Raid on Nuclear Fuel Market

Raid On Nuclear Fuel Market

By Rudo de Ruijter

08 May, 2006
Countercurrents.org

In the background of the political joust about Iran, a few countries
are reshaping the world. They are taking possession of the global
nuclear fuel market. New IAEA regulations should keep newcomers away.
The US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and Japan will become
world's nuclear filling stations. Under the auspices of the IAEA these
suppliers will dictate the rules, the prices and the currencies they
want to get paid in. Iran has become the pretext and test case for
their plans. The problems of tomorrow's world economy are being shaped
today.

Iran and the Non-Proliferation Treaty

US President Bush wants us to believe that Iran has plans for nuclear
weapons. Well, we remember, that in 2002 he accused Iraq of having
weapons of mass destruction. That turned out to be a lie, so let us
look more closely at the facts.

Iran is a member state of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) from the
very first moment in 1968. [1] The NPT is a treaty not only to stop
proliferation of nuclear arms, but also to help each other to develop
civil nuclear energy. [2] In the treaty, the nuclear-weapon states
(US, Russia, China, France and England) promised nuclear disarmament.
(So far, they have not kept their promises.) The other members had to
sign agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
NPT's watchdog, for the implementation of controls. IAEA's agreement
with Iran entered into force on May 15 1974. [3]

Iran's nuclear history

At that time shah Reza ruled Iran. Thanks to the Anglo-US' operation
Ajax in 1953 he was still on the throne. From 1957 Shah Reza wanted to
develop nuclear energy in Iran. [4] The US offered all the help and
stuff he wanted: a research reactor, enriched uranium and plutonium.
The research reactor was started in 1967, but went critical soon
after. Then the French became good friends too. They promised to
repair the reactor. The shah made a $ 1 billion loan to the French for
the construction of an enrichment plant in Tricastin in the South of
France. From 1974 still more countries offered their services to the
shah. Agreements followed for five reactors and fuel from France, two
reactors and fuel from the US, regular purchases of uranium from
Australia and two reactors from West Germany. Denmark delivered 10
kilo of highly enriched uranium and 25 kilo of natural uranium.
Technical staff came in from Argentina and India, while Iranian
students went to UK and West Germany. Discussions took place with
Pakistan and Turkey for regional nuclear cooperation. The Iranian
budget for the atomic energy rose from $ 30 million in 1975 to $ 1
billion the following year, and still more reactors were ordered from
the US. By the end of 1978, with not a single reactor completed yet,
the shah ran out of money. Meanwhile, popular opposition against the
shah's blood shedding oppression rose to a climax.

From shah Reza to Khomeini

The opposition against the shah had grown since 1953, when popular
hero and Prime Minister Mossadeq had been overthrown by a joint coup
of the CIA, the English and the shah. [5] Mossadeq had successfully
strived to nationalize the Anglo Iranian Oil Company (BP). Sued by
England, Mossadeq had won the case at the International Court in The
Hague. [6] During the coup, the shah initially fled the country, but
came back after the army had succeeded to beat down the protests of
the population. In 1960, to please his American friends, he granted
diplomatic immunity to all US' personnel working in Iran. A young
opponent, called Ruhollah Khomeini dared to criticize the shah
publicly. The first time he was jailed and recidivist a few years
later he was expelled. The shah's oppression increased over time. In
riots many hundreds of opponents were killed and thousands injured. By
1977 all opposition movements finally united and in January 1979 the
shah definitely fled the country. Khomeini returned to Iran in triumph
and on April 1st 1979 the Islamic Republic of Iran was established by
referendum. In November 1979, when Iranian students heard that the
shah had gone to the US, they stormed the US embassy in Tehran to
claim the extradition of the shah in order to summon him to trial. A
long hostages crisis followed. A US' attempt to free them failed.
President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, a good friend of the US at that
time, invaded Iran, announcing he would be in Tehran within three
days. However, the war between Iraq and Iran would last 10 years and
cost hundreds of thousands of lifes. With the end of the Warschau Pact
in 1989 and Saddam's mistake to invade Kuwait, the US attitude toward
Iraq made a 180-degree turn. Iraq and Iran were both US' enemies now.
But since these countries detain 10.5 and 10 percent of world's oil
reserves respectively and the US is world's biggest consumer (with 25
percent of world's oil production), it was foreseeable the US would
not just ignore these countries. The US now has less than 2 percent of
world's oil reserves. Its dependency on foreign oil is rapidly
increasing and, according to Bush, 60 percent today. [7]

