HISTORY OPTIONAL - DAY 4

Hi folks,

After the history optional, just one thing I can say is that I am relieved.Except some unheard names in the map question, the entire paper was pretty ok.In fact after coming to know that the pub ad or pol sc and geo papers were extremely tough,I was bit of hopeless.In fact this year I had read almost the entire syllabus and in the process the only thing happened was that I could not remember a single word that I had studied.But believe me once I saw the questions, things suddenly started getting well.Indeed the only change they have made in the paper is that they have split the long questions.So the questions which earlier carried 60 marks now were of 30 marks only.This made the paper a bit lengthy.But at least manageable.In fact certain questions I was expecting this year like Vietnam war or Russian revolution and it clicked.Moreover, this time there were certain straight forward questions which I have not seen in the earlier years.So there was change.But it was not bad.Anyways, I am giving the questions here in short.

PAPER I

SECTION A

1.MAP-- Sorry, its gonna take so much time to write the 20 names... :)
2.ACCOUNTS OF GRAECO-ROMAN AND CHINESE IN CONSTRUCTING INDIAN HISTORY AND THEIR CORROBORATION BY CONTEMPORARY SOURCES.
3.A>APPROACHES TO UNDERSTAND VEDIC RELIGION
   B>USE OF GOLD COINS BY THE COMMONERS IN GUPTA AGE
4.REGIONAL VARIATIONS IN SOUTH INDIAN TEMPLE ARCHITECTURE

SECTION B
5. SHORT NOTES
A>INDIAN FEUDALISM IN EARLY MEDIEVAL INDIA
B>M.B.TUGHLAK AS AGRARIAN INNOVATOR
C>SULH-I-KUL
D>POPULATION OF MUGHAL INDIA
6.A> DEMOCRATIC STRUCTURE OF CHOLA VILLAGE ASSEMBLIES
  B>KALHANA'S VIEW ON HISTORY
7.A>FACTORS BEHIND EXPANSION OF URBAN ECONOMY IN DELHI SULTANATE.
  B>AKBAR AS A PROMOTER OF TECHNOLOGY.
8.A>CONTRIBUTIONS OF AMIR KHUSRAU AND BARANI IN INDO-PERSIAN LITERATURE.
 B>MAJOR REASON BEHIND LATE 17TH CENTURY CRISIS WAS NOT AURANGZEB'S RELIGIOUS POLICY-,BUT ECONOMIC-  EXPLAIN.

I ANSWERED  1,3,5,6,8.  LET;S SEE....  :)  
Can't type any more.Will be uploading the paper II soon.see ya.

DAY 2-ESSAY PAPER

Here are the questions

• Globalism vs Nationalism
• Health services in India
• "India is a soft state"
• Traditional handicrafts
• Good friends make good neighbors

I answered the first one.I think I did well.Lets see...

UPSC GENERAL STUDIES PAPER I AND II, 2009-1ST DAY

Hi guys

The first day was disastrous.At least for me.I could not do much in the second paper though did very well in the first paper except the short notes.Here are some of the questions in short

paper I

Safety of railways
Corruption in Indian polity
Two bizarre ,unheard comments to explain in modern India
Wetlands
importance of coastal lands
Domestic violence act
Functions of Indian Meteorological Department
Status of urbanization in India
Folk dances of India
India's achievements in sports in 2008-09
Hindustani and carnatic classical musical styles
Yashpal committee report
Paper II
India's strategic interest in South Asia
China's Peaceful Rise
Indo Russian defence ties
India's soft and hard power strategies
NSG and India
Gilgit Baltistan Empowerment
Arihant
NSAB
NEPAD
Ethnic conflicts in S Asia
Sino Myanmar Relation
Geopolitics and Geostrategy
Indo Bhutan trade relation
India's priority amidst global financial crisis
Doha Round-analysis
Do India need World Bank
FTA with ASEAN
Biosignatures
Bioinformatics
GFP
Hubble Space Telescope
DNA Fingerprinting
NanoTech
Graphene
Optical Frequency Comb
Tele Medicine
Artificial Sun
Vegetable Gold
Liquid Breathing
P-8A Poseidon
Biometric ATM
EVA

Stats questions were very easy.

Now you submit comments on the standard of the question.

