Your Location: Statements /press Release /July 2006
Some talking points on the peaceful nuclear program of
The Islamic Republic of Iran
1- Iran 's peaceful nuclear program poses no threat to international peace and security, and therefore dealing with this issue by the Security Council is unwarranted and void of any legal basis. It also flouts the stated position of the overwhelming majority of the international community.
A. The June 2006 IAEA Board of Governors, in its “Chairman's Conclusions” stated that :
i. “It was emphasized that the Agency was the sole competent authority for verification and that it should continue its work to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue.”
ii. “The continued need for diplomatic negotiations and dialogue among all parties covering all relevant issues was emphasized as the way to reach a peaceful solution of the Iranian nuclear issue.”
B. The NAM , in the recent statement of its Ministers in Putrajaya,
i. “recognized the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as the sole competent authority for verification of the respective safeguards obligations of Member States", and
ii. "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."
C. The OIC, in its recent Ministerial Meeting in Baku ,
i. "expressed concern over the pressure being mounted on Iran and its potential consequences for peace and security in and outside the region,"
ii. "called and supported firmly for peaceful settlement of all outstanding issues through negotiations, without preconditions."
iii. "called and supported firmly the settlement of the issue exclusively by peaceful means, in the framework of the IAEA and in accordance with the NPT and the Statute of the IAEA", and "welcomed the readiness of the Islamic Republic of Iran to settle all remaining outstanding issues peacefully."
2- The proposed resolution against the peaceful nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran is explicitly aimed at depriving Iran of its inalienable rights enshrined in the NPT. It runs counter to the views of the majority of UN member states, which the Security Council is obliged to represent.
A. The Non-Aligned Movement, in the statement made by the NAM Ministers on May 30 in Putrajaya on Iran 's peaceful nuclear program,
i. stressed that "nothing should be interpreted in a way as inhibiting or restricting this right of States to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes" and
ii. "reaffirmed that States' choices and decisions in the field of peaceful uses of nuclear technology and its fuel cycle policies must be respected."
B. The OIC in the resolution adopted to support Iran 's peaceful nuclear program at its June 2006 Ministerial Meeting in Baku
i. "recognized that any attempt aimed at limiting the application of peaceful uses of nuclear energy would affect the sustainable development of developing countries".
ii. "rejected discrimination and double standards in peaceful uses of nuclear energy", and
iii. "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.”
3. The attempt in the proposed resolution to make the suspension mandatory is against the fundamental principles of international law, the Non Proliferation Treaty and IAEA Board resolutions. It also flouts the stated position of the overwhelming majority of the international community.
A. The IAEA in its November 2004 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 conclusions.
B. The NAM Ministers also emphasized in the statement they issued on Iran's peaceful nuclear program on May 30, 2006 "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 " believed that such voluntary undertakings are not legal safeguards obligations."
4. Iran extended full cooperation to the IAEA and went even beyond its international obligations and adopted extensive and costly confidence-building measures, including a voluntary suspension of its rightful enrichment activities for more than two years. It also allowed the Agency to repeatedly visit military sites and allowed inspectors to take environmental samples.
A. The Agency did not observe any unusual activities; and the samples did not indicate the presence of nuclear material at those locations.
B. The Agency has concluded time and again that there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
i. In November 2003, for example, the Agency confirmed that “to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities … were related to a nuclear weapons program.”
ii. A year later, and last September, it concluded again that “all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities.”
iii. The same conclusion can be found in the IAEA February 2006 report which states that "As indicated to the Board in November 2004, and again in September 2005, all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for."
iv. The Agency reaffirmed once again in paragraph 53 of the same report that it "has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devise."
v. The concluding statement of Chairman of the IAEA Board of June 2006 states that “They noted the assessment of the Director General that all declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for. They recognized that the Agency's work on verifying correctness and completeness of Iran 's declarations was ongoing. They also noted that the process of drawing a conclusion with regard to the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities was a time- consuming process.”
5. Iran has been and continues to be ready for negotiations.
A. Since October 2003, Iran has done its utmost to sustain and even resuscitate negotiations with Britain , France and Germany .
B. Since August 2004, Iran has made at least eight far-reaching proposals.
C. A few days ago, Iran extended its hand for cooperation and expressed its readiness for negotiations, through the official statement made by the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. In the said statement Iran stated, inter alia , that :
i. The Islamic Republic of Iran is fully committed to finding a negotiated solution through diplomacy and is ready for result-oriented negotiations within a mutually acceptable timeframe.
ii. From the outset of receiving the proposed package, the Islamic Republic of Iran welcomed the initiative and began to consider it positively and in earnest in expert committees set up for this purpose – a work that is in progress. It is normal that thorough consideration of such a proposal requires reasonable time, and given the seriousness of the Islamic Republic of Iran in considering the package in the said committees, 22 August 2006 has been set as the date for announcing view points.
iii. It came as a surprise to the Islamic Republic of Iran that following the first round of preliminary negotiations with Mr. Solana in Brussels, and while nothing extraordinary had occurred, there are signs indicating that some parties, specifically the United States, through changing the path of negotiations to the path of Security Council attempt to obstruct diplomacy and negotiation, while the path of negotiations with Europe is the right and promising one that can produce results.
iv. If the path of confrontation is chosen instead of the path of negotiations and if any measure is taken to limit the inalienable rights of the Iranian nation, then there will remain no option for the Islamic Republic of Iran but to reconsider its nuclear policies. It must be underlined that Iran does not seek tension and confrontation, but if others create obstacles and a tense environment, all will be faced with difficulties.
v. The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that the path of negotiation, dialogue and understanding is the most reasonable path to resolve issues and is determined and serious in pursuing this path and emphasizes it. We invite the other side to come back to the negotiating table.
6. While it took the EU 3 nearly 5 months to respond to a very serious proposal made by Iran last year (March to August 2005), and while the Islamic republic of Iran has clearly stated that it needs only a few more weeks to conclude its evaluation of the proposed package and to come up with a response, it is not comprehensible why the EU3 and the United States are in such a rush to deprive Iran of its inalienable rights and hamper the path of negotiations.