PRESS CONFERENCE BY IRAN

 

Iran was “allergic to pressure and threats and intimidation”, its Permanent Representative to the United Nations told correspondents today at a Headquarters press conference, just one hour after the Security Council, in a presidential statement, called on Iran to take the steps required by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme, and on the Agency to report back to the Council, in 30 days, on Iranian compliance.

Pressure and threats did not work on Iran, Ambassador Javad Zarif said.  Iran had been ready for a negotiated solution.  The concerns of the international community -- if they really were the concerns of the international community and not only of some in the West -- could have been allayed through the many proposals Iran had placed on the table since last March.  Those would have been valid, provided there was a readiness to engage in serious negotiations with Iran, without threats or intimidation, he said.

Among those proposals, Iran had been prepared to introduce legislation to permanently ban the use, production and development of nuclear weapons; work with other countries on export control; declare and commit itself to an open fuel cycle to remove concerns about plutonium reprocessing and production; accept a ceiling on enrichment to reactor grade; and immediately convert all enriched uranium into fuel rods, to preclude the possibility of further enrichment.  And, most recently, Iran had been prepared to accept interim measures.  Those were not suggestions that would be made by a country with ulterior motives.

If those suggestions had been taken seriously, the situation would not have been brought to the Security Council today, he asserted.  Unfortunately, the United States, from the very beginning, from the day negotiating began with the “European Union-3” [ United Kingdom, France and Germany], had wanted the talks to fail.  The tactics changed in the middle of the road, but the purpose, all along, had been to bring the case to the Security Council.  Iran would want to cooperate with the international community, but it did not accept pressure or intimidation -- it did not respond well to that.

He said he had asked that he be permitted to speak before the Security Council this afternoon, as it adopted the presidential statement (document S/PRST/2006/15).  Unfortunately, because of what was termed procedural considerations, the Council refused to allow him to speak.  Given the lateness of the hour, he would refrain from reading the statement he would have made to the Council, but he would go over a few of the facts he had wanted to bring to the Council’s attention and take some questions.

He said he had wanted to remind the Security Council of the way it had treated Iran about 55 years ago, and tell its members that the story had remained unchanged today -– it was still about a developing country attempting to exercise its inalienable rights.  Today, it was a right recognized in the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), a right upon which the foundation of the Treaty was based, a right that was not simply a legalistic argument, but kept the non-proliferation regime in existence.  International regimes could not be sustained by threats; rather they were sustained when the incentives of being a party outweighed the disincentives or obligations.

It was absolutely imperative for the continuation and relevance of international instruments that, being a member, carried benefits, in addition to obligations, and that a non-member was not entitled to benefits without obligations, he stressed.  Today, attempts by certain permanent members were moving the non-proliferation regime in that direction, and that was “an extremely dangerous proposition”.

He said he had also wanted to remind the Security Council of its own record with regard to aggression and the use of chemical weapons.  A permanent member, now making a lot of noise about weapons of mass destruction, at one time had stated clearly that it did not matter how people were killed, whether by bullets or gas.

He said he also wanted to tell the Security Council what was involved in the Iranian nuclear case.  First of all, Iran’s commitment to the non-proliferation regime, to non-proliferation, was categorical.  Iran had always made it a very clear proposition that it was committed to its obligations, not only because they were obligations under the NPT, but because they were based in Iran’s historical and religious edicts.  It had made it very clear that, at the highest level of Government, Iran did not want nuclear weapons, nor did it want to pursue the development, stockpiling or acquisition of those inhuman weapons.

He said he had taken the case of the inadmissibility of the use of nuclear weapons to the International Court of Justice, where, unfortunately, some members, now making a lot of noise about those weapons, had argued that their use was legal under certain circumstances.  For 250 years, Iran had not invaded any country, but it had been a victim of the use of chemical weapons.  Iran had never used chemical weapons, even in retaliation.  Also, for strategic reasons, the acquisition of nuclear weapons was dangerous to Iran’s security, and that was why it made its commitment very clear.  Iran was interested in Iran’s rights, and those rights were set forth in the NPT, and could not be “arbitrarily played with”.

Iran’s development of even a power plant had been obstructed by the United States, which, until 2003, was doing its best to prevent the Russian Federation from providing Iran with a power plant, notwithstanding the United States statements today that it was not against Iran having nuclear power and technology for peaceful purposes, he continued.  The United States had tried to present this as a case of concealment, or even a case of non-compliance.  But, the facts were very clear -– Iran’s behaviour under the NPT had been presented by the IAEA’s Director General time and again, and each time, he had clearly stated the conclusion, to the chagrin of some, that there had been, in Iran’s undeclared activities, no evidence of any military activity.