Criminalization of Politics

After 62 years of India’s independence the lives of commoners have not changed much than  under Britishers. The benefits of independence have reached only few, thus creating islands of few ultra rich people surrounded by vast sea of utterly poor. The rich people in nexus with those in power are getting favourable laws enacted to suit their ends. Those in power are shamelessly enjoying 5-star luxuries all at tax payer’s expense, while more then 50 million are starving to death. The criminalization of politics, executive & judiciary is almost complete. The corruption has spread its tentacles far & wide, there is corruption from womb to tomb, from maternity hospital to grave yard. The injustices mated out, the atrocities perpetrated by public servants are worse than Britishers. The biggest confounding factor in the political environment of business is criminalization of politics: people with criminal backgrounds becoming politicians and elected representatives. Around 20% of the members of the current Lok Sabha have criminal cases pending against them. The charges in several of these cases are of heinous crimes such as murder, robbery, kidnapping, and not just violation of Section 144, or something similar.

It is well known that all parties take the help of criminal elements to dominate the election scene in India. But this process is influencing the mind and the will of the people both to gain the majority to rule the country according to their will. The system of democracy is now changing into the dictatorship of some. Because the democracy of India are now in hands of the criminal who are not capable any way to hold the post if legislature.

Components:-

(1) Muscle Power:-

The influence of muscle power in Indian politics has been a fact of life for a long time. As early as in 1977, the National Police Commission headed by Dharam Vira observed: ``The manner in which different political parties have functioned, particularly on the eve of periodic election, involves the free use of musclemen and ‘Dadas’ to influence the attitude and conduct of sizable sections of the electorate. The Panchayat elections, like other elections in the recent past, have demonstrated once again that there can be no sanity in India as long as politics continues to be based on caste and

Gangsterism.

The politicians are thriving today on the basis of muscle power provided by criminals. The common people who constitute the voters are in most cases too reluctant to take measures that would curtail the criminal activities. Once the political aspect joins the criminal elements the nexus becomes extremely dangerous. Many of politicians chose muscle power to gain vote bank in the country, and they apply the assumption that, if we are unable to bring faith in the community then we can generate fear or threat to get the power in the form of election.

(2) Money Power:-

The elections to Parliament and State Legislatures are very expensive and it is a widely accepted fact that huge election expenditure is the root cause for corruption in India. A candidate has to spend lakhs of rupees to get elected and even if he gets elected, the total salary he gets during his tenure as an MP/MLA will be meagre compared to his election expenses. How can he bridge the gap between the income and expenses? Publicly through donations and secretly through illegal means. The expenditure estimation for an election estimated as Rs 5 per voter as election expenditure, for 600 million voters, and calculation of all the expenses in a general elaction estimated around Rs 2,000 crore. Then there is the period between elections. This requires around Rs 250 crore. Then there are state elections and local elections. All told, the system has to generate around Rs 5,000 crore in a five year cycle or Rs 1,000 crore on average each year. Where is this money to come from? Only criminal activity can generate such large sums of untaxed funds. That is why you have criminals in politics. They have money and muscle, so they win and help others in their party win as well.

Reasons Of This Criminalization:-

(1) Vote Bank:-

The political parties and independent candidates have astronomical expenditure for vote buying and other illegitimate purposes through these criminals or so called goondas. A politician’s link with them constituency provides a congenial climate to political crime. Those who do not know why they ought to vote comprise the majority of voters of this country. Therefore majority of the voters are manoeuvrable, purchasable. Most of them are individually timid and collectively coward. To gain their support is easier for the unscrupulous than the conscientious.

We have long witnessed criminals being wooed by political parties and given cabinet posts because their muscle and money power fetches crucial votes. Elections are won and lost on swings of just 1% of the vote, so parties cynically woo every possible vote bank, including those headed by accused robbers and murderers. Legal delays ensure that the accused will die of old age before being convicted, so parties virtuously insist that these chaps must be regarded as innocent till proved guilty.

(2) Corruption:-

In every election all parties without exception put up candidates with a criminal background. Even though some of us whine about the decision taken by the parties, the general trend is that these candidates are elected to office. By acting in such a manner we fail to realize that the greatest power that democracy arms the people is to vote incompetent people out of power.

Independence has taken place through a two-stage process. The first stage was the corrupting of the institutions and the second stage was the institutionalization of corruption. As we look at the corruption scene today, we find that we have reached this stage because the corrupting of the institutions in turn has finally led to the institutionalization of corruption. The failure to deal with corruption has bred contempt for the law. When there is contempt for the law and this is combined with the criminalization of politics, corruption flourishes. India is ranked 66 out of 85 in the Corruption Perception Index 1998 by the German non-government organization Transparency International based in Berlin. This means that 65 countries were perceived to be less corrupt than India and 19 were perceived to be more corrupt.

