IRAN:The international community is squaring upfor a showdown over Tehran’s nuclear programme. The Iranian foreignminister told Marian Houkin Geneva how his country seesmatters
The US yesterday approved a visa for Iranian president MahmoudAhmadinejad to enable him to address the UN Security Council overTehran's nuclear programme. The apparent desire to address thecouncil will strike some as odd, given that Iran has been arguingto all who would listen that its file should not have been sent tothe council in the first place.
"Right now the file is open in the Security Council," Iran'sforeign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said last week in aninterview in Geneva.
"If they are to review and consider the file, then the presidenthas expressed that we would like to bring the issues that concernIran to the Security Council. That would not deny our willingnessto deal with the issue outside the Security Council, which wecertainly hope that the latter will happen. Therefore, we shouldexhaust all possible capacities, both for clearing our positions,and also to come to a mutually agreed agreement."
As efforts quicken to tighten sanctions, reports suggest thatone of the UN Security Council's five permanent members, Russia,won't be supplying fuel on schedule for Iran's first nuclearreactor in Bushehr. The Bushehr plant is not yet on line, but wassupposed to be soon - the plant was to be test-operated inSeptember 2007, and the fuel needed by the plant transferred toIran by the end of March, according to Iran Daily.
Asked about this development, Mottaki, on a visit to address theUN's Human Rights Council and the Conference on Disarmament inGeneva, sat up straighter and said crisply:
"We hope this piece of news is not correct, and we hope thatthey comply with their commitment to provide us with this fuel -this is something that they have committed to. The very same pieceof news, even if it's not correct, shows that there are handsaround to put pressure on Russia not to provide the Bushehr powerplant with the fuel - fuel that is supposed to be returned toRussia for disposal.
"That's what makes us even firmer to look after the productionof fuel within the country."
Mottaki added: "Nowadays, the need to have access to nuclearpower is an overriding urge. Fossil fuels are very limited, andnuclear power is a clean source of energy. At a recent GulfCo-operation Council summit meeting, even the Persian Gulf statessaid that they, too, were in need of nuclear power. Europe hasdrastically increased its production of nuclear energy within itsterritory . . . Some countries who have access to nuclear powershould not make it an exclusive right for themselves. The problemwith countries like us is that we cannot be confident about some ofthe western countries.
"Iran and the US made a pact in March 1957 about a nuclear powerprogramme for Iran - that's 50 years ago," Mottaki said. "And, thefirst phrase in this contract reads: 'Nuclear power is theinalienable right of all humankind'. In that contract, we agreedthat 23,000 megawatts of electricity should be derived from nuclearpower plants in Iran, and that enrichment should happen, accordingto this contract, in Iran. When we ousted the dictator [ the formerShah] from Iran, they disregarded all these pacts andcontracts."
What Iran is doing now, the foreign minister said, is simplycarrying out the terms of this pact. "We are intending to generate20,000 megawatts out of the nuclear power. And we are planning tohave millions of dollars of investments in that, and, therefore, weshould not be hostage for the fuel needed for these plants.
"As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, our firm belief isthat these kinds of weapons should be eliminated from the face ofthe earth . . . We think the era of nuclear weapons has come to anend.
"The IAEA [ the UN nuclear watchdog, the International AtomicEnergy Agency] have produced a number of different reports on ournuclear activities," he said.
"None of these reports, either from the director general or fromthe inspectors, shows a deviation by Iran in its nuclear programmefrom its peaceful purposes. These concerns are concerns that mighthappen in the future. It's quite interesting to see that they'reafter punishment of a certain hypothetical case in which Iran mightgo after nuclear weapons in the future, and they want to punishIran and to prejudge Iran already. But they do not punish or goafter those countries who do have access to nuclear weapons - andwho have even declared them."
The Iranian opposition group, Mujahideen-e Khalq, which has beenbased in Iraq for over two decades, proudly claims to be the sourceof information about the existence of Iran's nuclear programme. TheMujahideen released the details after the US occupied Iraq.
There is confusion about the authenticity and reliability ofsome of the information provided by the Mujahideen disclosures, butall UN Security Council members are now asking Iran to comply withthe demands of the international community to rebuild confidence inits intentions.
Mottaki said direct negotiations are needed: "We believe thatwithin the framework of a dialogue, we can clear out all thedifferent aspects of such issues. We can put all our concerns onthe table. They can also counter-argue us.
"We, for example, would say that you should not punish a countryfor what it has not committed. There might be a country, orcountries, that would, in the future, decide so. It might entailits own consequences. One of the most grievous consequences wouldbe the lack of confidence that it might create for theinternational system. We do not believe that there is anythingunnatural in the issue of nuclear energy that Iran pursues.Whatever we do, all of our activities are being monitored by theIAEA's cameras right now. Their inspectors are in Iran, as wespeak."
To resolve the crisis, he said, "we think that mutual steps canbe taken, the framework for which should be balanced and legal.
"For example, we used to implement voluntarily the [IAEAadditional] protocol. We can rethink it, to have it on and goingagain - if they remove the barriers for this. And the barrier wouldbe keeping the file in the Security Council.
"So, in a way, we could describe mutual suspension as the step -the two items of such a suspension should be equally weighed. Thatmeans, suspension of the discussion in the Security Council, [ inreturn] for implementation of the protocol. There could be otherpractical ideas that will bring more confidence between the twosides. We believe that we should promote the non-proliferationregime."
Are there behind-the-scenes agreements for negotiations already?"There are on-and-off dialogues, but we are looking for an officialround of discussions," he said. Last Monday he met Swiss presidentMicheline Calmy-Rey (Switzerland represents US interests in Tehran,and has offered to facilitate or to host negotiations on thenuclear issue), after she had met the German foreign minister, whois involved in the EU talks with Iran.
"Usually we consult with different countries, but there haven'tbeen any specific proposals."
Does Iran have a proposal? "We have different ideas, yes. If weever sit around a table, we are ready to bring those out - forexample, a mechanism for giving guarantees. Or different ways toenhance non-proliferation. Or the idea of establishing a consortium[a regional consortium for production of nuclear fuel]. Ordifferent other frameworks which we have worked on and talkedabout. We think that these different ways would both createconfidence and also pave the way for future co-operation.
"There is only one way in which there is no successful end, andthat's where one of the two sides has no political will forthis."
Marian Houk is a freelance journalist in Geneva. She coveredthe Iran-Iraq war while based at the UN headquarters in NewYork