New York, March 4, IRNA - Members of the Security Council have made an unjust and irrational decision on Iran's nuclear program, Iranian Ambassador to United Nations Mohammad Khazaee said in his address to the Security Council.
"History will ultimately render its judgment over the behavior of the Council."
Even regardless of the Council's unfair actions towards Iran, as the representative of a founding member of this Organization, I wish to express our grave concern and dismay regarding the path that the Security Council has chosen and pursued.
We all know that the United Nations has been established as a universal organization to address international problems, and to defend the rights of its member states in this shrinking world.
The Security Council should be inherently and meaningfully "a Council for security" -- a body that is entrusted with the important task of maintaining international peace and security.
It should be a secure and safe place where the rights of nations not only are not violated, but are fully respected. Can one claim that the Council has performed its immense duty in good faith and as requested by the Charter? The answer is not definitely affirmative.
Surely, the overwhelming majority of the members of the Organization are seriously concerned about the behavior of the Council that has extensively undermined its integrity and credibility.
A question to ponder is how will the nations' memory recall the behavior of this important organ? A question arises as to why, after all the crimes of the Zionist regime in the Palestinian territories that have shocked the whole world and have been described inter alia as ethnic cleansing, genocide and war crimes by the international community, the Council has failed to take any effective measures to put an end to these crimes?
Why the Council has failed to issue a simple press statement nor has it been able to pay even a lip-service to the issue of Palestinian sufferings in view of the daily Israeli atrocities in the Palestinian territories, particularly in Gaza, that have led to the killing and wounding of hundreds of innocent Palestinian people in the past several weeks?
Undoubtedly, the Security Council's previous inactions and silence towards the Israeli abhorrent crimes have resulted in the current holocaust that is going on in the Gaza Strip by the said regime.
The people of Iran will never forget the inaction of the Security Council with regard to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran on September 22, 1980 - the invasion that resulted in an eight-year long imposed war against Iran with unspeakable sufferings and losses for our nation.
This act of aggression did not trouble the same permanent members of the Council, who have sought the adoption of the resolution against Iran today, to consider it a threat against international peace and security, or even to make the routine call for a cease-fire and withdrawal of the invading forces.
Nor did the Security Council, for several years, bother to deal with the use of chemical weapons by the former Iraqi dictator against Iranian civilians and military personnel as well as Iraqi Kurds particularly in Halabja - chemical weapons that were provided to Saddam Hussein by some of the supporters and sponsors of today's resolution.
No amount of explanation would be able to describe the disastrous consequences of these unacceptable behaviors of the Security Council.
Indeed, these are not the only examples that the Council, due to its inherent deficiencies and due to its structural problems and voting mechanism, has been unable to discharge its responsibilities.
That is why the overwhelming majority of the UN member states believe that this Council should be overhauled.
Today, the Council's credibility has been further damaged because of the political motives of a few countries, political motives that have prevented the Council from heeding the judgment of a technical body of the United Nations, namely, the IAEA.
While the IAEA clearly acknowledges that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful and all the outstanding issues have been resolved, some countries deliberately undermine the work of the agency that is part of the United Nations.
It therefore appears that the Security Council attaches no value even to other UN institutions and bodies. It is, therefore, no wonder that the Security Council, which has repeatedly encroached on the mandates and authorities of other UN bodies, can not be trusted to respect the views and judgments of other United Nations agencies.
The Council's behavior in undermining the credibility and integrity of the Agency will only serve the interests of those who prefer to ignore the IAEA, such as the Israeli regime that, with hundreds of nuclear warheads in its possession, poses the most serious threat to international and regional peace and security. It will also serve the interests of those who have never wished for an Agency that is strong and that is independent and impartial.
This is truly a serious question.
Is it not time for the Council to respect the judgment of an institution that is part of the UN system? Or to respect legitimate rights of a great nation with a long history of civilization and peaceful coexistence with other nations? A right that has been recognized by international law and its exercising poses no threat to international peace and security.
What the Islamic Republic of Iran is pursuing is the exercising of its rights in accordance with the NPT and under the supervision of the IAEA, and nothing more. Is this an illegitimate demand? Is this justice to punish a nation that behaves according to the rules and regulations?
The future security of the world depends on how the United Nations, and especially the Security Council, will function in a just and impartial manner.
In reality, peoples across the globe have now lost their trust in the Security Council and consider the actions of the Council as the results of political pressure exerted by a few powers to advance their own agendas. This is a compelling issue that the Council must address in order to restore its credibility.
In view of all these facts and realities, this legitimate question arises that; Can the Security Council still be known as a "Council for security"? And, can it be regarded as an impartial and credible organ of the United Nations?
I leave that judgment to the esteemed members of the United Nations and all fair-minded people around the world, the Iranian representative added.
He said that the Security Council's involvement and the actions it has taken so far in this regard have been unwarranted and unconstructive and have only damaged the credibility of the IAEA.
Iran's peaceful nuclear program should be dealt with solely by the Agency.
"I wish to draw your attention to this very important point that based on the very last paragraph of the Work Plan, the Agency and Iran agreed that after the implementation of the work plan and the agreed modalities for resolving the outstanding issues, the implementation of safeguards in Iran will be conducted in a routine manner." Therefore, the consideration of Iran's peaceful nuclear program in no way falls within the purview of the Security Council. In fact, based on the IAEA reports and as a result of Iran's cooperation and the closure of the outstanding issues, not only there remains no single reason or shred of legality for any new action by the Council, but also the illegality of the previous actions of the Council have become more abundantly clear.
