London, Oct 14, IRNA-Europeans have to enter into negotiations with the genuine desire to compromise, says Paul Ingram of British American Security Information Council (Basic).
"We are trying to find a way out of the deadlock created in August with the Europeans proposal and trying to persuade MPs that the Europeans have to enter this kind of negotiations," said the senior analyst from the London-based security and nuclear think-thank.
In an interview with IRNA Friday, he said that there had been a mixed reaction to their lobbying with MPs and other eminent figures because some seemed to have difficulty in understanding what Basic was saying.
"There are people who grew up with 'Cold War', when the mentality was that the only thing you can do is threaten and threaten," Ingram said. "They believed this is the only thing that people will listen to," he added.
He said BASIC is very much trying to argue to put things in a statement that threats are not the solution, "that we need to negotiate, and to negotiate you actually need to do so with intention of coming to mutually acceptable solution."
In a paper last month, the think-tank said that the way ahead was that either the EU accepts Iran's proposal of verification arrangements going beyond what is required or Iran accepts the idea of a permanent cessation of enrichment and reprocessing.
It also has criticized the EU offer made to Iran under the terms of the Paris Agreement as being "vague on incentives and heavy on demands."
Ingram said that BASIC is trying to get as broader consensus as possible behind its drive to reach a genuine negotiated settlement and to get as many eminent people to also sign up to it.
"The general underlying purpose of this statement is to try and get people to understand that Europeans have not been engaging in negotiations in good faith because you have not actually been listening," he said.
The think-tank is striving to get a declaration well before next IAEA board meeting on November to put pressure on Europeans not to just sit back and say "the ball is in Iran's court because the ball is not in no one's court at the moment."
The senior analyst described the last IAEA vote on Iran forced by the EU in September as divisive, saying the decision "was not made under consensus and was highly controversial, whereas, board meeting decisions are usually made by consensus."
He said they have risked the effectiveness of organization for their own particular objectives in this case and showed no sign of the long term consequences.
"My suspicion is that is one reason why the Nobel Peace Prize committee this year was keen to give it to the IAEA, because the organization has already been harmed," said Ingram, who previously worked as researcher and project leader at Oxford Research Group.
He said that even if Europeans do succeed in getting Iran's case to the Security Council it would not actually getting them anywhere.
"As far as we can tell, their game plan is to 'threat' as they always assume by threat you will get what you want," he emphasized.
... Payvand News - 10/15/05 ... --