The Dutch professional association of physicists NNV regurlarly held readings in a small room that was part of the nuclear power plant in the town of Petten. Until July 2008 that was, when the Dutch government instituted an official boycott of Iran. The boycott was supposed to prevent Dutch nuclear secrets from falling into Iranian hands, perhaps through Iranian students visiting the Netherlands.

The boycott meant Iranian national Nasser Kalantar, the chair of the NNV’s nuclear physics section, was no longer welcome at the nuclear plant. “Not even in the cafeteria,” said Kalantar, who is also a professor of experimental physics at Groningen University.

On Wednesday however, the The Hague district court ruled the policy unfairly discriminated people of Iranian descent, effectively putting an end to Kalantar’s expulsion from Petten.

The spectre of nuclear espionage still lingers in the Netherlands, where Abdul Quadeer Khan learnt all he needed about enrichment technology in the 1970s to help his home country, Pakistan, to build a nuclear bomb after he returned there. Khan later admitted to also playing a key role in the proliferation of nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, a confession he later recanted however.

Five sites off limits

The 2008 Dutch government boycott barred Iranian nationals from access to five Dutch nuclear sites deemed too sensitive. Apart from the Petten nuclear plant, Iranians were also banned from Covra, a processor of nuclear waste in Vlissingen, a nuclear power plant in Borselle, an academic research institute in Delft and Urenco, an enrichment facility in Almelo, which employed Khan as a subcontractor.

Under the decree, Iranian nationals and Dutch people of Iranian descent required special dispensation to be admitted to nine specific master's programmes, including a branch of chemistry aimed at developing rocket fuels.

Attorney Eric Daalder argued the state’s case in defence of the boycott last year, after it was challenged by Kalantar and two others. In defence of the expulsion of Iranian nationals from nuclear facilities, he then said “these locations harbour secrets that should remain unknown to outsiders. Iran would pose a great threat if it ever developed nuclear weapons.”

Daalder painted a picture of malevolent spies that might lay their hands on nuclear know-how at the facilities affected by the boycott “by taking pictures for instance”, and passing it on to the Iranian regime.

'Protect secrets from all, not just Iranians'

Professor Kalanter, who also has Dutch citizenship, called this “belittlement of science”. According to Kalanter, sensitive information cannot be photographed that easily. “All the material deemed sensitive is well protected by strict protocols,” Kalantar said. “These places need to be shielded from everyone, not just from Iranians.”

The Dutch government has stated the boycott was also meant to punish Iran for refusing UN-inspections of its nuclear programme. Some collateral damage was inevitable, Daalder argued. The government also claimed it was bound to the boycott by international commitments, citing a UN resolution from 2006 that called on member states to be vigilant, and EU regulations requiring member states to ensure Iranians were not made privy to sensitive information.

The judge found none of these arguments sufficiently persuasive. “Plenty of alternatives means exist to the same end,” the court stated in its ruling.

Ashley Terlouw, a professor of judicial sociology, has called the sanction banning Iranians pointless. She also found the government sent a wrong message by enforcing it. “Discrimination based on nationality and descent is unacceptable,” she said.

Kalantar felt the same way. Being discriminated against weighed more heavily on him than the professional impediments inferred by the boycott did. “We work hard and do a lot of good for society, but in the end, we are still considered foreigners,” he said.

Now that the boycott has been effectively annulled, Kalantar said he had plenty reason to “party”. Kalantar said he was curious how the government would respond to the judge’s ruling however.

The ministry of foreign affairs currently still has the ruling under consideration.