He said that one sentence used in the presidential statement was that the IAEA was unable to conclude that there was no undeclared material or activities in Iran.  But, it failed to include the next sentence, where the Director General says that this - even for countries that have the additional protocol in place -- is a time-consuming process, and nobody could expect that, in three years, any country could receive a clean bill of health.

Were there any new revelations that had brought the matter to the Security Council, or was it that Iran had not accepted the unreasonable demands of the “EU-3” in their package of last August? he asked.  Iran had presented proposal after proposal, which would have provided objective guarantees that Iran’s nuclear programme would have remained exclusively peaceful, but those were not even considered.  Then, the “EU-3” presented its package and asked Iran to make a legally binding commitment that it would not produce nuclear fuel.  Now, they say they need the Security Council to bring Iran to the negotiating table.

How many proposals had been made that were rejected by Washington? he asked.  If the Security Council wanted to bring the negotiations back into the picture, then perhaps the pressure should have been placed on someone other than Iran, he said.

Asked if Iran would still allow the IAEA inspectors to come into the country and verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme, the Ambassador said that had never been a problem.  Iran had gone beyond even the IAEA’s additional protocol and allowed the Agency to visit military sites, in order to investigate the “baseless allegations”. 

He said that, time and again, allegations, once investigated, had been shown to be false.  A claim had been made that Iran had 18 years of concealment, but, in more than three years of investigations, not a single indication of diversion to a military programme had been found.  Perhaps the only result acceptable to certain countries was a finding that Iran was producing something illicit.

Would Iran continue its enrichment process, and how did it look on the United States recent deal with India? another correspondent asked.

He said his country’s rights were not for sale or open to be compromised.  It insisted on its right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.  As for the other question, for several years the United States had had a nuclear cooperation agreement with Israel, which was a possessor of nuclear weapons; its scientists had access to [ United States] nuclear scientists and know-how.  The new case was just a continuation of a trend, which punished NPT members and rewarded non-members.

Asked what Iran would do in the coming 30 days, he said his Government would study the statement and make its positions known.  Iran did not respond well to threats or deadlines.  It had always been prepared to reach a negotiated agreement.  Iran was committed to its rights, and also committed to resolving the issues peacefully.

He said, in response to another question, he hoped reason would prevail and the serious consequences of “adventurism” for the region and the future of the non-proliferation regime would be “seriously considered”.  The United States had drawn red lines in the past.  Two years ago, the reactor at Bushehrwas the red line.  Today it was something else.  Tomorrow it would be still something else.  Iran would continue to abide by its commitment, its legal obligations and strategic interest.

Asked if he was disappointed that China and the Russian Federation had agreed to the Security Council text, he said they did their very best, and he was thankful for their efforts, as well as those exerted by the non-aligned movement ( NAM).

Asked if he thought Iran could do “anything right in the eyes of the Permanent-5, and mainly the US”, he said it was up to the United States to decide whether it wanted serious assurances that Iran’s nuclear programme was exclusively for peaceful purposes, or whether it wanted to use that programme as an instrument of threat.  If the Security Council wanted to deal with an issue on its agenda, it should deal with the daily threats by the United States and Israel to use force in violation of article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter, instead of providing pseudo-foundations for those threats.

He said he was not drawing any parallels between the United States handling of Iraq and Iran, in response to a further question.

In terms of the “on again-off again” nature of the Russian proposal, he replied that Iran had always said it was prepared to address and consider any serious proposal.  Others did not want to see serious middle-ground solutions that would ensure two fundamental concepts –- Iran’s rights and allaying any concerns about non-proliferation.  If there was a readiness to deal seriously with them, there were many proposals of interest, including the Russian proposal. 

Was Iran at a “breaking point” with the NPT? another correspondent asked.

The Ambassador said that, as his Government had clearly stated, Iran was committed to non-proliferation and it did not want to produce nuclear weapons.  That position of principle on nuclear weapons had not changed and it would not change.  The issue was not about being a member of the NPT or not.  The yardstick was the relationship with certain countries.  The yardstick was a “sorry statement” about the state of international law and international treaties.

Iran had never threatened, nor did it intend to threaten, any United Nations member, he replied to a question about his intent towards Israel.  It had not waged war against any country in 250 years.  It had complied with its obligations under various international instruments.  It did not posses nuclear weapons, nor did it intend to possess them –- none of those statements could be made about Israel, however.  So, the question should be asked of somebody else.

As to why Iran was being “targeted” in that way, he said the single most active instigator was Israel, which was not a member of the NPT, was a known possessor of nuclear weapons and had a history of aggression with its neighbours.  That facade, that charade against Iran -- that was the underlying problem here.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record