Month: March 2007

The Washington Post is reporting that U.S. Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns said, after Saturday’s unanimous vote in the UN SC, imposing tighter sanctions on Iran: ” ‘We got more than we thought we were going to get’ in this resolution…He also said that it criminalizes Iran’s military support for extremists and exposes its political isolation. ‘If Iran has Qatar, a Gulf Arab state; and Indonesia, a Muslim state; and South Africa, a leading member of the nonaligned movement, voting for these sanctions, Iran is in trouble internationally’ … Saturday’s vote ended more than five weeks of intense talks on how to respond to Iran’s defiance.
The resolution’s chief sponsors — Britain, France, Germany and the United States — secured backing from China and Russia only after dropping several of the toughest measures, including calls for a travel ban on select Iranian officials, a cutoff of billions of dollars in export credits for companies trading with Iran and a prohibition on arms imports by Iran. They also overcame opposition from South Africa, Qatar and Indonesia by adding provisions that highlighted the importance of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East and the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency in resolving the nuclear dispute with Iran. ‘The purpose of the new Security Council resolution is not to punish Iran but to urge Iran to return to the negotiations’, said Wang Guangya, China’s U.N. ambassador [are the Chinese really so naive?] … The resolution prohibits Iran from being able to ‘supply, sell or transfer’ arms, and calls on nations to ‘exercise vigilance and restraint’ in selling combat aircraft, attack helicopters, tanks, warships, missiles and other heavy weapons to Iran. The resolution will also make it more awkward for select Iranian officials and scientists to travel abroad. The resolution expands an asset freeze to some Iranian institutions and individuals — including Bank Sepah and the Esfahan Nuclear Fuel Research and Production Center — that are allegedly linked to Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The restrictions, however, will not apply to contracts they signed before being placed on the list. ‘The impact is primarily political rather than practical’, said Abbas Milani, the director of Stanford University’s Iranian Studies program. The financial and military restrictions are ‘rather limited and toothless’ but they are having a profound psychological impact on investors and eroding President Ahmadinejad’s standing in Iran…”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032400576.html

The NY Times quotes the very same R. Nicholas Burns as saying: “ ‘We are trying to force a change in the actions and behavior of the Iranian government’, said R. Nicholas Burns, under secretary of state for political affairs. ‘And so the sanctions are immediately focused on the nuclear weapons research program, but we also are trying to limit the ability of Iran to be a disruptive and violent factor in Middle East politics’…The resolution included amended language that stressed the importance of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East — without reference to Israel, a close American ally widely believed to have nuclear weapons — and emphasized the importance of the role played by the International Atomic Energy Agency in nonproliferation efforts and safeguarding nuclear materials.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/world/middleeast/
25sanctions.html?ref=world

The Associated Press reported R. Nicholas Burns as saying: ” ‘It’s a significant international rebuke to Iran and it’s a significant tightening of international pressure on Iran’…If Iran does not comply, ‘there’s no question’ that the United States will seek a third and tougher resolution, he added.” The same AP story reported the British Ambassador as saying ” ‘This resolution sends an unambiguous signal to the government and people of Iran … that the path of nuclear proliferation by Iran is not one that the international community can accept’, said British U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry”. And, the AP story said, “Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the Security Council after the vote (that) ‘Suspension is neither an option nor a solution’…Mottaki said Iran would return to negotiations over its nuclear program only if the United States and its European allies dropped the ‘unfair and unacceptable preconditio’ that it first suspend uranium enrichment. But world powers held out hope that Iran would back down before the dispute escalated even further. The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said nations involved in the dispute had tasked him to resume contacts with Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani ‘to see whether we can find a route to negotiations’.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

Reuters’ Evelyn Leopold reported that “U.S. representative Alejandro Wolff warned that adoption of Resolution 1747 sent ‘a clear and unambiguous message to Ira'” that the pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability ‘will only further isolate Iran and make it less, not more, secure’. Western diplomats believe the new bans, and those imposed in December, are having an impact on curtailing new investments in Iran but leave the country’s oil industry intact. But Iran’s Mottaki, noting the scope of the sanctions, said,’What can harming hundreds of thousands of depositors in Bank Sepah, with a 80-year history in Iran, mean other than confronting ordinary Iranians?’ Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns said in Washington the arms embargo was most significant in that it prohibits a transfer of Iranian weapons to Lebanon’s Hezbollah guerrillas, the Palestinian Hamas movement, Syria or ‘to any state or terrorist organization’. [The resolution does not say anything about terrorist organizations!] … Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert welcomed the resolution, saying such measures could ultimately curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070325/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_dc_7;
_ylt=Amlczypb4qCC.kNtim41BxMUewgF

