|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Iran Balks at Intrusive Inspections; European Draft Buffeted By Joe Fiorill VIENNA — In an abridged day of talks here at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iranian delegates succeeded today in postponing the IAEA Board of Governors’ discussion of more intrusive nuclear inspections in Iran, while the board failed to come closer to agreement on a European draft resolution on the country’s acknowledged, longstanding concealment of nuclear activities (see GSN, Nov. 19). The panel is meeting following an agreement reached by European foreign ministers recently in Tehran under which Iran agreed to sign the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement — allowing for more intrusive nuclear monitoring — and to suspend its uranium enrichment activities. Last week, the IAEA submitted a report to the board detailing a long series of new Iranian acknowledgments about secret nuclear activities, including production of small amounts of plutonium and low-enriched uranium (see GSN, Nov. 11). In a related development, the Associated Press has reported, the IAEA has determined that Russia, China and Pakistan are the sources of equipment Iran claims was “contaminated” with traces of highly enriched uranium when the equipment was imported into Iran. The board was expected today to consider Iran’s protocol, but Iran balked at broaching the subject before the board settles on language for the resolution, in which it is sure to be taken to task to at least some extent. France, Germany and the United Kingdom crafted the draft resolution, which the United States and others have criticized as too weak. “The Iranians upped the ante today by implicitly threatening not to sign the Additional Protocol,” said a Western diplomat. According to a source familiar with this morning’s proceedings, Iranian Ambassador Ali Akbar Salehi said in the closed-door meeting that Iran’s vow to sign the protocol depends on arrangements it worked out recently with visiting European foreign ministers. The protocol is now scheduled to be taken up at the end of the board’s meeting, which was initially scheduled for today and tomorrow but now appears likely to run into next week. “They played the whole thing brilliantly,” the diplomat said of Iran’s move today. Another diplomat characterized the move as a clever bluff by Iran, which is not a member of the board and is participating in the talks only as an observer. The board unexpectedly adjourned for the day at lunchtime today. Board members, including the three European countries that prepared the draft, the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Netherlands, are now in talks aimed at finding resolution language amenable to a critical mass of the governors. Diplomats said the European draft is still technically the basis for the board’s talks but stands to be changed substantially in key sections. The diplomats added that the changes will fall short of sending the matter to the U.N. Security Council, a measure the United States officially supports and which could lead to international sanctions against Iran. “The morphing EU-3 draft is still the basis for discussions,” said a diplomat. According to interviews, however, the measure appears likely to shift toward the U.S. approach, which two diplomats said relies on “the stick” where the Europeans prefer to hold out “the carrot.” One of the diplomats said the United States is focusing on “process” rather than “results” ― that is, favoring a more punitive approach and all but rejecting the Europeans’ idea of offering economic and other incentives to Iran for its compliance ― because “the process is the example for the future.” In one example provided by a diplomat here of controversial language in the original European draft, the board would limit itself to saying it “notes with serious concern” Iran’s record of concealment. “That would be a godsend for Iran, to get away that lightly,” the diplomat said, adding that the language raised objections from not only the United States but also some IAEA officials and even members of the Nonaligned Movement, which has in the past sought to soften the board’s stance toward Iran. No less a figure than IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei appeared to question the European approach this morning. In an implicit correction of European officials’ recent focus on Iran’s new honesty, ElBaradei told the board that both “newly available information and an array of new technologies” have allowed the agency to “shed light on verification outcomes that contradicted the explanations provided [by Iran] and on questions that remained unanswered.” ElBaradei said Iran is guilty of “many breaches and failures … to comply with its obligations under its safeguards agreement.” Whether the board should cite Iranian “breaches,” “noncompliance” or some other term is a matter of some disagreement among board members. One diplomat said that “in [ElBaradei’s] mind, ‘breach’ is tougher than ‘noncompliance,’ but ‘noncompliance’ in this forum has a specific meaning” ― potentially, a referral to the Security Council. “The agency continued to press systematically and professionally for the correct explanations and the right answers,” ElBaradei said in his statement, “but the process remained slow, piecemeal and frustrating at times.” ElBaradei nevertheless kept his distance from the tough U.S. approach, saying the IAEA should stick to “verification and diplomacy” in seeking to ensure Iran respects its commitments, and he praised Iran for opening a “new chapter of implementation” in the past month that has been “characterized by active cooperation and openness.” “I am pleased to note that corrective actions have already been taken or are being taken. However, these breaches and failures are, of themselves, a matter of deep concern and run counter to both the letter and the spirit of the safeguards agreement,” ElBaradei said. ElBaradei repeated the view expressed in the report that the IAEA has “no proof to date that Iran’s past undeclared activities have been linked to a nuclear weapons program.” “The report before you,” ElBaradei told the board, “is factual and comprehensive. It is intended to enable the board to exercise its responsibilities, prerogatives and options. I trust that in doing so, you will continue to foster the joint efforts of member states and the Secretariat to do their utmost to ensure full respect for nonproliferation obligations, primarily through verification and diplomacy.” “In the case of Iran,” he concluded, “we have made a good start, but we need to stay the course.” One diplomat placed the debate over how to handle Iran’s behavior in the context of recent Western dealings with Iraq and North Korea, the other two countries in U.S. President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil.” “Iraq,” the diplomat said, “showed the folly of military action [alone]. North Korea showed that diplomacy alone also doesn’t get you anywhere. … Maybe Iran is the test case that brings the two together.”
| ||||||||||
Back to top
