UN body approves measure advancing Iran's nuke program

justified asking the UN to support the institution, in order to fill “gaps” in regional coverage.

The approval of Iran’s plans is a major defeat for the United States, which has successfully fought such approval on numerous occasions in the past. The Iranians, however, out-maneuvered the United States this time by presenting the center as part of a broader effort by the UN and its various agencies better to prepare for natural disasters in Asia. This repackaging of the proposal by the Iranian persuaded enough states to change their position and support a proposal they opposed in the past.

The U.S. delegation, at the last minute, chose not to oppose the motion but rather to “disassociate” itself from it. The State Department explained that ESCAP has a long tradition of making decision by consensus rather than a vote, and the U.S. delegation felt there would be benefits to the United States from continuing this tradition.

In fact, a State Department spokesperson said that a close reading of the motion show that the U.S. position had not been completely defeated. Fox News quotes the spokesperson to say that the Iranian proposal “did not clearly articulate a vision for the center, define existing gaps the center would fill, identify the geographic focus of the center, explain how the center would work with existing bodies to avoid overlap and duplication of effort, or set out the human and technological resources needed to operate the center to fulfill its mission.”

With the UN fully committed to address what it sees as the adverse effects of climate change in Asia, the United States was reluctant publicly to point out that the same technologies with which the center will be provided can also be used for target selection for nuclear missiles and for missile guidance. Instead, at least publicly, the United States said the U.S. opposition was based on “legitimate management concerns.

The spokesman agreed, though, that there were “other concerns” about the center, then added, “a lot of those, we can’t get into.”

When Fox News asked the spokesperson about such issues as technology that might also be useful in Iran’s missile programs, or the possibility that the center could be used as a “cover” for other ballistic missile work that has been banned by the UN Security Council, the spokesman said, “Those are all legitimate questions. But we can’t talk about them.”

There is also a sharp disagreement between the United States and Iran about the time table for the center’s establishment. The United States, while admitting that the approved proposal would allow Iran to initiate the process which would lead to the establishment of the center, points out that the measure calls for a 2013 evaluation by ESCAP of whether or not there is a need for the center. The United States says this means the center cannot be built until after the evaluation.

Iran does not agree. The Iranians submitted a 28-page detailed timetable to ESCAP, showing that they intend for all the preliminary technical, administrative, and regulatory work to be out of the way by February 2012 – and for construction, equipping, hiring staff, and everything else to be out of the way in time for the opening of the center in November, 2012. They argue that the 2013 ESCAP evaluation should take place after the center is already in operation.