By Sunday evening, reports from Iran say that “Iran announced Sunday that it was partially suspending cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog agency, citing the ‘illegal and bullying’ UN Security Council sanctions imposed on the country for its refusal to stop enriching uranium. Gholam Hossein Elham, a government spokesman, told state television that the suspension would ‘continue until Iran’s nuclear case is referred back to the IAEA from the U.N Security Council’…Elham said the Iranian Cabinet decided Sunday to suspend ‘code 1-3 of minor arrangements of the safeguards’ with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Under Iran’s Safeguards Agreements with the IAEA, part of its commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the country is obligated to inform the agency six months before it introduces nuclear material of any kind into any facility. Beyond that, Iran has voluntarily committed itself to informing the agency of any planned new nuclear construction beforehand — a commitment it has not always kept. For instance, it delayed informing the agency three years ago that it was building tunnels in the central city of Isfahan to house parts of its uranium enrichment program…Elham, the government spokesman, said until now Iran’s cooperation with the IAEA went beyond its requirements as a signatory to the international Non-Proliferation Treaty.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

Agence France Presse is reporting that ” ‘Iran has decided to partially limit its cooperation with this agency until the Iranian nuclear file is transferred from the Security Council’ back to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said spokesman Gholamhossein Elham. The spokesman, quoted on the state news agency IRNA, explained that Iran had accepted four years ago an arrangement under which it informed the IAEA of any decision to construct a new nuclear installation [n.b. – this would be the Additional Protocol]. But it would no longer inform the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog of new installations until six months before they are brought into service, Elham said. In Vienna, there was no immediate IAEA reaction to the announcement but one diplomat said ‘it was pretty clear this was coming down the pike’. UN inspectors visited the Iranian nuclear facility in Natanz on Tuesday, diplomats said, but it was not clear if they resolved a dispute over monitoring a strategic underground bunker. Iran is building an industrial-scale plant in the bunker at Natanz to make enriched uranium, which can be used for nuclear reactor fuel or atomic bomb material. Diplomats in Vienna speculated that cutting off access to Natanz might be part of Iran’s response to the reinforced sanctions. At the United Nations, Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said his country would also respond soon to an offer by six major powers — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States — to resume talks to end the nuclear standoff. ‘If there are new requests or proposals made we will have appropriate reactions and answers to those too. We hope that they (the six) are not going to repeat what has been repeated in the past’, he noted, referring to the UN demand that Iran suspend sensitive uranium enrichment in order for talks to begin. Back home, [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad was unbowed by the sanctions, vowing that Tehran would ‘not halt for a second the peaceful and legal nuclear march of the Iranian people’. ‘They can publish hundreds of such documents, but let them be sure that nothing will change in Iran and our march will continue without any interruption’, said the … president. He warned that ‘the Iranian people will not forget the hostility of countries’ which opposed Tehran’s nuclear programme…UN chief Ban Ki-moon on Sunday appealed for fresh dialogue, urging Tehran ‘to urgently take the necessary steps to restore the international community’s trust that its nuclear program is peaceful in nature’, his office said.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070325/wl_mideast_afp/
irannuclearpolitics_070325200624;_ylt=AkAhlEo6PW2JIKgW0qOMAcgUewgF

Here is a self explanatory statement by the P5+1 — the Foreign Ministers of the Five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States of America), plus Germany, with the Support of the High Representative of the European Union — on UN Security Council Resolution 1747:

“The unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 1747 reflects the international community’s profound concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme.

We deplore Iran’s failure to comply with the earlier resolutions of the Security Council and the IAEA, and we call upon Iran once again to comply fully with all its international obligations.

We are committed to seeking a negotiated solution that would address the international community’s concerns.

The purpose of negotiations would be to reach a comprehensive agreement with Iran, based on mutual respect, that would re-establish international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme and open the way to improving relations and developing wider cooperation between Iran and all our countries.

We recognise Iran’s rights under the NPT to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in conformity with its NPT obligations. In this respect, future arrangements, modalities and timing will be dealt with in negotiations. [n.b. There is no reference here to any “right to enrich” — or to any right to have a fuel nuclear production cycle … ]

Full transparency and cooperation by Iran with the IAEA is essential in order to address outstanding concerns. We reiterate our full support for the IAEA and its staff.

