|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
IAEA Board Debates Deadline for Iranian Nuclear Cooperation By Joe Fiorill France, Germany and the United Kingdom yesterday submitted the draft resolution, which was obtained today by Global Security Newswire. The United States and Japan have associated themselves with the measure, as have at least 10 other countries on the 35-member board, according to diplomats. A competing South African resolution, which has no other official sponsors but is apparently supported by a number of Nonaligned Movement countries, would have the board call on Iran to step up cooperation with the IAEA but, under the version seen today by GSN, would set no deadline. Speaking on behalf of the NAM, Malaysian Ambassador Hussein Haniff told Reuters today that setting a deadline for Iran would also imply a deadline for the IAEA. “We want to give [IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei] a free hand to decide,” he said, adding, “If you have a specific deadline, then there is also a sense that you’re telling (ElBaradei) that you must complete your job by that time.” Iranian envoy Ali Akbar Salehi said Iran has objections to both texts but that the South African draft is “more negotiable.” “This business of a deadline, this idea of a deadline, is just absurd,” Salehi said. Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi also criticized the U.S.-European position, according to Agence France-Presse. “The posture of certain countries is irresponsible and arrogant,” he said, adding, “If the extremists take control of the matter and do not recognize our legitimate rights to have peaceful nuclear activities, we will then be obliged to review the situation and the current level of cooperation with the agency.” The board has now wrapped up its whole agenda for the meeting except for an item on Iran’s nuclear programs. It is expected to reconvene tomorrow morning to discuss Iran. ElBaradei told reporters just after the board adjourned that “intensive consultations” are taking place. “There’s a broad agreement that the board would like to see a deadline,” he said, adding that he thinks “Iran should come with an immediate, complete declaration.” The United States has been the leader in pushing for international action to counter Iran’s alleged bid to develop nuclear weapons under cover of legitimate nuclear activities. The U.S.-backed draft would have the board call on Iran to “provide accelerated cooperation and full transparency,” “ensure there are no further failures” in reporting of nuclear activities, and suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing programs “as a confidence-building measure.” Under the draft, the board would deem it “‘essential and urgent’ … that Iran remedy all failures identified by the agency and cooperate fully with the agency to ensure verification of compliance with Iran’s safeguards agreement by taking all necessary actions by the end of October 2003.” A Western diplomat said the deadline would give Iran a “significant enough period of time … to comply.” The “necessary actions” in question, according to the draft, include “a full declaration of the sources and types of all imported material and components relevant to the enrichment program”; “unrestricted access” for IAEA inspectors to conduct facility visits and environmental sampling; the resolution of a contradiction between IAEA experts’ assessment that Iran must have introduced uranium into centrifuges before June and Iran’s claim that it did not do so; the provision of “complete information regarding the conduct of uranium conversion experiments”; and all other actions deemed necessary by the agency. The board would also call on Iran to “promptly and unconditionally sign, ratify and fully implement” the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement, which would allow more intrusive monitoring by the agency. The language on the Additional Protocol is one of several key areas where the U.S.-backed draft differs from the South African text. The former draft would have the board urge Iran to implement the Additional Protocol immediately rather than waiting until it can be signed and ratified, while under South Africa’s draft, the board would ask Iran only to “consider” such interim implementation. In general, the South African draft implies patience on the board’s part and highlights countries’ right to nuclear energy, while the U.S.-backed text seeks immediate and dramatic action from Iran and stresses the IAEA’s responsibility for helping to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation. South Africa repeatedly refers to further work that is necessary in order for the board to reach any conclusions about Iran, while the Europeans stress Iran’s alleged failures to comply with IAEA requests and cite Iran’s “heavy responsibility to the international community regarding the transparency of its nuclear activities.” Both resolutions would have ElBaradei report back to the board at a meeting in November on Iran’s compliance. “I don’t think it [the South African text] really rises to the same level … of gravitas” as the European draft, said the Western diplomat. Asked whether the matter will come to a vote, rather than being decided by consensus, the diplomat said, “I’m afraid so.” Salehi scoffed at the idea of a measure not supported by the whole board. “If there is a resolution adopted that is not in accordance with our … wishes, then that resolution … is just to be kept in the archives,” he said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