The accusations against Iran: 130 Grams of Uranium

On June 16 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency announced, that
Iran had not reported a uranium import of 1991 and the subsequent
stocking and processing. That is true. But from a confidential IAEA
document of June 6 2003 we learn, that this import contained just 130
gram of uranium. [8] According to article 37 of the official agreement
between the IAEA and Iran, in force since May 15 1974, nuclear
materials containing less than 1 kilo of uranium are exempted from the
IAEA safeguards. [9] The IAEA accusations made the world believe that
Iran had transgressed the rules.

Similar jousts are about the Additional Protocol. During the embargo
against Iraq, when proof had to be found of weapons of mass
destruction and Saddam was not willing to grant more rights to the UN
inspectors, the IAEA had developed additional rules to make controls
easier. The new rules also make it easier to discriminate among
members: excessive rules for one country, friendly rules for others.
In June 2003 only 33 of the 188 members of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty had accepted to sign the Additional Protocol. Nevertheless the
US and a delegation of the European Union formed by France, Germany
and the United Kingdom, wanted to force Iran to sign the Additional
Protocol. In exchange, the three European countries (E3) promised to
come up with interesting commercial deals. Iran was willing to hear
what they had to propose. This is not so surprising. 30 percent of
Iran's oil goes to Europe and 40 percent of its imports come from
Europe. Spring 2003, Iran had even switched its oil sales from dollars
to euros, which is good for Europe and bad for the US, since it
weakens the dollar. During the talks about new commercial deals with
the Europeans Iran voluntarily agreed to suspend its research program
for uranium enrichment and to grant additional rights to the IAEA for
extended checking of their nuclear facilities. After repeated Iranian
requests it became clear, that the E3 countries did not intend to
deliver the promised deals. They just wanted to keep the talks going
on indefinitely, meantime preventing Iran from enriching uranium. Iran
resumed its program and re-established the contractual conditions for
the IAEA controls. This resulted in the attempt of the US and E3 to
have the UN Security Council condemn Iran.

US' agenda: The oil, the dollar and the foreign debt…

So, if the so-called proofs against Iran appear to be fabricated, what
is the real issue? I think the general idea is clear to all. With its
excessive energy consumption the US thinks, it is necessary to have
pro-US governments in Iraq, Iran and, for the UNOCAL pipeline project,
also in Afghanistan. During the Cold War Saddam Hussein in Iraq and
shah Reza in Iran were useful US' allies, but these days are over.
Thanks to Bush we now have wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran is
located in between. Considering the reputation the US has built up in
Iran a spontaneous arising of a pro-US government is not likely to
happen soon.

The second thing that explains more immediately Bush aggressive stance
against Iran is its part in the weakening dollar. A new Iranian oil
bourse, if successful, may even trip up US' hegemony. [10]

In a glance, this is how it works. World's oil and gas is traded in
US-dollars. Since 1971 the US has had the advantage to be the
petrodollar supplier of the world. Supplying dollars to foreign
countries means, the US can print money and purchase goods, services
and investments with it. Since the foreigners need these dollars to
buy oil, and keep them also in use in the international trade outside
the US, the US has never had to deliver anything in return. Merely
supplying money means free shopping. This is how US' foreign debt grew
to 3,200,000,000,000 dollars today. And if some day the world gets
tired of the abuse and does not want US-dollars anymore, their massive
offers of dollars on the exchange markets would immediately push the
exchange rate down, the dollar would become worth next to nothing and
the foreign debt would vanish. So it is very advantageous to deliver
currencies that are permanently needed and wanted abroad.

But with today's' sky rocketing debt, the dollar has become
vulnerable. When Saddam Hussein switched to the euro on November 6
2000 [11, 12], the exchange markets were temporarily overflowed by
dollars. With Iran considering a similar switch since 1999 and maybe
more OPEC countries to follow [13], speculations and decreasing trust
set in motion a long and continuous descent of the dollar, which
risked leading to its collapse. [14] By the end of 2002 the dollar
rate had fallen 18 percent. [15] This probably explains, why the US
could not wait and on March 20 2003 even overruled the UN Security
Council to invade Iraq. The Iraqi oil trade has been switched back to
dollars on June 6 2003. [16] From spring 2003, Iran also switched to
the euro, and during the two years that followed the dollar rate lost
another 12 percent.

