|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Iran Receives IAEA Deadline, Walks Out in Protest By Joe Fiorill Amid widespread concerns about possible covert nuclear weapons development in Iran, the U.S.-backed resolution sets a deadline of Oct. 31 for Iran to provide the board with extensive new information on its nuclear activities and “unrestricted access to locations the agency deems necessary” in Iran. The resolution calls on Iran to “remedy all failures identified by the agency and cooperate fully with the agency to ensure verification of compliance with Iran’s safeguards agreement” and specifically demands detailed information on Iran’s uranium enrichment activities. U.S. envoy Kenneth Brill told reporters the measure “gives full backing to the agency’s efforts to get to the bottom of the Iran nuclear issue.” The board is scheduled to meet next in November, but could meet earlier if needed, to hear a new report on Iran from IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. The body could send the matter to the U.N. Security Council if it finds Iran in noncompliance with its nuclear safeguards commitments. Brill called the board’s obligation to do so “quite clear.” In a statement read to the closed meeting just before the walkout and provided to reporters without further comment, Iranian envoy Ali Akbar Salehi said the resolution’s passage would “kill an otherwise constructive process” and that Iran would find itself with “no choice but to have a deep review of our existing level and extent of engagement with the agency vis-a-vis this resolution.” Asked about the threat, ElBaradei said, “They will get over that. They will see that it is in their interest to cooperate with us in the next few weeks.” He added that Iran’s intention to “review” its relationship with the agency is understandable, given the events of the day. “I hope … they will come to the right conclusion, in my view, which is to enhance cooperation with the agency,” he said. One nonproliferation expert said the Iranian delegation was angry right now, but that Iranian plans would be better judged in the days and weeks ahead. “Salehi and others in the more moderate faction in Iran have been sending signals for long time saying if you make this [resolution] too sharp against Iran, it inflames the [Iranian] hardliners who didn’t want to cooperate in the first place,” said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security. If Iran reduces its level of cooperation with the IAEA, then “that indicates that they have something they wish to hide,” said U.S. delegate Brill. According to a U.S. statement presented at the end of today’s meeting, the resolution “conveys an unequivocal message that when legitimate questions are raised, the international community will not be satisfied or deflected by policies of delay, denial and deception.” Another expert, Jon Wolfsthal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, praised the U.S. approach in Vienna. “The U.S. is doing this about right. It’s using the diplomatic tools at its disposal. It’s using its allies to pressure Iran. Iran is trying to push back, but it’s unclear whether it will get support,” he said. Iran Voices Fear of U.S. Invasion Plan Salehi accused the United States of using the resolution to pursue a “fast pass to the Security Council.” The IAEA, Salehi said, is making progress in Iran and wishes to continue along the path it is now on, but the United States is bent on sending the matter to the Security Council and, ultimately, confronting Iran militarily. “Every state can draw up and perceive threats, real or imaginary, as they wish. They may also build up hoopla around such perceptions and elevate them to the level of highest international priority, as they can. They can spin the facts, deceive and lie, as they want. They are even able to wield massive power to crush the conceived culprit, as they do,” Salehi said. “It is no secret,” he continued, “that the current U.S. administration, or at least its influential circle, entertains the idea of invasion of yet another territory, as they aim to reshape and re-engineer the entire Middle East region.” ElBaradei appeared to contradict Salehi’s claim that the resolution puts the board at odds with the agency, saying instead that the resolution sends a “very powerful message of support for the agency’s work” and a “very powerful message to Iran that they need to cooperate.” “We are in fact providing a service right now in Iran,” ElBaradei added, by helping the country to demonstrate that it is acting transparently and that its nuclear programs are for peaceful purposes. Salehi also accused the United States of seeking to deny Iran its right to nuclear power. He said Washington seeks a perpetual series of new obligations for Iran, so that the country can never “enjoy its inalienable right to peaceful nuclear activity without hindrance and impediment.” The United States, Salehi said, seeks to impose “full and complete deprivation of Iran from pursuing its peaceful program. … The U.S. intention behind this saga is nothing but to make this deprivation final and eternal.” The United States said in its statement this evening, however, “there is no right to nuclear energy for ‘putatively peaceful’ or ‘presumably peaceful’ purposes. The whole NPT [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] framework makes clear the right involves the use of nuclear material only for verifiably peaceful purposes and thus in conjunction with effective safeguards.” Consensus Passage Sought in Vain Today’s measure was adopted without a vote, but technically did not enjoy consensus. Asked what such passage signifies, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said, “No country stood up and said, ‘We want this to be a vote.’ … It doesn’t necessarily mean that all countries agree with it.” Debate on the resolution boiled down to a single word earlier today, with a large majority on the board supporting the measure in principle but cautious about language some said could amount to an ultimatum. According to Western diplomats, the last debate that delayed passage of the text today hinged on the presence of the word “definitive” in the final words of the resolution. Through the language in question, which remains in the text passed today, the board asked ElBaradei to report in November or earlier on Iran’s implementation of the resolution, “enabling the board to draw definitive conclusions.” Two diplomats said the United States alone was opposing the removal of the word “definitive” from the sentence, with nearly all other countries on the 35-member board willing to delete the word in the interest of near-consensus — total consensus being impossible owing to Iran’s unconditional rejection of the measure. In related action, the Nonaligned Movement proposed numerous amendments to the resolution in a search for consensus, but the proposals were turned down by the resolution’s sponsors, according to Malaysian envoy Hussein Haniff, speaking for the Nonaligned Movement. The movement did succeed in attaching a statement to the final resolution — not part of the resolution itself — expressing its reservations on certain points.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