(3) Loop Holes In The Functioning Of Election Commission:-

The Election Commission must take adequate measures to break the nexus between the criminals and the politicians. The forms prescribed by the Election Commission for candidates disclosing their convictions, cases pending in courts and so on in their nomination papers is a step in the right direction if it applied properly. Too much should not be expected, however, from these disclosures. They would only inform people of the candidate’s history and qualifications, but not prohibit them from casting their votes, regardless, in favour of a criminal.

For the past several general elections there has existed a gulf between the Election Commission and the voter. Common people hardly come to know the rules made by the commission. Bridging this gap is essential not only for rooting out undesirable elements from politics but also for the survival of our democratic polity. This is an incremental process, the rate of success of which is directly proportional to the increase in literacy rate in India. The electorate have made certain wrong choices in the past, but in the future national interest should guide them in making intelligent choices.

(4) Denial Of Justice And Rule Of Law: -

Criminalization is a fact of Indian electoral politics today. The voters, political parties and the law and order machinery of the state are all equally responsible for this. There is very little faith in India in the efficacy of the democratic process in actually delivering good governance. This extends to accepting criminalization of politics as a fact of life. Toothless laws against convicted criminals standing for elections further encourage this process. Under current law, only people who have been convicted at least on two counts be debarred from becoming candidates. This leaves the field open for charge sheeted criminals, many of whom are habitual offenders or history-sheeters. It is mystifying indeed why a person should be convicted on two counts to be disqualified from fighting elections. The real problem lies in the definitions. Thus, unless a person has been convicted, he is not a criminal. Mere charge-sheets and pending cases do not suffice as bars to being nominated to fight an election. So the law has to be changed accordingly.

Legal Threads:-

(1) Vohra Committee:-

12 bombs blasts that shook Bombay on 13 march 1993, had involved the collaboration of a diffuse network of criminal gangs, police and customs officials as well as their political

Patrons, a commission were institutes to investigate the so-called nexus. The report by N.N.Vohra found such deep involvement of politicians with organised crime all over India that it was barred from publication. Here Vohra observes "the various crime syndicate/mafia organisations have developed significant muscle and money power and established linkage with governmental functionaries, political leaders and other to be able to operate with impunity. As highlighted by the Vohra Committee Our elections involve a lot of black money and it is this use of black money in elections which has also brought about the criminalization of politics. After all, the story of the Hawala scam started by the police stumbling to the Jain diaries in their effort to trace the money received by the Kashmir militants. The scam brought out the linkage between the corrupt businessmen, politicians, bureaucracy and the criminals. The 1993 Bombay blasts which took away the life of 300 people was made possible because RDX could be smuggled by allegedly bribing a customs official with Rs.20 lakhs. Some 15 years ago Vohra committee submitted its report to curb criminalization of politics but the fact is that no application in this way is being made. This was mentioned in the petition submitted by the Speaker of Lok Sabha and President of India on 16th may that- “The subject of criminalisation of politics is one that concerns the entire nation closely. It is deeply disturbing that on the one hand, our polity is tolerant of ‘fake encounters’ (summary executions) of alleged criminals and terrorists, while our highest representative body – Indian Parliament – harbours people caught red-handed in acts of human trafficking, and convicted on charges of abduction and suspected murder.”

(2) Supreme Court’s Judgement:-

The Supreme Court judgment of May 2, 2002 mandated that candidates disclose their criminal antecedents, if any, as also their financial and educational background. The Election Commission had proposed amendment of statutory rules and the format of nomination papers, to give effect to this judgment of the Supreme Court. The Apex Court judgement to check corruption among public servant is a welcome step. No law should provide protective shield to the corrupt public official and the court has rightly held that no prior sanction of competent authority would be required to prosecute them. With this order, 93 MPs and 10 ministers in Manmohan Singh's ministry are under the scanner on various criminal charges. This is appalling. It is ironical that the executive and legislatures who make and implement policies and guidelines for the development are themselves acting as stumbling block in the development of the nation. The role of Supreme Court becomes very important here. The Apex Court as custodian of constitution should take all necessary steps to strengthen democracy in the country. The legislature and executive have been complaining about the Supreme Court’s intervention on their domain, but it becomes imperative in such kind of unwanted situation. The Supreme Court of India upheld a PIL which made it mandatory for everyone seeking public office to disclose their criminal, financial and educational history. It was a way to ensure that the voters knew the important details about their “honourable” leaders, and steamed them were indeed.