The US free shopping advantage only works insofar foreign countries
need additional dollars. So, each time when oil prices rise on US
controlled International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) of London and New
York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), more dollars are needed in the
world. [17] As 85 percent of the oil trade takes place outside the US,
for each extra dollar needed inside the US, seven dollars are needed
outside and result in free shopping. To increase the foreign dollar
demand still further, the US Federal Reserve sells Treasury Bonds to
foreigners, which reduces the amount of dollars abroad. This increases
foreign demand for dollars and raises the exchange rate. To stop the
exchange rate from rising continually, new dollars have to be
"delivered" to the foreigners, resulting again in free shopping. If
the US wants to lower the dollar rate it can just import more. In
fact, as long as world demand for dollars keeps growing, the US can
decide itself about the rate of their currency and enjoy free
shopping. For the year 2004, the latter represented an advantage of
3,000 dollar per US' inhabitant. Recently, foreigners are not so
willing anymore to fuel US' fairy credit carrousel. The US tries to
seduce them with higher interests, but foreign demand for bonds stays
insufficient. The only remaining way to obtain enough new credit is to
increase world's demand for dollars by making the oil prices rise on
IPE and NYMEX. And that is what is happening since mid 2004.

Here, once again, an Iranian initiative endangers US' credit
carrousel. Iran wants to establish an independent non-dollar oil
bourse. Assuming it succeeds in creating enough trade to establish a
recognized world oil price, and assuming they keep the price stable,
oil prices on IPE and NYMEX cannot rise freely anymore. The credit
carrousel may stop. The Iranian Oil Bourse will not only reduce the
power of IPE and NYMEX, it will also have its influence on the
exchange rate between dollars and euros. If oil gets cheaper in euros,
there will be a rush on euros. And vice versa. The US and EU both see
this bourse as a risk. The opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse had been
scheduled for March 20 2006, the Iranian New Year. It is now announced
for the first week of May 2006. [18]

Seeking allies

To take measures against Iran the US needs allies. Allies are useful
for cost sharing of operations and to let them clean up the mess, as
in Afghanistan and Iraq. The best way to gain allies is to have your
enemies condemned by a UN Security Council resolution. That means the
US has to convince the other veto-holding countries. Of course, that
would not work, if the US disclosed its real reasons. The US had to
come up with something better, which could unite and reward all of the
veto-countries. Well, veto-countries are the victor states of the
Second World War. They happen to have in common to be nuclear weapon
states, all disposing of uranium enrichment facilities. So how about a
project to reward them with the exclusive rights for uranium
enrichment and for the supply of nuclear fuel to the
non-nuclear-weapon states? [19]

The strange European delegation

Then, in the diplomatic stage-play about Iran, Bush is joint by the
UK, France and Germany, the so-called E3. They would represent the
European Union. This strange composition of an EU-delegation starts to
make sense, when we notice that these countries are the European
countries possessing enrichment facilities. Camouflaged under the flag
of the European Union they have their own special interest in
enrichment and reprocessing.

How European are these E3 countries? In fact, as European
representatives, France and Germany make a strange case in willing to
get their trade partner Iran condemned by the UN Security Council. It
indicates they are playing poker for high stakes. They deliberately
risk disrupting an Iranian oil market priced in euros, either through
a direct conflict against Iran or by allowing the US to obtain an
embargo.

Bush, if he does not obtain his embargo, would probably not even mind
to see the Iranian power plants under construction bombed once again,
to make Iran consume its oil, instead of selling it in euros. And what
role does the UK play in this EU-delegation? Well, with its IPE oil
market always playing in symbiosis with NYMEX, and its subsequent
impossibility to adopt the euro, they serve as the messenger-boy of
the White House. As usual.

