¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ

THE director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, reckons it is time to abandon the notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue nuclear weapons, yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them (¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ, 10 July, p 17). Speaking at the Carnegie International Non-Proliferation Conference in Washington DC recently, ElBaradei said the issue had come to a head with the IAEA’s call on 18 June for Iran to be open about its programme (¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ, 26 June, p 4). I asked the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, for his opinion.

Straw replied that successive reports from ElBaradei have identified serious concerns about the level of Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA and the history of its nuclear activity. That the IAEA’s board of governors adopted its 18 June resolution, like its predecessors, by consensus shows just how widely these concerns are shared.

Straw said the initiative that he began last year with his French and German colleagues was intended to encourage Iran to correct matters. Full cooperation with the IAEA and compliance with its board’s resolutions were essential to restore international confidence. Although Iran had taken certain welcome steps, such as signing an additional protocol to the Nuclear Safeguards Agreement, much remains unresolved. Often information is received only after repeated requests, or is incomplete or unclear. Questions remain about the source of some enriched uranium that Iran is using, and its decision to resume the manufacture and assembly of centrifuge components is a step in the wrong direction, the foreign secretary said.

I have visited Iran and I think it would be better to work with the Iranians on their civil nuclear power. It could give a chance of cooperation on weaponry. But any bullying would be counterproductive.

A PHOTOGRAPH in this magazine showed life-size figures on the roadside in France representing accident victims (19 June, p 13). It set me wondering whether the UK should be using similar devices to alert drivers to dangerous areas on its roads. I asked the road safety minister what the government’s policy was.

Jamieson replied that much has been done to identify and implement ways of reducing accidents. But rather than highlight danger zones with morbid and distracting memorials, the government considers it preferable and of greater benefit to identify the causes of accidents – such as poor road alignment, low skid resistance, and excessive and inappropriate speeds. It then aims to develop specific ways of tackling the problem. These may include changes to road markings, worded signs and vehicle-activated signs. Although the minister does not approve of the French example, the Department for Transport uses hard-hitting imagery where it considers appropriate, such as in its Think! road safety campaign.

I have it on good authority that the British road safety record is much better than that of the French.