Some of the parties would be able to draw advantage from the Supreme Court order because they have had less opportunity to indulge in crime and corruption. They would have a greater chance of watching candidates of other parties squirm and suffer in agony. Some others might be happy because they already have efficient watchdog systems and batteries of lawyers in place that would permit them to file counter-affidavits and challenge nominations of opposing candidates within hours of their being filed.

(3) Right To Information Act And Criminalization Of Politics:-

The Court held that the right to information - the right to know antecedents, including the criminal past, or assets of candidates - was a fundamental right under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and that the information was fundamental for survival of democracy. In its Judgement of May 2, 2002, it directed the Election Commission to call for information on affidavit from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or the State Legislature as a necessary part of the nomination papers on: Whether the candidate has been convicted / acquitted / discharged of any criminal offence in the past - if any, whether the candidate was accused in any pending case of any offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, and in which charge was framed or cognisance taken by the court of law. If so, requires the details thereof; the assets (immovable, movable, bank balance, etc.) of a candidate and of his/her spouse and that of the dependents; liabilities, if any, particularly of any overdue of any public financial institution or Government dues; educational qualifications of the candidate. The Right to Information Act 2005 is a historical Act that makes Government officials liable for punishment if they fail to respond to people within a stipulated timeframe. Many public servants are leading luxurious lifestyles, beyond the legal sources of their income. Many public servants are filing false affidavits about their annual income, wealth details to Election Commission of India / Vigilance Commission / other authorities, as the case may be. These authorities are not properly verifying these affidavits. Many scams, scandals are coming to light day in & day out, politicians are accusing each other of involvement in scams. Whereas, the said authorities are keeping mum, as if those affidavits filed by tainted public servants are true. The tainted public servants are not even providing full, right information to public as per RTI Act, lest the truth come out.

This seen is very normal now a day that some public servants, caught red-handed during luxurious spending, they easily say that it is at their political party’s expense or their well wisher’s expense. However no entries are found in the account books of said parties to that respect. The law forbids public servants from accepting gifts, hospitality, favours beyond the value of rupees one hundred (Rs. 100 ) , as it may be a form of bribe. But one may ask all these under RTI. Right to Know is an inherent attribute of every person. Right to know differs only in one sense with right to information. Right to know is a natural right and right to information is a provision given by government to its people. Natural rights do not have any value legally until they are legally considered. Hence right to know as such implied in the freedom of speech and expression which is a legally considered right must have to be given a special value. Right to information as such will bring transparency of the government activities and allow the people to find remedies for those things by which they suffered.

SHORT NOTES

TRACK I AND TRACK II DIPLOMACY:  The term "track-one diplomacy" refers to official governmental diplomacy, or "a technique of state action, [which] is essentially a process whereby communications from one government go directly to the decision-making apparatus of another". [2] Thus, track-one diplomacy is conducted by official representatives of a state or state-like authority and involves interaction with other state or state-like authorities: heads of state, state department or ministry of foreign affairs officials, and other governmental departments and ministries.  Track-one diplomacy may also be referred to as "first track" or "first tier" diplomacy.  These official diplomatic efforts can be distinguished from unofficial interactions, which may involve conflict resolution specialists, private citizens, non-governmental organizations, or businesses.  Such unofficial interactions are referred to as "Track II Diplomacy" In the metaphor of track one and track-two diplomacy, each type of diplomatic effort proceeds along a different track, just as separate trains might follow different tracks. 

The East Asia Summit (EAS) is a forum held annually by leaders of 16 countries in the East Asian region. EAS meetings are held after annualASEAN leaders’ meetings. The first summit was held in Kuala Lumpur on December 14, 2005.

The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is an international organisation with a permanent delegation to the United Nations. It groups 57 member states, from the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, Caucasus, Balkans, Southeast Asia and South Asia. The official languages of the organisation are Arabic, English and French.On August 5, 1990, 45 foreign ministers of the OIC adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam to serve as a guidance for the member states in the matters of "human rights" in as much as they are compatible with the Sharia, or Quranic Law

Most favoured nation (MFN) is a status awarded by one nation to another in international trade. It means that the receiving nation will be granted all trade advantages — such as lowtariffs — that any other nation also receives. In effect, a nation with MFN status will not be treated worse than any other nation with MFN status. In the United States, MFN is calledpermanent normal trade relations.The members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which include all developed nations, must accord MFN status to each other. Exceptions allow for preferential treatment of developing countries, regional free trade areas and customs unions. Together with the principle of national treatment, MFN is one of the cornerstones of WTO trade law.

