LAST Thursday the IAEA board of governors passed a resolution calling upon Iran to again suspend its nuclear activities and to allow the nuclear watchdog to reinstate the seals that had been taken off on Iranian demand at the raw uranium processing plant at Isfahan. The board asked the IAEA director-general to report on Iran’s compliance by September 3.

The Iranians immediately termed the resolution unacceptable even while reiterating their willingness to resume talks with the EU and making it clear that they were not at this time contemplating moving the gaseous uranium hexafluoride to the plant at Natanz where the gas could be converted into enriched uranium.

Earlier, the Iranians were at pains to explain that the decision to resume the gasification of raw uranium — the first step towards producing enriched uranium — had been taken because the EU failed to live up to its promise to make an offer on economic and other incentives by the end of July. Instead, it informed the Iranians that the offer would now be made by the end of August. The EU denied that there was a firm commitment to the end July date and then did make the formal offer on August 7.

This was rejected by the Iranians as “humiliating” since it did not protect Iran’s right to develop a nuclear fuel cycle and was no more than “lollipops”. The Iranians, however, were careful to delay the reopening of the plant until the IAEA inspectors were in place to take off the seals at the Isfahan plant and to install the surveillance equipment that would check on exactly what was produced in Isfahan. In other words, Iran ensured that it could not be accused of any breach of its agreement with the IAEA.

The IAEA resolution adopted by consensus in keeping with past practice clearly fell far short of what the EU members and the US would have liked. They had, however, to be satisfied with what could be termed as a toothless resolution since the representatives of the developing countries, and perhaps even China and Russia, would not have countenanced a resolution that called for referring the matter to the UN Security Council or any other punitive measure. Close observers of the IAEA believe that the EU and the US would not be able to muster the required majority to take the issue to the Security Council if, as anticipated, the director-general of the IAEA has to report on September 3 that Iran will not reseal the Isfahan facility. The fact of the matter is that Iran is entitled under the terms of the NPT to develop a nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes. The Iranians have, by their own admission, developed parts of the programme clandestinely but they explain this was forced upon them by the fierce opposition of the western world and did not establish that their purpose was to develop nuclear weapons capability.

The IAEA has been poring over the various declarations made by Iran about its nuclear programme. Some discrepancies have been noted but none that could establish conclusively that Iran had used the programme for producing highly enriched uranium that could be used in the development of a nuclear weapon programme. It would appear that the centrifuge or centrifuge parts provided by Pakistan to the IAEA bore out the Iranian contention that the traces of highly enriched uranium found earlier in Iran came from the contaminated equipment they acquired from the A.Q. Khan network and were not evidence of Iran having enriched uranium itself.

Moreover, intelligence has, in its latest report, revised its estimate of the Iranian nuclear programme and now says that Iran is at least 10 years away, rather than five, from developing nuclear weapons’ capability. For most of the members of the IAEA board of governors both these factors would have suggested that it would be wrong to try and subject Iran to sanctions and that further negotiations were called for.

The Iranians have played their cards well. They have indicated that they are willing to take up a South African offer, reported by the usually accurate Financial Times, under which the uranium hexafluoride produced at Isfahan would be taken to South Africa for conversion into the low enriched uranium needed for power reactors. The Iranians would not then need to operate the enrichment facility at Natanz and negotiations could be resumed by the Europeans without being under the gun of a full nuclear fuel cycle being operational in Iran. Is this a workable compromise? Certainly there have been no official comments yet indicating a willingness to look at this possibility since the report appeared on August 11.

Where then is the current standoff headed? Much was made of the Bush interview on Israeli radio in which he maintained that “all options are on the table,” meaning that the use of military force to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue was not being ruled out. The Americans, however, were quick to explain through the state department spokesman that this was a restatement of policy that any president would make and that actual American policy was “We made very clear that we are supporting a diplomatic way forward, the diplomatic pathway. We are supporting the EU-3 in their efforts.... We welcomed the resolution from the IAEA board of governors meeting with regard to Iran.” Bush’s statement, however, provided an opportunity to Chancellor Schroeder of Germany to reiterate his opposition to the consideration of the military option. The chancellor is of course facing an uphill battle in the forthcoming German elections and uncharitable analysts suggest that his quick comment on Bush’s statement was meant to remind German voters that Schroeder had also opposed military action in Iraq and that events had proved him right. In 2003 Schroeder had been re-elected at least in part because of the German voters’ endorsement of Schroeder’s opposition to the use of military force in Iraq.

While this is the perspective in which Schroeder’s statement is being seen it is also reflective of the probable divisions within the EU. Germany, probably more than Britain which is strongly tied to the US position, will look for a compromise solution and in this it may be joined by France. It is no secret that as the EU drew up its proposals for incentives to persuade Iran to forsake its nuclear programme, it was disappointed by the niggardly US contribution and by the constraints the Americans proposed on what the EU itself could offer.