The tone of the E3 talks with Iran is not the one you would normally
expect between trade partners who wish to improve their relations. The
reports about the discussions are long litanies of obligations the E3
seeks to impose to Iran. Iran is treated like the naughty schoolboy,
who will have to obey one way or the other. [20] In January 2006,
French President Chirac even covertly threatened with a possible
nuclear attack. Of course such an attitude can only be
counter-productive.

Russia and China

To reach a Security Council resolution with sanctions against Iran the
US, France, UK and Germany have to convince Russia and China not to
use their right of veto. Since Russia and China are enrichment
countries too, that seemed easy, but failed until now. Russia and
China do not want any armed intervention against Iran. Russia still
bears the scars of the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986, with hundreds of
thousands of irradiated citizens, new generations with genetic
deformations, and unsolved plutonium radiation problems for hundreds
of centuries to come. It has not build any new reactors since then.
Russia has a more shaded view on world's nuclear future. Besides, it
still has fossil energy sources. China has good relations with Iran
for the supply of oil and gas during the coming decades. If it wants
to let Iran down, it would have to foresee alternatives for their high
needs of energy. Besides, China does not seem to share the aggressive
stance of the US and the E3.

Is enrichment in non-nuclear-weapon states dangerous?

Natural uranium contains 0.7 percent of U-235 atoms, against 99.3
percent of mostly U-238 atoms. To use it as nuclear fuel the
proportion of U-235 atoms has to be increased to 3 to 5 percent. To do
so, the uranium must first be purified and converted into a gas. In
this form batteries of centrifuges can filter out a few of the heavier
U-238 atoms in a long and energy swallowing process. Risks in the
enrichment process are those of the chemical industries and not so
much the low radiation. This uranium is not suitable to make bombs.
For bombs you need a degree of enrichment of at least 90 percent. [21]
If a country, as for instance Iran, decided to develop such highly
enriched uranium, it could take 3 to 5 years to produce sufficiently
for a bomb. Besides, according to scientists, for high enrichment much
larger centrifuge facilities are used. The oft-repeated but mistaken
belief, that one could fabricate unnoticed highly enriched uranium in
a civil nuclear plant, now serves Bush' contention that enrichment
should remain in the hands of world's nuclear-weapon states.

Birth of a new world order

The idea of limiting enrichment capability to the nations that already
have it is not entirely new. The accusations against Iran, the
successful misleading of journalists, politicians and diplomats had
created the ideal circumstances to speed up its realization. The idea
appeared in a UN brochure in 2004. [22] Then it was still in the form
of a call for a voluntary and time-limited moratorium on the
construction of new facilities for enrichment and reprocessing. In
February 2005 the United Nations further elaborated the idea as the
Multilateral Nuclear Approach (MNA) [23]. Already in April 2005
Ambassador Kenzo Oshima of Japan's mission to the UN put the question,
"if the MNA would not not unduly affect the peaceful use of nuclear
energy by those non-nuclear-weapon states that carry out nuclear
activities in faithful and transparent compliance with their NPT
obligations."

On February 6 2006 the US' Department of Energy announced its version
of the idea in their plan for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP). The following day, at the Oarai Conference in Japan, this GNEP
is presented as an idea of IAEA's head ElBaradei and a proposal of
Bush. [24] And, of course, such a supreme idea should not lack of
glamour. So, a few days later, DOE compliments itself as follows:
"Finally, the partnership arrangement between fuel-cycle and
reactor-only states envisioned by GNEP will help supply the world with
clean electrical power by offering non-fuel-cycle nations commercially
competitive and reliable access to nuclear fuel, in exchange for their
commitment to forgo the development of enrichment and recycling
technologies. "

Questionable elements

The new world order comes in the form of new safeguards within the
IAEA control system. Considering the spirit of the Additional Protocol
we should not count on equal rights or fair relations.

Within the Non-Proliferation Treaty countries, only the nuclear-weapon
states, plus Germany, the Netherlands and Japan have enrichment
facilities today. [25] The rest of the NPT countries would see their
rights to enrich uranium taken away. In exchange, they will get the
solemn promises of the nuclear-weapon states, that the latter will
always deliver the nuclear fuel. Promises? Weren't these the countries
that promised in 1968 to strive for their nuclear disarmament? As we
know, they did not keep their word up to now. Worse, France has even
developed a new generation of nuclear weapons to make the step to
nuclear war easier and progressive. This year, France and the US are
still using their nuclear arsenal to threaten the world.
Non-nuclear-weapon states should now give away more rights and become
dependent of IAEA's club of nuclear fuel suppliers?

