|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Annan Urges Iran to Reinstate Nuclear Freeze
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan yesterday called on Iran to reinstate a moratorium on its nuclear activities and to negotiate with the European Union and Russia, Reuters reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 9). “What is important is that both sides have said negotiations are not dead, both sides are prepared to talk. I would urge them to continue,” Annan said. “In the meantime, it will be important that no steps are taken that will escalate the already tense situation, and I hope Iran will continue to freeze its activities the way they are now, to allow talks to go forward,” he said. Annan also seemingly agreed with China’s and Russia’s interpretation of the Feb. 4 International Atomic Energy Agency board vote on Iran. Beijing and Moscow have said the Security Council has no authority to take action against Iran, while the European Union and the United States insist that the vote to report Tehran’s activities to the council means both the council and the agency are now considering the matter, Reuters reported. “We need strong irrefutable evidence that Iran is engaged in atomic weapons,” said Russian U.N. Ambassador Andrei Denisov. “This is not a play where there are good guys and bad guys, black and white. We desire to have as much a clear picture as possible and nobody can do it but the IAEA” (Irwin Arieff, Reuters I, Feb. 9). German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier yesterday expressed optimism about next week’s talks between Iran and Russia regarding Moscow’s proposal to enrich uranium on behalf of an Iranian nuclear energy program, Reuters reported. “It represents a big chance,” he said. The Security Council has acknowledged the IAEA report, according to Steinmeier, but does not plan to take action until after the agency’s March 6 board meeting. U.S. President George W. Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel also discussed the issue yesterday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan announced (Reuters II, Feb. 9). A Russian security expert said yesterday that China, Russia and the United States should join the European powers at the negotiating table with Iran, RIA Novosti reported. Iran is primarily concerned about its security, said Vladimir Yevseyev, a specialist at the International Security Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Tehran would compromise on its nuclear program if granted security guarantees, especially from the United States, he said. “In the event of possible use of force, only two states could take part in an attack on Iran — the U.S. and Israel — and even Israel would not attack Iran alone, without agreeing its position with the U.S.,” Yevseyev said. “Unfortunately, the U.S. still does not want to seriously consider this problem, and is taking a passive position,” he said (RIA Novosti, Feb. 9). Although Israeli policy supports pre-emptive attacks against the nation’s enemies, the recent offer of a U.S. defense “umbrella” could dissuade Jerusalem from taking such action against Iran’s nuclear program, Reuters reported yesterday. U.S. President George W. Bush last week vowed to “rise to Israel’s defense,” departing from the language of past U.S. pledges. Washington has previously focused on preserving Israeli regional military superiority, according to Reuters. “In political life there are no free lunches, and Bush’s statements have a price. They remove the possibility — if there ever was one — of Israel taking matters into its own hands,” wrote Aluf Benn, diplomatic correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. “The decision if and when to act against Iran will be made in the White House, not in the underground headquarters of the (Israeli military command) General Staff,” Benn added. A senior Israeli official said Bush’s vow pushed bilateral ties to “a new level.” While Israel has not responded with any promises, “Our policy is to follow the U.S. lead in this matter,” he said. He added that an agreement by Israel to forgo unilateral action “would not cost a lot, as while tactically (Israeli) military options are not nil, they are close to nil” (Dan Williams, Reuters III, Feb. 9).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