We stand by our ‘suspension for suspension’ proposal. That means that for the duration of negotiations, which would take place within an agreed timeframe, extendable by mutual agreement, Iran would maintain an IAEA verified suspension as required by Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747, and Security Council discussion of Iran’s nuclear programme would also be suspended, as would the implementation of the measures adopted under the relevant Security Council Resolutions.

We reconfirm the proposals we presented to Iran in June 2006. They include cooperation with Iran on civil nuclear energy, legally-binding guarantees on the supply of nuclear fuel, and wider political security and economic cooperation. These proposals remain on the table.

We urge Iran to take this opportunity to engage with us all and to find a negotiated way forward. Our proposals would bring far-reaching benefits to Iran and to the region, and they provide a means to address the international community’s concerns while taking account of Iran’s legitimate interests. In a region that has known too much instability and violence, let us find an agreed way forward that builds confidence and promotes peace and mutual respect. In this spirit, we propose further talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran to see if a mutually acceptable way can be found to open negotiations” .

2007/228

So eager were they to pass a new resolution tightening sanctions against Iran, the members of the UN Security Council met even before the scheduled time, which was set for 3 pm.

The U.S. spoke in the Council after the vote about needing to counter the “Iranian regime’s continuing pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability” — a totally unproven assertion.

“The present procedure in Security Council I don’t believe would be helpful for (a) diplomatic solution. I mean, these procedures, resolutions after resolutions, embargos, expanding the embargos, will not be helpful for diplomacy and peaceful solution of the Iranian nuclear file”, Iranian nuclear intellectual Seyed Hossein Mousavian said in an interview in Geneva on 21 March.

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not make it to UNHQ/NY as he had said he wished — Iranians blamed the U.S. for not processing his entourage’s visas on time; American officials said this was not true.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the Security Council after the vote that “Iran has been saying time and time again, Iran’s nuclear program is entirely peaceful”.

At this point, British Ambassador Emyr Jones Perry, shifted impatiently in his seat at the Council’s horse-shoe shaped table, and exchanged a knowing glance with the French Ambassador.

The resolution aims at depriving the Iranian people of their inalienable rights, rather than at addressing any proliferation concerns, the Iranian Foreign Minister continued.

He spoke of Non-Aligned support for Iran’s position — but the Security Council vote today was unanimous, and South Africa, Qatar, and Indonesia — who had all tried to move amendments to the draft resolution before Friday — all voted in favor of this draft.

This new resolution is number 1747; the previous resolution –the first one imposing sanctions on Iran, which was adopted on 23 December — is number 1737; an earlier resolution warning Iran that it should suspend its nuclear program is number 1639.

When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, the Iranian FM said, the SC waited seven days to intervene, allowing Iraq to occupy 30,000 square kilometers of Iranian territories — and then asked only for a cessation of hostilities, but not for a withdrawal.

During that war, the Iranian Foreign Minister told the SC Saturday, the US, Germany, France and others on the Security Council supplied Saddam with military assistance, including materials that helped the development of chemical and biological weapons.

He said the UN SC is bound by law, and should act in conformity with the principles of its Charter and international law.

Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities cannot be viewed as a threat to international peace and security by any stretch of fact, reason, or logic, the Foreign Minister told the Council. Iran has carried out all its obligations and cooperated to the fullest extent possible, he said, and even beyond those required by the NPT and by Iran’s safeguards agreements with the IAEA.

IAEA inspectors even made over 20 visits to Iran’s sensitive military sites that have nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program — will any other member do the same? IAEA inspectors have conducted over 2100 person-days of inspections to date, and have confirmed that there is no evidence that Iran’s previously-undeclared materials were diverted to any military purposes. All the nuclear material has been accounted for, he said. And, he asked: Is there any other member of the UN SC that is prepared to declare how many centrifuge cascades it has?

This UN SC action is a gross violation of Article 25 of the UN Charter, and of the Iranian peoples’ right to development and to education, the Iranian Foreign Minister said.

This decision was taken in bad faith, and negates fundamental purposes and principles of the UN Charter, he suggested.

The vote shows that Iran’s compliance with the UN Security Council has now become more important than the issues of Iran’s compliance, or not, with the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.

Does it need to be said that Iran’s position is again being described as “defiant”?

South Africa’s Ambassdor to UNHQ/NY, Dumisani Kumalo, who is serving as this month’s President of the UN Security Council, said late Thursday night that “If the president is going to come, this is the time to start moving now,” Kumalo said, adding he was contacting Iran’s U.N. ambassador, Javad Zarif, Reuters is reporting today.