The Americans are talking bravely about the US and the EU being on the “same page” on the Iran nuclear issue but it is likely, despite the strong statements currently being made, that the Europeans are telling the Americans that the insufficiency of the offer to the Iranians has now become clear, that the options available are limited and movement towards a compromise is essential.

The factors entering the European calculus would be:

— Not only have the Iranian conservatives scored a decisive victory in the elections but even the liberal or moderate opponents of the regime are at one with the Khamanei-Ahmadinejad regime on the nuclear issue. There is little prospect, therefore, that economic and other pressures on Iran would bring about decisive divisions within Iran. The recent problems in Iran’s Kurdish areas, whether or not fomented by western intelligence agencies, were relatively minor and could not be seen as the harbinger of more serious internal problems for the regime.

— The Iranian response to what was seen as a Bush threat to use the military option delivered by a Foreign Office spokesman — “I think Bush should know that our options are more numerous than the US options. If the United States makes such a big mistake, then Iran will definitely have more choices to defend itself” — could be dismissed as bluster given American military preponderance but not if the Iranian capacity to influence events in turbulent Afghanistan and in an even more disturbed Iraq, is taken into account.

— The IAEA has yet to establish a military dimension to that Iran’s programme. Suspicions in this regard were probably well founded but in the absence of conclusive proof any riding roughshod over the rights that Iran has under the NPT would mean a violation of the rule of law. This the West could ill afford at this time when the American agreement with India to assist it in its civilian nuclear programme, in clear contravention of the NPT, has made it difficult for the world to believe that there is a uniform law for all nations.

The Americans may be convinced of Iran’s evil intent but the world did not want to be forced to accept their assessment and their discriminatory policy against the latter without more substantive proof. In any case, many in the Muslim world, even while opposed to Iran, were looking askance at policies that allowed Israel to do what it pleased in the nuclear field while sanctions were sought against Iran.

— Iran had a right to be suspicious about the value of offers for the provision of nuclear fuel. They knew that the 1994 framework agreement with North Korea had not in the seven years that went by until Bush reneged on the agreement in 2001 led to any substantive work on the provision of the nuclear power reactors that had been promised to the country. They also continued to be suspicious of American intent in endorsing but not being party to the EU offer to Iran when they knew full well that for Iran the mitigating of American hostility and normalization of Iran-US relations was a key factor

— Since the Americans had made the determination that with the best effort in the world the Iranians would still take some 10 years to develop nuclear weapons capability there could be no harm in reaching a temporary compromise solution such as the South African proposal which would involve condoning Iran’s conversion of uranium to gaseous form in Isfahan ensuring that there was no uranium enrichment at Natanz. The EU could then work with Iran to develop a measure of trust and confidence. Admittedly, this would be difficult with the new regime in Iran but should be tried.

— Continued uncertainty was likely to have a very adverse impact on the already turbulent energy market pushing prices to levels that would be difficult for the developed countries and unbearable for the developing countries.

This is the direction in which events will move though I could be wrong. President Bush may well decide that if he cannot get a reference to the UN Security Council or if he is faced with a veto from China or Russia (which have important stakes in a good relationship with Iran) he will nonetheless go ahead with persuading his European colleagues to join the United States in imposing trade embargoes on Iran. I doubt if he will be successful, and more importantly, I doubt that such an embargo will have any more success than the sanctions that the US has already in place against Iran. It will, however, create new strains and uncertainties in an already turbulent area.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

ACCORDING to initial British investigations as reported in The Independent, the terrorist attacks in London in July were “home-grown” and were not masterminded by Al Qaeda. It was also said that the two attacks were not connected and the bombers had worked in isolation. The matter for greater concern for the British security forces is that investigators believe that there are a number of “self-sufficient” radicalized cells in hiding in the UK.

These conclusions, correct as they appear to be, have far-reaching implications for the future of international relations. They reinforce the view that the concepts of the national state enjoying de facto and de jure sovereignty as well as the international law of war need to be given a second look. These paradigms were already being eroded in a subtle way over the years, but jurists and political leaders have yet to admit it explicitly. These issues will have to be addressed if mankind is to survive.

The present state system emerged after the Congress of Vienna in 1815 defined a state as an entity having four key features — territory, government, population and sovereignty. This concept has survived for nearly two centuries even though the international system has been transformed over the decades by decolonization, the globalization of economics (which according to Noam Chomsky is in effect the internationalization of the state economies under the giant multinational corporations) and the emergence of new technologies that have changed the nature of warfare and communication.

It is now plain that these factors have undermined the sovereignty of the smaller and weaker states of the Third World because the big powers have manipulated developments to their own advantage. In the age of the cold war, any country with a leadership that had political acumen and strategic skills could manipulate the international situation to protect its sovereignty. Not that this was always in the national interest. Nevertheless, it was the government and the people (if they were fortunate enough to have a democratic state structure) who decided how the country was to be governed and how much foreign interference they would brook.

