Iran criticized the recent IAEA report on its nuclear activities, saying that Amano's approach is dangerous and goes against the agency's articles of association.
Iranian representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Ali Asghar Soltanieh called the agency Chief's report on Iran's nuclear enrichment "repetitious and politically-motivated" and said, "Amano's report which repeats the previous claims hurt the constructive climate between Iran and the IAEA created over last months."
He continued, "Release of what came in the appendix of the report needs talks with target country, but the IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano has released unfounded claims without taking the issue into consideration."
"The IAEA Chief has released the report in the way because of pressures of some western countries including the US," he told ISNA.
"The report does not contain any new issue on possible military aspects in Iran's nuclear drive and it only repeats previous matters relevant to alleged studies," Soltanieh added.
He continued Iran has already sent a 117-page report which proved through precise evidence that the alleged studies are only some fake and unfounded claims and that the IAEA objected the US refusal to hand over the documents related to the alleged studies to Iran. The IAEA had said that refusal to deliver the documents to Iran has damaged the IAEA reputation and responsibility, whereas Yukiya Amano has ignored these key issues."
Iran is under 4 rounds of the UN Security Council resolutions over its refusal to halt peaceful enrichment work.
Also the EU and the US had imposed unilateral sanctions against Iran. Iran insists that its nuclear drive only seeks peaceful purposes including power generation and medical needs.
Yukiya Amano -- Ali Asghar Soltanieh
The full text of Soltanieh's message to Amano
Iran's Representative to the IAEA Ali Asghar Soltanieh sent a message to the agency's Director General Yukiya Amano, saying the country's nuclear materials are completely under the Safeguards Agreement control.
He reiterated that Public has the right to know the truth about the nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The full text of 20 questions and answers posed by Soltanieh comes as follow:
Q1: Has IAEA found even a gram of Uranium diverted to military purposes after over 4000 Man days most robust inspection in the history of the IAEA?
A1: NO. Please read all reports of present and former Director General to the Board of Governors.
Q2: Has IAEA found any activities and nuclear material which it claimed were undeclared by Iran till 2003 be diverted to military activities?
A2: NO. All were accounted by the IAEA after declared by Iran. Please read all reports of the IAEA in 2003 and 2004 to the Board of Governors.
Q3: Had Iran any legal obligation to declare the site of Natanz Enrichment Plant before 2003?
A3: NO. Since Natanz Enrichment Plant had not received any nuclear material till 2003 thus Iran was not obliged to declare it considering the fact that since Iran had not signed the modified code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangement of NPT Comprehensive Safeguards till 2003.
Q4: Had Iran any legal obligation to declare the site of Heavy Water Research Reactor in Arak (IR40) before 2003?
A4: No, since IR40 had not received any nuclear material till 2003 thus Iran was not obliged to declare it is considering the fact that since Iran had not signed the modified code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangement till 2003.
Q5: Was Iran obliged under NPT Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA) to report to the IAEA its Heavy Water Production Plant in Arak till 2003?
A5: No, since heavy water and its production are not covered by CSA. Iran started implementation of Additional Protocol in 2003.
Q6: Had Iran any legal obligation to declare the site Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) till 2003?
A6: No, since UCF had not received any nuclear material till 2003 thus was not obliged to declare it considering the fact that Iran had not signed the modified code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangement till 2003
Q7: Had Iran any legal obligation to declare the any uranium mine including Ghachin and Saghand before 2003?
A7: No, since Iran had not signed and implemented the Additional Protocol till 2003.
Q8:Has IAEA found any nuclear material and nuclear activities including enrichment in military sites including PARCHIN and LAVIZAN-SHIAN, alleged to be involved in nuclear weapon program, after Agency did intensive robust inspection including sampling and analysis?
A8: No. Director General's Press Statement on Iran on 6 March 2006 said: On transparency I think I mentioned in my report access to military sites, we have been given access to a number of military sites recently, to Parchin, Lavisan, Shian, to dual use equipment to interview people, these are beyond the Additional Protocol but they are essential for us to reconstruct the history of the program. On15 Nov.2004 DG reported that the Agency was granted to visit the military complex of Lavisan-Shian where the Agency took environmental samples. Finally paragraph 102 of DG report (GOV/2004/83) said : " the vegetation and soil samples collected from the Lavisan - Shian site have been analyzed and reveal no evidence of nuclear material .” More information are in documents GOV/2005/87, 18 Nov. 2005; GOV/2006/15 of 27 Feb 2006.
Q9: Did IAEA declared in its joined agreed Work Plan (INFCIRC/711) that it has no other issues in addition to those listed in 2007?
A9: YES. Paragraph IV of INFCIRC/711 says: These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities.
Q10: Was IAEA obliged to deliver document on “Alleged Studies” to Iran according to the Work Plan?
A10: YES. Paragraph III says: The Agency will however provide Iran with access to the documentation it has in its possession regarding: the Green Salt Project, the high explosive testing and the missile re-entry vehicle.