Much has been said about "suspension". Iran cannot and will not accept a requirement which is legally defective and politically coercive.
History tells us that no amount of pressure, intimidation and threat will be able to coerce our nation to give up its basic and legal rights. We have never attempted to impose our will on others; equally, we will never allow others to impose their unjust demands on us. We do not consider this call for suspension legitimate for, among others, the following reasons:
1. As we have stressed over and over again, no government is prepared to compromise the exercising of the inalienable rights of its nation. Any demand from a nation to do so would be politically incorrect and legally flawed.
2. Neither in the IAEA's Statute nor in the NPT-safeguards, nor even in the Additional Protocol, "enrichment" and "reprocessing" are prohibited or restricted. There is even no limit for the level of enrichment in the said documents.
3. In all resolutions of the Board of Governors of the IAEA, "suspension" was considered as a "non-legally binding, voluntary, and confidence building measure".
4. Suspension was in place for more than two years and the IAEA, in each and every report from November 2003 to February 2006, repeatedly verified that Iran fully suspended what it had agreed to suspend. During this period, it became clear that those insisting on suspension were indeed aiming to prolong and ultimately perpetuate it, and consequently deprive the Iranian nation from exercising its inalienable rights.
5. The attempt to make the suspension mandatory through the Security Council has been, from the outset, against the fundamental principles of international law, the Non-Proliferation Treaty and IAEA Board resolutions. The Security Council resolutions, which made the suspension mandatory, also flout the stated position of the overwhelming majority of the international community.
6. Unquestionably, with resolving the outstanding issues, with the IAEA's repeated conclusions of "non-diversion" in Iran's nuclear activities, and with Iran's nuclear activities under the full and continuous monitoring of the Agency, there remains no pretext for the illegal request for suspension.
7. The Security Council's decision to coerce Iran into suspension of its peaceful nuclear program is also a gross violation of Article 25 of the Charter. While Member States have agreed, in accordance with the said Article, to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter, the Security Council could not coerce countries into submitting either to its decisions taken in bad faith or to its demands negating the fundamental purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
8. We need to enrich uranium to provide fuel for the nuclear reactors that we are either building or planning to build in order to meet the growing needs of our country for energy. There has never been, nor will there ever be, guarantees that our needs for fuel will be completely provided by foreign sources. No country, particularly our nation which has a bitter memory of unilateral termination of valid agreements on the part of foreign countries in this regard, can solely rely on others to provide it with the technology and materials that are becoming so vital for its development and for the welfare of its people. It is worth mentioning that there is no single document as "Legally Binding International Instrument for Assurance of Nuclear Supply" to guarantee the fuel for nuclear power plants. It may be recalled that in 1987, the Committee on Assurances of Supply (CAS) of the IAEA failed, after 7 years of negotiations.
Speaking to a group of university students in Qom, he said the US by architecting the resolution practically announced that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei had no responsibility and IAEA's views are of no importance.
They issued the resolution in order to affect the will of the Iranian nation prior to the country's parliamentary elections but they should know that the nation would give them a crushing response at polling stations, Larijani said.
There is no change in the content of the latest UNSC resolution against Iran which are not binding, he said.
The consequence of the UNSC resolution would threaten the interests of its signatories on international scene, he underlined.
On likelihood of US military attack on Iran, he said they will never put their hands into to beehive.
Iran however takes into account such a possibility, Larijani said.
He also lauding the Iranian government for its vigilance in handling the country's nuclear dossier.
In an exclusive interview with the Spanish daily El Pais, he stressed that the Security Council's previous decisions made against Iran's peaceful nuclear program were based on incorrect information.
Repeated mistakes and issuance of new resolutions against Iran's peaceful nuclear program would damage prestige of the council, he reiterated.
Today, the enemies of the Iranian nation are faced with a deadend while the Iranian people are making progress on the right and legal course, the Iranian president said.
He added that issuing another resolution is not a good way to confront the Iranian nation.
The Iranian nation makes progress each day and the enemies would be obliged to cooperate with the Iranians in the future, however, the condition of the Iranian people would be different in the future from what is today, the president said, adding if the bullying powers do not accept Tehran's conditions today, they will face several problems in the future.
On the recent report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran's peaceful nuclear program, he said, the IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei clearly verified the non-diversion of Iran's peaceful nuclear program in his latest report to the agency's Board of Governors released on February 22.
Tehran believes that its legal discussion with the UN nuclear watchdog has ended since the agency has announced that all issues have been settled, the Iranian president told the Spanish daily.
Commenting on enmity of certain western countries with the Iranian nation, he said they have been opposing the Iranian people in the past three decades.
The UN Security Council ratcheted up sanctions on Iran on Monday.
There were 14 votes in favor, none against and one country, Indonesia, abstained.
Previous sanctions resolutions were adopted unanimously in December 2006 and March 2007.
Iran has denounced the current and previous resolutions as violation of international law and said they only harmed the 15-nation Security Council's standing.
... Payvand News - 03/04/08 ... --