FOREIGN MINISTER OF IRAN DEFENDS COUNTRY’S INALIENABLE RIGHT TO NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES

FOREIGN MINISTER OF IRAN DEFENDS COUNTRY’S INALIENABLE RIGHT

TO NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 29 January (UN Information Service) -- The Foreign Minister of Iran, Kamal Kharrazi, today told the Conference on Disarmament that his country was a committed member of all major international instruments dealing with all classes of weapons of mass destruction and a fervent advocate of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation for decades.

Mr. Kharrazi said the protracted pattern of failure to facilitate Iran’s access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, coupled with an illegal active campaign to deprive Iran of its right, had compelled Iran to protect its inalienable right and its vital national interests.  However, Iran’s quest for nuclear technology and its peaceful application had never been unqualified.  The need for confidence-building, transparency and accountability was also dear to the country.  That was why it had reacted positively to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) requirements for full transparency and cooperation.

The Iranian Foreign Minister said that, on 18 December 2003, Iran had signed the Additional Protocol, while continuing to fully cooperate with the IAEA in accordance with its provisions in advance of its ratification.  Iran had also decided to voluntarily suspend all its uranium enrichment activities to allay expressed concerns regarding its nuclear objectives.  A robust verification mechanism was now in place to reassure the IAEA and the international community of the absolute peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear activities.

Addressing the stagnation facing the Conference on Disarmament, Mr. Kharrazi urged member States to double their efforts to devise a comprehensive and balanced programme of work.  He said the Five Ambassadors initiative, a valuable cross-regional venture, was considered as a remarkable step in the right direction that should be built upon.  He warned that the current standstill could not go on indefinitely, and that the Conference would die unless there was action today.

Also this morning, the Conference on Disarmament was addressed by France, Morocco, Colombia, Slovakia and Algeria.

The Conference approved the request of Iceland to participate in its work during the 2004 session as a non-memberState.

The next plenary meeting of the Conference will take place at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 5 February.

Statements

KAMAL KHARRAZI, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iran, said that since the early 1990s, three major developments had irrevocably changed the world.  These developments were the demise of the bipolar system, the intensification of the globalization process, and the events of 9/11.  The events of 9/11 had created new challenges in the international environment and had given way to further militarization of the international arena and fanned concerns over the very existence and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  The world should be concerned about the destruction of past achievements by the redominance of the military factor and the strengthening of unilateral approaches at the expense of multilateralism.  Militarization had a decisive role in the existence and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  They threatened international peace and security.  Today, the production and further development of weapons of mass destruction, together with the threat of their use, in parallel with the risk of non-State actors' access to them, was ever more alarming.

At this critical juncture, how should the Conference on Disarmament act for the most effective fulfilment of its duties, Mr. Kharrazi said.  Due to its seven years of stagnation, the Conference was now faced with a crisis.  Conference members should double their efforts to devise a comprehensive and balanced programme of work.  The programme of work should bridge the international community’s dire need for peace and security with the realities of the world.  Thus, the Five Ambassadors initiative, a valuable cross-regional venture, was considered as a remarkable step in the right direction that should be built upon.  Nuclear disarmament should necessarily be the focus of any attempt in the Conference.  This current standstill could not go on indefinitely.  It was already too late.  The Conference would die unless there was action today.

The Foreign Minister said that Iran, the last victim of weapons of mass destruction, was a committed member of all major international instruments dealing with all classes of weapons of mass destruction.  Iran was a fervent advocate of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation for decades.  It was on this same understanding that Iran, as a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), maintained that it had an inalienable right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.  However, the protracted pattern of failure to facilitate Iran’s access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, coupled with an illegal active campaign to deprive Iran of its right, had compelled Iran to protect its inalienable right and its vital national interests.  Iran’s experience had proved that undue sanctions, restrictions, impediments and obstacles to deny the rights of NPT member States ran counter to the process of transparency and cooperation required under the non-proliferation regime.  It was also wrong to consider them as effective tools to deprive member States from exercising their rights.  Had it not been for the severity of the impediments, Iran would have pursued all its entirely legal nuclear activities with fuller transparency and in collaboration with other fellow members as it had always sought.

Mr. Kharrazi said that Iran’s quest for nuclear technology and its peaceful application had never been unqualified.  The need for confidence-building, transparency and accountability had also been dear to the country.  That was why it had reacted positively to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) requirements for full transparency and cooperation.  On 18 December 2003, Iran had signed the Additional Protocol, while continuing to fully cooperate with the Agency in accordance with its provisions in advance of its ratification.  Iran had also decided to voluntarily suspend all its uranium enrichment activities to allay expressed concerns regarding its nuclear objectives.  A robust verification mechanism was now in place to reassure the IAEA and the international community of the absolute peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear activities.

