iran to do what the IAEA asks of it, quickly, or face tougher action.

Keeping everyone in step in dealing with proliferation in general and Iran in particular will not be easy. The tougher EU language will nonetheless be a welcome surprise in Washington, where the Bush team had begun to despair of Europe's feebleness on such issues. Even those administration officials hostile to other sorts of international entanglements are determined to see the NPT and similar treaties more strictly enforced. Last week America started informal discussions on interdicting shipments of illicit weapons with ten other countries, including Australia and Japan, as well as Britain, France, Germany and others. This week the EU said it was ready to explore new UN resolutions to help clamp down on such trade.

But the EU's new determination to tackle such problems could yet falter. Germany at first refused even to discuss any document on proliferation that made mention of the use of force. France, however, despite its opposition over Iraq, takes weapons proliferation much more seriously. It leaned on Germany hard.

Not before time. If Europeans want to be listened to on the big issues, argues Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform in London, they need a more constructive and coherent approach. The new guidelines on weapons of mass destruction are only part of a broader European security strategy that is still being drafted. This will identify the threats Europe faces and the tools for dealing with them. That is, if dealing with Iran does not cause the consensus so far to come unstuck.

EU foreign ministers talk tough, for a change. Iran will be their first test.