Structural unemployment is long-term and chronic unemployment arising from imbalances between the skills and other characteristics of workers in the market and the needs of employers.It involves a mismatch between workers looking for jobs and the vacancies available, even though the number of vacancies may be similar to the number of unemployed people. In this case, the unemployed workers lack the needed skills, or are in a different geographical region to the vacancies.


The Statue of Liberty , officially titled Liberty Enlightening the World ,dedicated on October 28, 1886, is a monument commemorating the centennial of the signing of the United States Declaration of Independence, given to the United States by the people of France to represent the friendship between the two countries established during the American Revolution.



Frictional unemployment involves people in the midst of transiting between jobs, searching for new ones; it is compatible with full employment. It is sometimes called search unemploymentand can be voluntary. New entrants (such as graduating students) and re-entrants (such as former homemakers) can also suffer a spell of frictional unemployment.

The Mau Mau Uprising of 1952 to 1960 was an insurgency by Kenyan peasants against the British colonialist rule. The core of the resistance was formed by members of the Kikuyu ethnic group, along with smaller numbers of Embu and Meru. The uprising failed militarily, though it hastened Kenyan independence and motivated Africans in other countries to fight against colonial rule.

The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass killing of hundreds of thousands of Rwanda's Tutsis and Hutu political moderates by Hutus under theHutu Power ideology.

Idi Amin Dada commonly known as Idi Amin, was the President of Uganda from 1971 to 1979. Amin joined the British colonial regiment, the King's African Rifles, in 1946, and eventually held the rank of Major General and Commander of theUgandan Army. Amin took power in a military coup in January 1971, deposing Milton Obote.

The Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries or OAPEC is a multi-governmental organization headquartered in Kuwait which coordinates energy policies in Arab nations, and whose main stated purpose is developmental.

The Universal Postal Union is an international organization that coordinates postal policies among member nations, and hence the worldwide postal system. Each member country agrees to the same set of terms for conducting international postal duties. Universal Postal Union's headquarters are located in Berne, Switzerland.

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), a specialized agency of the United Nations, was established as an international financial institution in 1977 as one of the major outcomes of the 1974 World Food Conference. IFAD is dedicated to eradicating rural poverty in developing countries. Seventy-five per cent of the world’s poor live in rural areas in developing countries, yet only 4% of official development assistance goes to agriculture.

Rogue state is a term applied by some international theorists to states considered threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferateweapons of mass destruction.

Euro Control:International norms for vehicular pollution control.Euro I,II,III exist.In India Bharat I.II,III are in use.

Mekong-Ganga Cooperation (MGC) was established on November 10, 2000 at Vientiane in the First MGC Ministerial Meeting. It comprises six Member countries namely, India, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. They emphasised four areas of cooperation, which aretourism, culture, education, and transportation linkage in order to be solid foundation for future trade and investment cooperation in the region.

A computer virus ( VITAL INFORMATION RESOURCES UNDER SIEGE) is a computer program that can copy itself and infect a computer. The term "virus" is also commonly but erroneously used to refer to other types of malware, adware, and spyware programs that do not have the reproductive ability. A true virus can only spread from one computer to another (in some form of executable code) when its host is taken to the target computer; for instance because a user sent it over a network or the Internet, or carried it on a removable medium such as a floppy disk, CD, DVD, or USB drive. Viruses can increase their chances of spreading to other computers by infecting files on a network file system or a file system that is accessed by another computer.

Repo rate is a discount rate at which a central bank repurchases government securities from the commercial banks, depending on the level of money supply it decides to maintain in the country's monetary system. To temporarily expand the money supply, the central bank decreasesrepo rates (so that banks can swap their holdings of government securities for cash), to contract the money supply it increases the repo rates. Alternatively, the central bank decides on a desired level of money supply and lets the market determine the appropriate repo rate.

The Simla Agreement was signed between India and Pakistan on July 3, 1972.It followed from the war between the two nations in the previous year that had led to the independence of East Pakistan as Bangladesh. The agreement laid down the principles that should govern their future relations.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the spread (proliferation) of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968. There are currently 189 countries party to the treaty, five of whichhave nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China and France (also permanent members of the UN Security Council).Only four recognized sovereign states are not parties to the treaty: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea.

