|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
IAEA Extends Meeting to Continue Discussion on Iran; U.S. Seeking “Last Chance” Ultimatum By Joe Fiorill Amid widespread concern that Iran is seeking to enrich uranium for use in an eventual nuclear weapon, U.S. diplomats are working on the sidelines of the meeting to develop a resolution on Iran to which board members are generally amenable, U.S. Mission spokesman Michael Garuckis said. Board meetings typically last two days but this one appears likely to run into a fourth or even fifth day over the Iran question. Garuckis said the United States hopes to introduce a resolution tomorrow, meaning that action on the text would not take place before Thursday. In addition, according to a Western diplomat, there appears to be a possibility that another country could introduce a separate resolution on Iran. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said the formal talks are going “very well.” Speaking to reporters after this morning’s session, ElBaradei said there are “a number of very important issues that need to be resolved.” Washington has all but dropped a bid to have the board find Iran in noncompliance with its IAEA safeguards agreement and send the matter to the U.N. Security Council. Garuckis said the decision not to seek a finding of noncompliance was a “pragmatic” one. Representing the Nonaligned Movement, which earlier this year prevented the matter from being referred to the council, a Malaysian statement today said the Iran question should “be resolved through constructive dialogue within the framework of the agency.” According to a text provided by the U.S. delegation, U.S. envoy Kenneth Brill said at the closed meeting that the “facts already established would fully justify an immediate finding of noncompliance by Iran” with its IAEA safeguards agreement. “We have taken note, however, of the desire of other member states to give Iran a last chance to stop its evasions, and have agreed today to join in the call on Iran to take ‘essential and urgent’ actions to demonstrate that it has done so. Passing a resolution on this issue that firmly backs the IAEA’s efforts is the least the board could credibly do to meet its responsibilities,” Brill said. The process, Saleh told reporters after this morning’s session, will influence Iran’s decision about whether to sign the Additional Protocol to its IAEA safeguards agreement, which would open up the country’s nuclear facilities to more intrusive IAEA monitoring. ElBaradei said this morning that he “would hope that Iran would be in a position to conclude that protocol as soon as possible.” “It very well depends upon the outcome of the board,” Saleh said, adding that a “fair and balanced” text on its nuclear programs could speed up the Additional Protocol process. “If things are totally against ... the statute and the just and the balanced stance of the agency ... we will have to think carefully to our cooperation,” he said. He added, though, “We have gone beyond our obligations. It is as though we have already signed the Additional Protocol.” Brill said ElBaradei’s recent report on Iran (see GSN, Sept. 4) and other IAEA findings show Iran has failed to heed to board’s June call for “open questions” to be resolved and for better cooperation with the IAEA (see GSN, June 19). The U.S. stance was largely shared by Canada, which said “the nature of Iran’s nuclear program” and the country’s “evasiveness ... only [make] sense in the context of nuclear weapons ambitions,” and the European Union, which said the IAEA report “confirms that reporting obligations under Iran’s comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA were not met.” Brill said that at an Aug. 29 meeting of countries including Iran, it became clear that “the report is in error in saying Iran agreed to provide the agency information about its foreign suppliers of centrifuge information.” Saleh, citing Iran’s claim that “intermediaries” were involved and suggesting the transaction took place too long ago to be investigated now, confirmed that the IAEA report erred in indicating Iran would name its suppliers. Brill also listed other concerns, including a discrepancy over when Iran began developing centrifuges to enrich uranium; contradictory Iranian statements about whether its centrifuge program has benefited from help from other countries, which Iran now says it has; Iran’s claim never to have introduced nuclear material into centrifuges before the IAEA took samples earlier this year, which contradicts IAEA inspectors’ view that Iran’s program could not have reached the level it has without tests using nuclear material; and Iranian design information on a heavy water facility that includes no mention of hot cells, even though they would be necessary to the facility’s stated purpose (see GSN, Sept. 5). “There are today more open questions about Iran’s nuclear program than there were on June 6. The more the agency has looked underneath the surface of Iran’s program, the less the explanations offered have hung together in a plausible way,” Brill said (see GSN, June 9). He added that Iran’s “cooperation with the agency has at best been episodic and reluctant and has frequently featured delay, denial of access and misinformation.” “We’re looking for a resolution that’s going to give the IAEA a strengthened hand,” said Garuckis. He said the board should tell Iran, “This is your last chance. ... Please don’t cross this line.”
| ||||||||||
Back to top