To seduce non-nuclear-weapon states, this new plan promises lower
electricity prices. Today, on a global scale, enrichment facilities
would have about twice the capacity the world needs. By preventing the
construction of new enrichment facilities, a better use could be made
of the existing capacities. This would enable lower prices for
enriched uranium, and thus of electricity… Should we believe these
words? The enrichment industries are not driven by the concern to
lower world's electricity prices. In spite of the world's
over-capacity the Europeans are considerably expanding their
production in the UK, Netherlands and Germany. They strive for more
market share and more profit! And if by new IAEA regulations no new
competitors are allowed on the market, this can only result in
excessive pricing of enriched uranium, and thus of electricity.

The new plans foresee a highly regulated and closely monitored fuel
supply distribution system. The IAEA would become the intermediate
between fuel producing and fuel consuming members. At first glance
this may look like a trustworthy construction, since the IAEA is a UN
body. However, the IAEA is also the policeman in the system. I do not
think it is wise to let policemen trade with the parties they should
inspect. Besides, the UN is not some sort of democratic and integer
government that would be able to guarantee their policemen's
impartiality.

The plans for the distribution system recommend minimal national
stocks and joint regional buffers in different host-countries.
Strange, isn't it? The purpose of minimal stocks inside the countries
and regional stocks elsewhere is hardly to defend as a security issue.
Even with enormous stocks of 3.5 percent enriched uranium you cannot
produce any nuclear weapon. Why would the IAEA want countries to
dispose of only small quantities of fuel at a time? I fear there is
only one plausible answer: to keep the non-nuclear-weapon states in a
firm grip. That is a lot of power for our NPT-watchdog. This power
goes far beyond what is needed for their inspections. Even far beyond
the needs of a safe nuclear fuel distribution system. This is pure
power to overrule nations' sovereignty. If a nation does anything that
the watchdog or its masters do not want, the fuel tap can simply be
closed to obtain its immediate submission. It smells like a
dictatorship on world-level. Of course, the fuel supplying countries
will never be affected. They produce their own fuel.

In theory the master of the IAEA is the United Nations Organization.
But does it work that way in reality? The IAEA has a difficult role,
because it cannot ignore tensions and conflicts of interest between
NPT members. The IAEA's independence from parties' national interests
is constantly under strain. Its limited budget forces the IAEA to make
choices, which are influenced by occurring conflicts. During the
embargo against Iraq, we witnessed an IAEA driven crazy by Bush, who
demanded each time more and more thorough controls. The dog was sent
out over and over to make sure Iraq could be safely invaded. Although
the IAEA has the obligation to keep all sensitive information from
their investigations undisclosed, the US military constantly received
sensitive information, with which they prepared the invasion in 2003.
(And finally, to invade Iraq, Bush simply overruled the UN's Security
Council…)

Today, we see the same US' influences in the IAEA's investigations in
Iran. Bush shouts and the dog runs to search for the stick. The rules
for the new world order are presented as "an idea of ElBaradei and a
proposal of Bush.". I presume that both plans, the IAEA's
Multi-National Approach (NMA) and Bush' Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP), will merge into a final version dictated by the
US.

Of course, getting a firm grip on all non-nuclear-weapon states as
soon as they get addicted to nuclear energy is a major strategic coup.
But there are far more advantages for the nuclear fuel suppliers.
United under the umbrella of the IAEA, the market will be completely
regulated. As all of them cooperate in the same organizations and all
of them will be interested in the highest possible earnings, together
they will set world's nuclear fuel price. Just like today's world's
oil prices are decided on the market places of IPE and NYMEX, nuclear
fuel prices will be decided by the happy few.

Now comes the tricky part. Nuclear fuel has to be paid for. The
question is: in what currency (or currencies) will the customers have
to pay? These currencies will become the most needed and wanted
currencies in the world. You can compare it to today's US-dollar.

