In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
In my letter of 28 July 2006, I had requested to be given an opportunity to speak before the Council takes action, so that the Council would be appraised –for the first time, of the views of the concerned party before it adopts a decision. You may recall that my previous request to speak before the Council, when it adopted its Presidential Statement on March 29th, had also been denied. It is indeed indicative of the degree of transparency and fairness, that the Security Council has adopted a presidential statement and a resolution without even allowing the views of the concerned party to be heard. Be it as it may, I will make, for the record I presume, the statement that was intended for presentation before action.
But before doing that, allow me to
express our deep appreciation to our neighbor,
This is not the first time that
The Iranian people's struggle to
nationalize their oil industry was touted, in a draft resolution submitted on 12
October 1951 by the
More recently, Saddam Hussein's aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran on 22 September 1980, and his swift advancement to occupy 30000 sq. kilometers of Iranian territory, did not trouble the same permanent members of the Security Council enough to consider it a threat against international peace and security, or even to make the routine call for a cease-fire and withdrawal.
I wonder whether I can say routine these days!
Nor did they find it necessary to even adopt a resolution for seven long days after the aggression, hoping that their generally-held utter miscalculation that Saddam could put an end to the Islamic Republic within a week would be realized.
Sounds familiar these days, doesn’t it?
Even then and for the following two long years, they did not deem fit to call for a withdrawal of the invading forces. The first Security Council resolution calling for withdrawal came in July 1982, only after the Iranian people had already single-handedly liberated their territory against all odds. Nor was this Council allowed for several long years and in spite of mounting evidence and UN reports, to deal with the use of chemical weapons by the former Iraqi dictator against Iranian civilians and military personnel, because as a former DIA official told the New York Times, “The Pentagon was not so horrified by Iraq’s use of gas…It was just another way of killing people.”
Just another way!
Some twenty years later, tens of thousands of Iranians continue to suffer and die from that “just another way.”
And over the past several weeks, this august body has been prevented from moving to stop the massive aggression against the Palestinian and Lebanese people and the resulting terrible humanitarian crisis. Diplomatic words fail to describe the way that the massacre in Qana was addressed yesterday. Nor is the Council given the slightest chance of addressing the aggressor’s nuclear arsenal despite its compulsive propensity to engage in aggressions and carnage.
Likewise, the Security Council has
been prevented from reacting to the
daily threats of resort to force against
On the other hand, in the past few
years, a few big powers have spared no effort in turning the Security Council,
or the threat of resorting to it, into a tool for attempting to prevent
"It is critical that we use the Council to help mobilize international public opinion. Rest assured, though, we are not relying on the Security Council as the only tool in our toolbox to address this problem."
The people and Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to exercise their inalienable right to
nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and to build on their own scientific
advances in developing various peaceful aspects of this technology. At the same
time, as the only victims of the use of weapons of mass destruction in recent
history, they reject the development and use of all these inhuman weapons on
ideological as well as strategic grounds. The Leader of the Islamic Republic has
issued a public and categorical religious decree against the development,
production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.
In order to dispel any doubt about
our peaceful nuclear program, we enabled the IAEA to carry out a series of
inspections that amounts to the most robust inspection of any
Consequently, all reports by the
IAEA since November 2003 have been indicative of the peaceful nature of the
Iranian nuclear program. In November 2003 and in the wake of sensational media
reports on the so-called 18-years of concealment by
Much has been made, including in
today’s proposed resolution, of a statement by the IAEA that it is not yet in a
position “to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or
The 57 members of the OIC, in their recent Ministerial Meeting in Baku, expressed their “conviction that the only way to resolve Iran’s nuclear issue is to resume negotiations without preconditions”, "welcomed the readiness of the Islamic Republic of Iran to settle all remaining outstanding issues peacefully", "recognized that any attempt aimed at limiting the application of peaceful uses of nuclear energy would affect the sustainable development of developing countries", "rejected discrimination and double standards in peaceful uses of nuclear energy", and "expressed concern over any unwanted consequences on the peace and security of the region and beyond of threats and pressures on Iran by certain circles to renounce its inalienable right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.”
The Non-Aligned Movement, comprising an overwhelming majority of this Organization, in the recent statement of its Ministers in Putrajaya "stressed that there should be no undue pressure or interference in the Agency's activities, especially its verification process, which would jeopardize the efficiency and credibility of the Agency", and "nothing should be interpreted in a way as inhibiting or restricting this right of States to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes" and "reaffirmed that States' choices and decisions in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear technology and its fuel cycle policies must be respected."
But, claiming to represent this
international community, the EU3 in their so-called package of incentives last
Today's proposed action by this Council – which is the culmination of those efforts aimed at making the suspension of uranium enrichment mandatory -- violates the fundamental principles of international law, the Non Proliferation Treaty and IAEA Board resolutions. It also runs counter to the views of the majority of UN member states, which the Security Council is obliged to represent.
The IAEA Board, in its November 2004 resolution, drafted by the very same co-sponsors of today’s resolution, declared that suspension “is a voluntary, non-legally binding, confidence-building measure.” This was repeated as recently as 15 June 2006 in the IAEA Board Chairman’s Conclusion.
The Non-Aligned Movement, in its recent Ministerial statement referred to earlier, stressed "the fundamental distinction between the legal obligations of States to their respective safeguards agreements and any confidence building measures voluntarily undertaken to resolve difficult issues", and “that such voluntary undertakings are not legal safeguards obligations."
The sole reason for pushing the
Council to take action, as highlighted in the proposed resolution, is that
Yet exactly the opposite is the
trend today. Today we are witness
to an extremely dangerous trend; while members of the NPT are denied their
rights and are punished, those who defy the NPT, particularly the perpetrators
of current carnage in
This is one awkward way to strengthen the NPT or ensure its univ ersality!