Q11-Did IAEA comply with its obligation in delivering the document on allegation to Iran?
A11: NO. Please read report of the former Director General to the Board of Governors where he rightly criticized the certain country which had given alleged documents to IAEA had not permitted the IAEA to deliver to Iran.
Q12: Has IAEA confirmed the authenticity of the materials on “Alleged Studies”?
A12: NO. Please read the report former Director General to the Board of Governors where he raised the problem of Authenticity. DG also clearly mentioned that no nuclear material and activities are involved in “alleged studies”.
Q13: What was the obligation of Iran according to the document INFCIRC/711 on “ Alleged Studies”?
A13:Paragraph III of this document negotiated and agreed between Iran and IAEA and further endorsed by the Board of Governors says: As a sign of good will and cooperation with the Agency, upon receiving all related documents, Iran will review and inform the Agency of its assessment.
Q14- Had Iran any obligation according to the Work Plan for meetings, interview, inspection or sampling regarding Alleged Studies?
A14: NO. As explained in A12 Iran was only obliged to inform its assessment. Iran gave its 117- page assessment over three years ago but the Agency has not done its obligation closing the Work Plan. According paragraph IV of the Work Plan: The Agency and Iran agreed that after the implementation of the above work plan and the agreed modalities for resolving the outstanding issues, the implementation of safeguards in Iran will be conducted in a routine manner.
Note: rather than concluding the Work Plan, the Secretariat raised new allegations , so called as “ Possible Military Dimension” where it had confirmed in paragraph IV of the Work Plan that “ there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities."
Q15-Has Iran implemented the Additional Protocol?
A15: Yes. Please refer to the reports of the former Director General before 2006;
Q16: Has Iran implemented the modified code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangement of the Comprehensive Safeguards?
A16: Yes. Please read report of former Director General before 2006;
Q17: Since when Iran has suspended voluntary implementation of Additional Protocol and the modified Code 3.1 and why?
A17: Iranian Parliament approved the suspension of voluntary Additional Protocol and the modified Code 3.1 (after 2,5 years), due to legally unjustified referral of Iran’s technical nuclear issue to the UN Security Council in 2006. One has to however note that the Additional Protocol is not a legally binding instruement and the modified Code 3.1 was merely a recommendation by the Board of Governors and not an integral legal part of the CSA.
Q18: Are all declared nuclear material in Iran accounted and under full scope safeguards and remain peaceful?
A18: Yes. Please refer to annual Safeguards Implementation Report (SIR).
Q19: Has Iran accepted to grant unannounced inspections?
A19: Yes. Over 100 snap shut inspections even with 2 hours notice have been successfully conducted.
Q20: Why Iran considers resolutions of the Board of Governors and the UNSC are illegal?
A20: At least there are 5 legal reasons that the resolutions are illegal:
1-According to article 12C of the Agency’s Statute if the inspectors recognize the “ Non-compliance”, they shall report to the Director General, where DG shall report to the Board of Governors . The Board then reports to Member States and the UNSC. In case of Iran never such procedure was pursued. Few Board members after about three years after the issue was raised in the Board in 2003 claimed that there was of “Non-compliance” before 2003. DG had however not used the legal phrase “Non-compliance” but he used “Failures” as used for other countries implementing the CSA. According to the CSA after corrective measures issues are closed. Former DG clearly reported of all corrective measures by Iran.
2- The article 12C which Board of Governor’s resolutions referred to talks about “Recipient Member States” which have misused nuclear material received from the Agency. Iran had never received nuclear material referred to the relevant articles of the statute.
3-According to the Statute and CSA if IAEA finds out that nuclear material is diverted to military purposes then the UNSC will be informed of. All reports of former and present DG has declared that there is no evidence of diversion of nuclear materials.
4-According to the CSA if a Member State prevent inspector to enter the country thus the Agency is not able to conduct its verification activities, then the UNSC will be informed of. All reports of Director General since 2003 clearly declare that Agency is able to continue its verification in Iran.
5-The resolutions against Iran by EU3 since 2003 till 2006 recognized the suspension of enrichment by Iran as: Non-legally binding, voluntary, and confidence building measure. Therefore the resolution by Board of Governors to convey Iran’s nuclear issue to the UNSC after Iran decided to stop voluntary suspension of the UCF activities was 100% in contravention with its own previous resolution. It is worth mentioning that when EU3 proposed resolution against Iran at the Board of Governors in 2006 with political motivation to get UNSC involved in the technical issue belonging to the IAEA, the enrichment activities in Natanz were still under voluntary suspension!
Last Question to peace loving people: Based on the above facts, shall we permit the IAEA, which is the sole international technical organization mandated to promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy for peace and prosperity all over world, be further instrumentally used by few certain countries aiming at turning it to UN-Watchdog, as a subsidiary body of the UN Security Council, and to deprive developing countries from “Inalienable right” for peaceful uses of nuclear energy as enshrined in the IAEA Statute.
... Payvand News - 11/09/11 ... --