Iran's Nuclear Program

REPORT OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

Iran's leaders have worked to pursue nuclear energy technology since the 1950s, spurred by the launch of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program. It made steady progress, with Western help, through the early 1970s. But concern over Iranian intentions followed by the upheaval of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 effectively ended outside assistance. Iran was known to be reviving its civilian nuclear programs during the 1990s, but revelations in 2002 and 2003 of clandestine research into fuel enrichment and conversion raised international concern that Iran's ambitions had metastasized beyond peaceful intent. Iran has consistently denied allegations it seeks to develop a bomb. Yet many in the international community remain skeptical. Despite a U.S. intelligence finding in November 2007 that concluded Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, the Bush administration warned that Iran sought to weaponize its nuclear program, concerns the Obama administration shares. Nonproliferation experts note Iran's ability to produce enriched uranium continues to progress but disagree on how close Iran is to mastering capabilities to weaponize. But the September 2009 revelation of a second uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom--constructed under the radar of international inspectors--deepened suspicion surrounding Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Atoms from America

Iran's efforts to develop nuclear energy trace to 1957, in connection with a push from the Eisenhower administration to increase its military, economic, and civilian assistance to Iran. On March 5 of that year, the two countries announced a "proposed agreement for cooperation in research in the peaceful uses of atomic energy" under the auspices of Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program. The deal was intended to open doors for U.S. investment in Iran's civilian nuclear industries, such as health care and medicine. The plan also called for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission to lease Iran up to 13.2 pounds of low-enriched uranium (LEU) for research purposes. Two years after the agreement was made public, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi ordered the establishment of an institute at Tehran University--the Tehran Nuclear Research Center--and negotiated with the United States to supply a five-megawatt reactor. Over the next decade the United States provided nuclear fuel and equipment that Iran used to start up its research. Gary Samore, President Obama's top expert on weapons of mass destruction, told CFR.org in 2008 that the cooperation was meant to assist Iran in developing nuclear energy while steering Tehran away from indigenous fuel-cycle research. On July 1, 1968, Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) on the day it opened for signature. Six years later Iran completed its Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

By the 1970s, France and Germany joined the United States in providing assistance to the Iranian nuclear program. Regional wars and predictions of a looming energy shortfall prompted the shah to explore alternative forms of power production. In March 1974, he established the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, and announced plans to "get, as soon as possible, 23,000 megawatts [of electricity] from nuclear power stations." By the mid-1970s, Iran had signed contracts with Western firms--including France's Framatome and Germany's Kraftwerk Union--for the construction of nuclear plants and supply of nuclear fuel.

Second Thoughts on a Nuclear Iran

Despite the early and sustained flow of nuclear technology to Tehran, Western governmental support for Iran's nuclear program began to erode ahead of the Islamic Revolution of 1979. In August 1974, a U.S. special national intelligence estimate (PDF) declared that while "Iran's much publicized nuclear power intentions are entirely in the planning stage," the ambitions of the shah could lead Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, especially in the shadow of India's successful nuclear test in May 1974.

"If Iran is willing to enter into serious negotiations, then they will find a willing participant in the United States and the other [partner] countries." - P.J. Crowley, U.S. State Department spokesman

This concern led Western governments to withdraw support for Iran's nuclear program. Pressure on France, which in 1973 signed a deal to build two reactors atDarkhovin, and Germany, whose Kraftwerk Union began building a pair of reactors at Bushehr in 1975, led to the cancellation of both projects. After the Islamic Revolution, the seizure of U.S. hostages, and termination of diplomatic relations in 1979, U.S. opposition to Iran's nuclear efforts increased during the 1980s and 1990s. Washington blocked nuclear deals between Iran and Argentina, China, and Russia. Mohammad Javad Zarif, the former Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, wrote in Columbia University's Journal of International Affairs in 2007 that Washington's shift away from supporting Iran's nuclear energy program left Tehran with little choice but to be discreet in its nuclear activities (PDF). "To avoid the [U.S.-led] restrictions and impediments," Zarif writes, "Iran refrained for disclosing the details of its programs."

Known Capabilities

The withdrawal of Western support after the Islamic Revolution slowed Iran's nuclear progress. And a confluence of factors--opposition to nuclear technology by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the exodus of nuclear scientists, and the destruction of Iraq's nuclear facility by Israel in 1981, which removed an immediate threat--sent Iran's nuclear program into a tailspin. But many nonproliferation experts believe Iran became interested again in a nuclear program by the mid-1980s. Leonard S. Spector, deputy director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, writes there is evidence Iran received assistance from Pakistani nuclear scientist AQ Khanas early as 1985, though it wasn't until the death of Khomeini in 1989 that Tehran's efforts reached critical mass. [Khan, speaking to a Pakistani television journalist in August 2009, confirmed that his network assisted Iran (PDF) in contacting suppliers of nuclear technology].