This trend has reached such a horrendous and indeed ridiculous state that the Israeli regime, a non-member of the NPT, whose nuclear arsenal coupled with its expansionist, repressive and state-terror policies and behavior is repeatedly recognized as the single most serious threat to regional and international peace and security, finds the audacity to cry wolf about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and to lead a global campaign of threats, lies, deception, pressure, blackmail and outright extortion.
Yet, in spite of the massive political and propaganda machine, no one in today’s world can accept the convoluted logic that it is OK for some to have nuclear weapons, while others are prevented from developing nuclear energy.
Another destructive trend is the
imposition of arbitrary thresholds, which are often a function of bilateral
considerations rather than objective or technical criteria. It should be
interesting to recall that the
The new threshold regarding
enrichment is as arbitrary as the previous ones, and is simply another excuse to
begin a trend to prevent the realization of the rights of the members of the NPT
to peaceful use, while according to the
It has been argued that the
intervention by the Security Council is needed to ensure cooperation by
As I indicated earlier,
As for coming back to the
Throughout that period,
All along, the threats by some to bring this issue before the Council and take it out of its proper technical and negotiated structure has loomed large over the negotiations and has impeded progress, derailed discussions and prevented focus on a mutually acceptable resolution.
The manner in which negotiations over the recently proposed package has been conducted is a further indication of the same propensity to resort to threats and the lack of a genuine will to reach a mutually acceptable resolution.
Indeed, it is informative to note
that it took the EU 3 nearly 5 months (from March to August 2005) to consider a
very serious proposal made by Iran last year, and even then the EU3 came up with
a response that did not address any elements in that proposal. And yet, while the Islamic republic of
Iran has clearly stated that it requires three more weeks to conclude its
evaluation of the proposed package and come up with a substantive reaction, it
is astonishing – and indeed telling – to see that the EU3 and the United States
are in such a rush to prematurely hamper the path of negotiations by imposing a
destructive and totally unwarranted Security Council resolution. This rush becomes even more suspect, if
one takes into account repeated statement of the Director-General of the IAEA,
numerous experts and even
Compare this rush to the fact that some of the very same powers have for the last three weeks prevented any action, not even a 72 hour humanitarian truce, by the Security Council on the urgent situation in Lebanon, which has been officially and publicly interpreted by the aggressors as a “green light” to continue their onslaught, including the recent carnage in Qana.
You be the judge of how much credibility this leaves for the Security Council. Millions of people around the world have already passed their judgment.
So, Mr. President, it is pertinent
to ask: what is the motive behind this long standing urge of some permanent
members to bring
Thank you Mr. President.
 S/2358/Rev. 1.
 SCR 479, (28 September 1980), OP1: “Calls upon
 SCR 514 (12 July 1982)
 S/16433, S/17127, S/17911
< FONT face="Times New Roman"> New York Times, 18 August 2002
 On April 18, 2005 when President Bush was asked whether
 According to the Times of
October 28, 2005, British Prime Minister “gave warning last night that the West
might have to take military action against
 On December 5, 2005, the then Israeli military
intelligence Chief Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi Farkash said that, “after March 2006,
Israel must be prepared to use means other than diplomacy to halt Iran's nuclear
program.” He went further to say that "If by the end of March 2006 the
international community will have failed to halt
 S/2006/178 and S/2006/273.
 US Department of State: http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2006/Mar/06-846555.html
 Kayhan, 6 November 2004.
 Statement by President of the Islamic
 See, inter alia, IAEA – GOV/2006/15, paragraph 30, IAEA – GOV/2004/83, paragraph 6, IAEA – GOV/2005/67, paragraph 56 and IAEA - GOV/OR.1119* Issued: April 2005, paragraph 103..
 IAEA - GOV/2003/75, paragraph 52.
 IAEA - GOV/2006/15, paragraph 53.
 IAEA - GOV/2005/67, paragraph 51. This is repeated again in IAEA - GOV/2006/15, paragraph 53: “the process of drawing such a conclusion, under normal circumstances, is a time consuming process even with an Additional Protocol in force.”
 IAEA - GOV/2006/31/Add.1 (15 June 2006)
 Board of Governors, 15 June 2006, Chairman’s Conclusion on Sub-item 8(g).
 A/60/915 (19 July 2006).
 OIC Resolution 18/33-P.
 NAM/MM/COB9 (30 May 2006)
 IAEA - INFCIRC 651, paragraph 34.
In a letter dated 16 March 2006 from the British Political Director John Sawers addressed to his American, French, German and EU Commission colleagues: “We may also need to remove one of the Iranian arguments that the suspension called for is ‘voluntary’. We could do both by making the voluntary suspension a mandatory requirement to the Security Council, in a Resolution.” (Times Online, 22 March 2006).
 IAEA - GOV/2004/89, OP 1.
 Board of Governors, 15 June 2006, Chairman’s Conclusion on Sub-item 8(g).
 NAM/MM/COB9 (30 May 2006)
 Reuters, 1 March 2006.
US Department of State, Office of Spokesman,
 IAEA - GOV/2005/67 (2 September 2005), Paragraph 43.
 Letter dated 16 March 2006 from British negotiator to
his German, French and US counterparts, Times Online, 22 March 2006: “The period running up to the G8 Summit will be when our
 According to the UN Secretary-General, concluded his statement of 30 July 2006 before the Security Council by stating: “the authority and standing of this Council are at stake. People have noticed its failure to act firmly and quickly during this crisis…For the sake of the people of the region and of this Organization, I urge you to act, and to act now.”
... Payvand News - 03/25/16 ... --