But today the concept of “domestic jurisdiction” — as a corollary of sovereignty — as was enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 has virtually disappeared. True, the world community joined hands for the common good of mankind and to make individual states waive their rights over matters that fell within their jurisdiction.

That is how the post-war period has seen a plethora of human rights conventions that have been signed and the numerous agencies which have been set up to monitor the implementation of these agreements. By virtue of these treaties the signatories have virtually surrendered their sovereignty in many areas of national life in a manner that would have been unthinkable even a century ago.

This thrust towards democracy and human rights is something positive that has come about in the closing years of the 20th century. But the main cause of concern is the undeniable fact that these newly created “self-constraints” on sovereignty are not equally and evenhandedly implemented. A strong state by virtue of its military and economic power can get away with many violations and aberrations without a finger being lifted. A small state, on the other hand, has to suffer sanctions and punitive action even if its guilt cannot be conclusively proved.

Thus the world is now polarized between the strong, mighty, democratic and wealthy (in many cases) states, and the weak, over-populated, impoverished and autocratic states.

What has been the consequence of this phenomenon? For many people it has amounted to a return of the age of colonization with the colonizer no longer constrained by the weight of the so-called “white man’s burden”. Freed from the need of maintaining a physical presence in the country they are attempting to control, the big powers have found their task made easier.

This has evoked resistance from the people who feel oppressed and has produced far-reaching changes in the form and ground rules of war. The most important development has been the emergence of non-state actors — the terrorists in current parlance — as the belligerents in the war against those they perceive as the oppressors. Initially they were fighting guerrilla wars.

But over a period of time, these conflicts spilled into other states and now no boundaries are recognized between the parties at war. The non-state actors launch attacks from a third state which is unable to check the perpetrators of these acts of violence.

The divide between the two sides at war is quite blurred and their war aims are quite ambiguous. But because of the technology available to them the casualty figures are high and as happens in such wars innocent men, women and children are killed quite indiscriminately. We have seen happen this in Palestine, Afghanistan, New York, Bali, Istanbul, Madrid, Baghdad and London.

The findings of the London bombings confirm what had been widely believed: non-state actors do not constitute an organized army with a chain of command and specific strategic goals. The Twin Towers attacks might have entailed advance planning, directions and funding on the part of Al Qaeda, but thereafter it does not appear to be operating as a monolithic organization with a military arm planning and conducting attacks. Since making bombs has become an easy enterprise, there is nothing to stop radicalized people from launching attacks at will.

Some researchers believe the ongoing terrorist attacks are campaigns in a global war that promises to be even more deadly and long drawn than the world wars mankind experienced in the 20th century. Terrorism has become an endemic feature of the modern world.

The problem is that governments have failed to understand what is happening. One factor that makes peace more difficult to achieve is the fact that there are no clearly defined parties with accredited representatives to negotiate a ceasefire with. In many places the terrorists are also attacking civilians in the Third World country from where they are operating.

Pakistan is a case in point. The weakness and lack of training of the ill-equipped and corrupt intelligence and security forces of the host country make it a convenient sanctuary for terrorists. It has hardly been taken note of by world leaders and in the international media that many of the militant groups accused of carrying out terrorist attacks have killed many more innocent Shias in Pakistan than the 52 innocent people who died in London.

The two world wars of the last century ended when the representatives of the two sides met and negotiated an armistice. Japan and Germany had a state structure with which the victors could deal. In the changed situation of today, the present war will have to be a war to the finish. This makes the prospect ominous because the end is not anywhere close.

Killing or capturing the high command of Al Qaeda is not helping the West win the war because there are so many “self-sufficient units” springing up as time passes. Since the members of these units derive ideological sustenance from dispersed sources, the end will only come when all these states are also destroyed. Is the West willing to unleash an Armageddon and kill billions of people to flush out the terrorists?

A way out of this dilemma has to be found. First of all, the states (through the United Nations perhaps) will have to recognize the changes that have come about in the various paradigms of international relations. Fortunately, there are large segments of the population in countries on both sides of the divide who share a common thinking.

They subscribe to the ideals of democracy, human rights and peace. They are critical of their own governments when they see them going to war, oppressing people and denying them their human rights. Globalization and communication technology has made it easy for them to network and interact.

They have displayed their clout on crucial occasions, though they have not always succeeded in preempting a move they had opposed. The demonstrations in Seattle against the WTO, the meetings of the World Social Forum, and the peace demonstrations all over the world when the US was preparing to attack Iraq in 2003 confirm that there is a large mass of lovers of peace, human rights and democracy that transcend all boundaries. There is need to tap into this human pool.

It is important that governments which stand for peace and democracy should join hands with the peace activists and mobilize them all over the world to resist the trigger-happy armies and terrorists locked in their own battles.