Reuters’ Evelyn Leopold writes that “The draft resolution, obtained by Reuters, rejects nearly all the amendments from South Africa that would have stripped the text of most provisions on weapons and financial bans. But the negotiators provided a requested explanation of why each name on a list of 28 Iranian individuals, companies and institutions should be subject to an assets freeze.
In response, South Africa’s ambassador Kumalo, this month’s council president, expressed dismay. ‘They told us we would be negotiating a give and take’, he told reporters on Thursday. ‘They are doing exactly what they said they weren’t going to do’. South Africa’s main objection is that the new text would impose penalties outside of the nuclear sphere.
Pretoria also proposed a 90-day ‘time out’ in imposing the sanctions, which [British Ambassador Emyr] Jones Parry said would have rewarded ‘noncompliance by actually lifting the obligation and that would have been totally perverse’.
U.S. deputy ambassador Alejandro Wolff said amendments had to be consistent with the ‘philosophy of this resolution’, which was drafted by Germany and the five permanent council members with veto rights — Russia, China, Britain, France and the United States. The resolution demands Iran halt uranium enrichment that can be used to build a bomb or for peaceful purposes. The United States and other nations suspect Iran may be developing nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian program, which Tehran denies. Among other changes rejected were requests by Indonesia and Qatar to include language encouraging a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, which the United States turned down, presumably because it was aimed at Israel. But several diplomats said pressure was being put on Washington to accept this provision to get the support of Qatar and Indonesia, both of them Islamic nations. Wolff said the nuclear-free zone ‘diverts from the focus of this resolution’. A minimum on nine votes in favor and no veto is needed to pass a resolution and the measure has such backing. But it would carry more weight with the support of an influential country like South Africa, as well as Indonesia and Qatar. The new text is a follow-up to one adopted in December banning trade in sensitive nuclear materials and ballistic missiles as well as freezing assets of individuals and institutions associated with atomic programs. The draft would ban exports of all weapons and freeze assets abroad of 28 more people and institutions, including commanders of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and companies they control, and the state-owned Bank Sepah. It also calls for restrictions on new financial assistance or loans to the Iranian government. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad plans to address the council on the day of the vote on how its nuclear program is for generating energy only…”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070323/wl_nm/iran_nuclear
_un_saturday_dc_1

Agence France Presse is reporting: ” ‘Our intention is that there should be a vote Saturday’, Britain’s UN Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry told reporters after the meeting. ‘We’ll meet tomorrow for one final consideration. But the text is in blue’, indicating it is ready for an imminent vote. A Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the draft was expected to receive overwhelming support. ‘The sponsors presented us with a text that took some of the amendments offered by South Africa, Indonesia and Qatar and left out others’, said South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, who chairs the council this month.
‘We are disappointed because we made the amendments in good faith’, he added. Kumalo said. ‘We expected they would give our capitals a chance to look at what they could accommodate … I don’t know what is left for my minister to do’…The sponsors rejected South Africa’s suggestions for a 90-day suspension of UN sanctions to allow political negotiations with Tehran and removal of the weapons ban and many of the financial sanctions. A proposal by Indonesia and Qatar to include in the draft a paragraph recalling the goal of a ‘Middle East free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery’ also was dismissed.
The sponsors, however, agreed to add language underlining that the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear monitoring agency, ‘is internationally competent for verifying compliance with safeguards agreements, including the non-diversion od nuclear material for non-peaceful purposes’. Their text also restated that an offer of generous economic and diplomatic incentives made by the six powers to Iran last year if it halts uranium enrichment ‘remains on the table’. But Kumalo rejected the changes as ‘cosmetic’. South Africa, which dismantled its nuclear weapons program during its 1990s transition to democracy, has consistently defended Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes…At UN headquarters, diplomats said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s intention to attend the Security Council vote on sanctions had no bearing on the timing of the vote. The Iranian leader, who was granted a visa by US authorities, told French television Thursday that the proposed UN sanctions were illegal, adding that he was ‘not worried’ by the prospect of US strikes against his country over the issue. But he also promised to present ‘new proposals’ about Iran’s nuclear program, which major powers believe is aimed at producing nuclear weapons.
The sanctions draft would give Iran 60 days to comply or face ‘further appropriate measures’, meaning economic sanctions but no military action, under Article 41 of the UN Charter.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070323/pl_afp/irannuclearpolitics_
070323064820;_ylt=Ahwtuob70PLr.IUSKX4DxWUUewgF

Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has been in South Africa this week, presumably discussing the Security Council moves. Indonesia’s Foreign Minister was in Washington, and met U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice on Thursday.