FRANÇOIS RIVASSEAU (France) said that the present international situation called on the Conference to consider new issues and methods of work.  No one could reduce the situation to a crisis of the disarmament process.  New threats were appearing like terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, asymmetrical threats which were changing the strategic equations and which obliged the world to reconsider concepts and approaches.  The Conference should evaluate, case by case, pragmatically, if each item on its agenda remained of use to the international community.  France, as ardent defender of multilateralism within the Conference, remained attached to the principle of legally binding universal treaties.  The recent conclusion of the Fifth Protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons in November was testimony that the traditional approach had merits.  At the same time, new forms of actions in the field of disarmament should not be ignored.  The recent crises should prompt a renewed interest in dealing multilaterally with questions of disarmament and non-proliferation.

France considered that the adoption of an agenda in a new context would increase the chances of the Conference on Disarmament to succeed.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco) said that, although the Conference had adopted its agenda for its 2004 session, a question could be posed concerning the next step.  Was the Conference adopting a political measure to come out of the stalemate as suggested by the United Nations Secretary-General in his opening message, or would it remain unproductive and indulge in repetitive debate as had been the situation in the past few years?  The results of the last seven years of the work of the Conference did not encourage optimism.  Morocco, on its part, would not resign itself to this fate.  At the start of the new century when international peace and security were at risk, the Conference was called upon to harmonize all the legitimate aspirations of the international community, as well as its individual members.  More than ever, the Conference, which was a unique body for multilateral negotiations in disarmament issues, was challenged to discharge its mandate.

To the risk of traditional military confrontation, new and complex threats were added: the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the double standard of their perception, international trafficking of fissile materials, the spiral of the classical arms race and the problems related to armament control, among others.  The international community should not wait passively for a catalyst like a nuclear, chemical or biological 11 September.

CLEMENCIA FORERO (Colombia) said she was making the statement from the modest prospective of being a non-nuclear State that had disarmament as one of its foreign policy priorities.  That policy had been developed consistently into principles and fundamental objectives by the Latin American and Caribbean region, which had adopted a treaty on the issue.  The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction constituted a serious threat to the international security and against the well-being of people.  The international community should strengthen its commitment and its cooperation in that matter.

Colombia had actively participated in the negotiation and adoption of the conventions on chemical and biological weapons.  As a country whose civilian population had suffered from the devastating effect of anti-personnel landmines, it was committed to the Ottawa Convention.  In the Conference and other forums, Colombia had demonstrated its traditional position in making consensus.  For many years, it had also presented ideas and suggestions for the break of the Conference’s stalemate so that a programme of work could be adopted.  Colombia attributed great value to the efforts made to the programme of work.  Since the consensus on the Five Ambassadors proposals on the programme of work had been widened, it was hoped that it would soon be adopted by the Conference.

KALMAN PETOCZ (Slovakia) congratulated the efforts of the President of the Conference which had led to the adoption of the agenda of the Conference on 27 January.  He appreciated the spirit of compromise shown by the delegations of Member States, adding that the Eastern European Group, as many times before, had shown a flexible approach and had joined the emerging consensus.

Mr. Petocz said that he wished to make the position of the SlovakRepublic a more refined.  His delegation could have accepted a little bit more ambitious wording of the relevant part of the presidential statement attached to the agenda.  This was because the Conference on Disarmament could not, in the view of Slovakia, let the new security threats and new challenges pass by without addressing them properly, because then it could easily face the risk of being marginalized.  Nevertheless, Slovakia sincerely welcomed the adoption of the agenda and was ready to make a step forward towards adopting the programme of work.  The priority of Slovakia was negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, based on the once already approved mandate as a starting point.  At the same time, Slovakia favoured the adoption of a complete programme of work on the basis of the Five Ambassadors proposal.

In conclusion, Mr. Petocz said that, on 23 January, the Slovakia had completed the process of ratification of the amendment to article 1 of the Convention on the Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, and its national instrument of ratification was on the way to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

NASSIMA BAGHLI (Algeria) said that the Five Ambassadors proposal on the programme of work had received great support and further consultations would be held in the future.  Algeria was ready to receive any contribution on the proposal.

* *** *