Unlike his predecessor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei held a more favorable view of nuclear energy and military technology, and set out to rebuild Tehran's program. Analysts also believe the discovery of Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons program during the 1991 Gulf War, as well as a growing U.S. presence in the region, pushed Tehran to ramp up its research. In a boost to the civilian nuclear effort, Russia in January 1995 picked up where Germany left off, signing a contract with Iran to complete two 950-megawatt light-water reactors at Bushehr (with fuel supplied by Russia). In September 2008, the Russian company building the power plantreiterated its commitment (AFP) to finishing the project, while Moscow has said it hopes to fire up the reactor by the end of 2009 (Press TV). Iranian officials have also announced that the Darkhovin project has resumed, and plans call for a 360-megawatt reactor to be operational there by 2016. Iran--which has also turned to China, Pakistan, and North Korea for nuclear technology and assistance--claims it wants to build nuclear power plants to diversify its energy portfolio.

With an eye toward fueling these facilities with domestically produced fuel--and, many experts say, to develop a weapon--Iran has built a vast network (PDF) of uranium mines, enrichment plants, conversion sites, and research reactors. Of these facilities, about a dozen are considered major nuclear sites (PDF). For instance, the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center employs as many as three thousand scientists and is suspected of housing Iran's weapons program, according to the U.S.-funded nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Isfahan is also the location of Iran's uranium-conversion efforts, where approximately 366 tons of uranium hexafluoride has been produced since March 2004. This so-called feedstock is fed into centrifuges at another central site: the Natanz enrichment facility.

At Natanz, first-generation centrifuges (IR-1) purchased from Pakistan spin uranium hexafluoride at great speeds to increase the percentage of uranium-235, the principle ingredient for both power production and weapons capability. Natural uranium contains 0.7 percent of the uranium-235 isotope, and generally, light-water power reactors require enrichment levels of 3 percent to 5 percent (levels of low-enriched uranium, or LEU). Weapons-grade uranium--also known as highly-enriched uranium, or HEU--is around 90 percent (technically, HEU is any concentration over 20 percent, but weapons-grade levels are described as being in excess of 90 percent). According to the IAEA, Iran is capable of enriching to about 4.7 percent. David Albright, an expert on Iran's nuclear program and president of the Institute for Science and International Security, estimates Iran is producing roughly 2.77 kg of LEU per day (PDF), a rate that has remained consistent throughout 2009. Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for nonproliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, says if Iran were to stockpile sufficient LEU they would be able to produce 25 kg of weapons-grade uranium for production of a single bomb "within a couple of months," a timeline Albright agreed with during a February 2009 interview with CFR.org. Iran is using centrifuges to enrich uranium hexafluoride gas, increasing the concentration of uranium-235. Senior American officials, speaking on background, told reporters in September 2009 that a second enrichment facility under construction near Qom could holdabout 3,000 centrifuge machines. "Now, that's not a large enough number to make any sense from a commercial standpoint," the official said. "But if you want to use the facility in order to produce a small amount of weapons-grade uranium, enough for a bomb or two a year, it's the right size."

Unanswered Questions

International skepticism of Iranian intentions was first aroused in August 2002 when a London-based Iranian opposition group disclosed details about a secret heavy-water production plant at Arak, as well as the underground enrichment facility at Natanz. In May 2003, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the disclosure of Arak and Natanz raised serious questions about Iran's nuclear intentions. "We believe Iran's true intent is to develop the capability to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons," Boucher said, "using both the plutonium route (supported ultimately by a heavy-water research reactor) and the highly enriched uranium route (supported by a gas centrifuge enrichment plant)." These revelations, coupled with subsequent admissions from Iran that it has concealed aspects of its program, prompted the IAEA to intensify inspections.