Apparently these currencies have not been decided yet. But, if each
fuel supplier asks to be paid in its own currency, the world would
widely accept Japanese yens, Chinese Yuan renminbi, Russian Rubles,
euros, English pounds and US-dollars. There will probably be some
preferential order due to each supplier's capacity to deliver nuclear
fuel. Each of these countries will know the advantages of the supply
of their currencies to the rest of the world. Of course, in the long
run, each of them will also experience the negative effects on their
economies and, after decades, let their currency collapse to get rid
of the built up debt. In short, this is what can happen with multiple
world currencies. However, the fact that the plans mention, that the
IAEA should become the intermediary between suppliers and customers,
makes it reasonable to suppose that the IAEA will decide in which
currency the customers will have to pay. Bush surely hopes that this
will be the dollar. When nuclear fuel has to be paid exclusively in
dollars, demand for US-dollars and therewith the US hegemony will be
assured for many decades to come.

The UN theatre

With the project for a new world order prepared discretely in the
background, we now have an anti-Iranian alliance of the US and E3.
They smell the opportunity for a coup to seize world's nuclear fuel
market. To succeed, they would just need some legal sauce on the
prohibition of uranium enrichment by non-nuclear-weapon states, with
Iran as example. And a UN Security Council resolution would be enough,
if it legalizes IAEA's stand that it can forbid countries to enrich
uranium.

Of course, they would make it impossible for Iran to stay within the
Non-Proliferation Treaty then. To succeed their coup, they will have
to take care, that Iran does not leave the organization before a
resolution is successfully voted. For if so, there would not be any
ground for a resolution anymore. Countries outside the
Non-Proliferation treaty, like Israel, India, Pakistan, Cuba and
Brazil are free to enrich uranium and do what they want.

The question is: will the US and E3 succeed in seducing Russia and China?

In the event, that such a coup of the nuclear-weapon states would
succeed, it would probably put the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the
UNO under enormous strain. These organizations might loose all
credibility and see many non-nuclear-weapon states leave. The result
may be opposite to what these organizations were designed for.

[1] NPT members:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Tracking_Ch02map.pdf

[2] NPT text:
http://disarmament2.un.org/wmd/npt/npttext.html (See article IV)

[3] Agreement IAEA-Iran:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/
Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf

[4] Iran's nuclear history:
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/1825_1826.html

[5] Growing opposition against the shah:

http://www.countriesquest.com/middle_east/
iran/history/growing_opposition_to_the_shah.htm

[6] Mossadeq: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/
oil_nationalization/oil_nationalization.php

[7] 60 percent dependency on oil imports:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=
ar4D7HVGikXo&refer=top_world_news

[8] 130 gram of uranium:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/iaea0603.html (last line)

[9] article 37 of IAEA's agreement with Iran: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/
Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc214.pdf

[10] How can the dollar collapse in Iran?
http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/
__Collapse_in_Iran/__collapse_in_iran.html

[11] Fred Eckhard stating UN's permission for Iraq's switch to the
euro: http://www.un.org/News/briefings/
docs/2000/20001031.db103100.doc.html

[12] Statistics of Iraqi oil exports in euros:

http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/oilexports.html

[13] Colin Nunan, Petrodollar or Petroeuro:
http://www.feasta.org/documents/review2/nunan.htm

[14] IMF warning over dollar collapse:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2097064.stm

[15] dollar rates, historical data:
http://fx.sauder.ubc.ca/data.html

[16] Financial Times, June 5th 2003

[17] Oil markets, exemple: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_
leuffer/leuffer200410010726.asp

Speculation and fear can, per definition, be influenced.

[18] Iranian Oil Bourse May 2006:
http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=212013&n=32

[19] GNEP: http://www.gnep.energy.gov/

[20] E3 report: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/
Documents/Infcircs/2005/infcirc651.pdf

[21] Uranium enrichment: http://www.uic.com.au/nip33.htm

[22] UN brochure 2004: http://www.un.org/secureworld/brochure.pdf

[23] NMA expert group February 2005:
http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NENP/NPTDS/Downloads/
SMR_CRP1_SRWOSR/2005/RCM1/Add%20materials/mna-2005_web.pdf

[24] ElBaradei's idea and Bush' proposal. February 7, 2006:
http://www.jaea.go.jp/04/np/documents/sym05_01_endo_en.pdf

[25] Map of world's nuclear fuel stations:
http://www.wise-uranium.org/umaps.html?set=enr