"Iran has not cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues ... which need to be clarified in order to exclude the possibility of there being military dimensions to Iran´s nuclear program." -- IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei

While international inspectors have never found concrete evidence linking Iran's nuclear program to weapons development, Iran's concealment of its program--like the partially constructed enrichment facility near Qom, which Western officials say was under construction for years before Iran's disclosure in the fall of 2009--has fed concerns. In a June 2003 report (PDF), IAEA inspectors concluded that Iran had failed to meet obligations under its Safeguards Agreement signed in 1974. Failures included withholding construction and design details of new facilities, and not reporting processed and imported uranium. Some undeclared shipments dated to 1991, the IAEA said. International pressure following the revelations led Iran to temporarily cease its enrichment-related activities, and in late 2003 Tehran signed an Additional Protocol allowing the atomic agency greater access to nuclear sites. Negotiations with members of the European Union quickly followed (PDF). But on August 8, 2005, Iran announced it was resuming uranium conversion at Isfahan. By early 2006, IAEA inspectors confirmed that Iran had once again resumed its enrichment program. Today Iran operates thousands of IR-1 centrifuges-the majority at Natanz-though the total number of operational devices is unclear. [AnAugust 2009 IAEA report found that 8,308 centrifuges were either enriching uranium or installed at the facility]. Construction of a commercial-scale facility at Natanz, which will house over fifty thousand centrifuges, is also under way.

Under the terms of the NPT, signatories have the "inalienable right" to produce fuel for civilian energy production, either by enriching uranium or separating plutonium. But the United States and other Western governments accuse Iran of failing to abide by NPT safeguards, and of pursuing technology to produce nuclear weapons. Paul K. Kerr of the Congressional Research Service wrote in a August 2009 report (PDF) that the principle proliferation concern is "Tehran's construction of a gas-centrifuge-based uranium-enrichment facility " at Natanz. Experts say enrichment of uranium hexafluoride gas is of particular concern, because producing weapons-grade fuel (HEU) is considered the most difficult aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle. Kerr also counts Iran's construction of a heavy-water reactor at Arak--which contains plutonium in its spent fuel--as another proliferation concern.

Albright, of ISIS, says Iranian enrichment capabilities are improving, a troubling development given Iran's continued refusal to answer IAEA questions about past activities. In February 2008, the IAEA presented Iran with intelligence collected by the United States that U.S. officials say proves Tehran worked to develop nuclear weapons in the recent past. The intelligence is believed to have been smuggled out of Iran on a laptop computer in 2004 and handed over to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The data included (PDF) alleged evidence of the so-called Green Salt project, a secret uranium-processing program; high-explosives testing; and design of a reentry vehicle "which could have a military nuclear dimension," the IAEA says. Iranian officials claim the data is fake. But the November 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluded that while Iran likely halted its weapons program in fall 2003, "Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons" in the future. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, speaking in September 2009, said Iran continues to be uncooperative on many fronts, making it impossible to determine Tehran's intent. "Iran has not cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues," he said, "which need to be clarified in order to exclude the possibility of there being military dimensions to Iran´s nuclear program."

Sanctions and Saber Rattling

The United States has imposed unilateral economic sanctions on Iran for nearly three decades (Arms Control Today), but international efforts to cripple Iran's nuclear program have coalesced more recently. In September 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors expressed an "absence of confidence (PDF) that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes." Five months later, the board voted to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, and in December 2006, the UN Security Council adopted the first of a series of resolutions imposing sanctions to punish Iran for continued uranium enrichment. Resolution 1737 initiated a block on the sale or transfer of sensitive nuclear technology. Subsequent resolutions--the most recent in September 2008, which reaffirmed past mandates--added financial and travel sanctions on Iranian individuals and companies. In June 2008, the European Union imposed its own set of sanctions, freezing the assets of nearly forty individuals and entities doing business with Bank Melli, Iran's largest bank. Western officials have accused Bank Melli of supporting Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

Now some members of Congress are backing a bill that would authorize the White House to penalize foreign companies for selling refined petroleum to Iran. Some analysts support this approach, but former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John R. Bolton suggests only the threat of force (WSJ) can prevent an Iran nuclear bomb. CFR's Micah Zenko says Israel may be prepared to act (LAT) in that regard if the United States doesn't.

Despite increasing calls for a military solution, international diplomacy continues apace. In mid-2008, the European Union resubmitted a 2006 offer of incentives for Iran to give up its enrichment activities. The Iranian response to the proposal has been mixed, and the EU's chief nuclear negotiator, Javier Solana, has expressed pessimism that the efforts will succeed. Russia and China, meanwhile, have resisted calls for a fourth round of UN sanctions. But U.S. officials remain committed to a bilateral dual-track approach: international sanctions on one hand, and incentives on the other. Talks between Iran, the U.S., and other world powers are scheduled for October 1, 2009. "If Iran is willing to enter into serious negotiations, then they will find a willing participant in the United States and the other [partner] countries," Assistant Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley told reporters on September 11, 2009. He added: if "Iran dissembles in the future, as it has in the past, then we will draw conclusions from that."