1.

Breaking News

International

U.S. HAILS IAEA DECISION ON IRAN REFERRAL
By George Jahn

Associated Press
September 24, 2005

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5300275,00.html

VIENNA -- The U.N. atomic watchdog agency Saturday put Iran just one step away from referral to the Security Council unless Tehran eases suspicions about its nuclear activities in coming months -- a move the United States has been pushing for years.

The chief U.S. delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency hailed the decision, describing it as a wake-up call for Tehran "to come clean" or face the consequences.

But his Iranian counterpart blasted the approval of the resolution and warned of retaliation. Tehran maintains its nuclear program is for generating electricity.

The decision by the 35-nation board represented a victory for Washington, which asserts Iran has nuclear weapons ambitions. For more than two years, it has failed to enlist board support to haul Iran before the council for allegedly violating commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

"The international community is . . . not satisfied with the level of confidence-building measures Iran has so far taken," IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said.

Saturday's decision was far from unanimous, though. Only 22 of the 35 board nations voted for the U.S.-backed European Union motion.

Twelve nations abstained, including Russia and China, which are veto-wielding members of the Security Council, diplomats said. The others were developing nations.

Those supporting the resolution included the United States, European countries, Canada, Australia, and Japan. They were joined by India, Peru, Singapore, and Ecuador, reflecting some support in the developing nations' camp.

Javier Solana, the chief EU foreign policy official, welcomed the board's "broad support" and said it left the door open to negotiations with Tehran.

Venezuela cast the only vote against. On Friday, Foreign Integration Minister Gustavo Marquez told the state-run Bolivarian News Agency that powerful countries with nuclear energy programs were unfairly keeping others from developing their own.

The resolution called on the board to consider reporting Iran at a future meeting. As grounds, it mentioned noncompliance with the nuclear arms control treaty and suspicions that Iran's nuclear activities could threaten international peace and security.

Diplomats from countries backing the resolution said it set Iran up for referral as early as November, when the board next meets in regular session, unless it dispels international concerns.

Outlining what Iran must do to avoid such action, the draft called on it to give IAEA experts access to nuclear-related documents and sites, suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and ratify an inspection agreement with the IAEA.

Iran last month resumed uranium conversion -- a precursor of uranium enrichment, which can make material for either nuclear fuel or the fissile core of warheads.

The chief U.S. representative to the meeting, Gregory Schulte, said the approval reflected board concern over Iran's "long history of concealment and deception."

In opting for referral, the board is "concerned that Iran's activities pose an increasing threat to international peace and security," Schulte said. "The IAEA has called on Iran to . . . come clean."

But Iran's delegation head, Javad Vaeidi, said the vote was evidence "there is no consensus on the way forward." He also warned, "Threat invokes threat."

Tehran already warned Friday that if the resolution was approved, it could respond by starting uranium enrichment -- a possible path to nuclear arms -- and by reducing IAEA powers to inspect its activities under the additional agreement it signed but had not yet ratified.

Both threats were contained in unsigned letters and shown by a member of the Iranian delegation to ElBaradei, diplomats accredited to the agency said on condition of anonymity because their information was confidential.

The Security Council could impose sanctions if it determines that Iran violated the treaty, but the draft did not mention sanctions in recognition of Russian and Chinese opposition.

A nation's failure to comply with the nonproliferation treaty is automatic grounds for a report to the Security Council under IAEA statutes, and the draft said "Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations . . . constitute noncompliance."

Additionally, Iran's spotty record on cooperating with an IAEA investigation that began in 2002 has led to an "absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes," the document said.

That finding puts Iran "within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security," the text said.

The Europeans for years avoided U.S. demands for support in its push to haul Iran before the Security Council. They reluctantly swung behind Washington last month after Tehran effectively walked away from talks with Britain, France, and Germany meant to reduce suspicions about its nuclear aims and began uranium conversion.

---

Associated Press reporter Andrea Dudikova contributed to this report.

2.

IRAN REMANDED TO SECURITY COUNCIL OVER NUCLEAR POLICY
By Mark Landler

New York Times
September 25, 2005 (posted Sept. 24)

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5633201.html

VIENNA, AUSTRIA -- Iran's showdown with the West over its nuclear ambitions entered a new, more volatile phase on Saturday, as the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voted to refer it to the U.N. Security Council for violating its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The vote was 22-1, with 12 countries abstaining, including Russia and China. The resolution's approval was widely expected, but only a frenzied round of last-minute diplomacy at the agency's headquarters in Vienna persuaded the Russian and Chinese representatives to abstain rather than vote against the measure.

The vote reflected unusual decisiveness within the IAEA's 35-member board. India, which had earlier expressed doubts about the measure, voted in favor, while Venezuela cast the sole no vote.

The United States -- which backed the resolution drafted by Britain, France, and Germany -- expressed satisfaction, saying that it clearly raises doubts about the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program.

"We're concerned that Iran's activities pose an increasing threat to international peace and security," said the U.S. ambassador to the agency, Greg Schulte. "Our goal is a peaceful diplomatic settlement that benefits the Iranian people and gives us confidence in the nature of Iran's nuclear program."

Iran condemned the vote, claiming it was part of a politically motivated campaign orchestrated by the United States and Britain.

"The United States and United Kingdom left no screws unturned to forge consensus here," said the head of the Iranian delegation, Javad Vaeidi. "They failed. There is no consensus on the way to go forward."

Vaeidi did not say whether Iran would resume its enrichment of uranium, a threat it had raised to agency board members on Friday night. But he said, "For us, goodwill begets goodwill, while threat invokes threat."

Russia and China had opposed the resolution on the ground that it would only worsen the standoff. The two countries, which have permanent seats on the Security Council, have close economic ties to Iran.

The resolution did not specify what action the Security Council should take. Western diplomats said their goal was not to apply sanctions but to step up the pressure on Iran to abide by the nonproliferation treaty.

Europe's push for a resolution came after its own diplomatic initiative with Tehran collapsed last month, when Iran reneged on an earlier pledge to suspend the conversion and enrichment of uranium.

CONFRONTATION

The vote was the culmination of two and a half years of confrontation between Iran and the IAEA, which began in 2003 after the agency's inspectors uncovered evidence that Iran had concealed efforts to enrich uranium, a crucial building block for nuclear weapons.

While Iran has allowed numerous visits by agency inspectors, it has severely limited access to certain facilities, including one at Parchin. It has also razed a plant in Tehran where the inspectors believe experiments were conducted with nuclear material.

Western diplomats downplayed the 12 abstentions, noting that some nonaligned countries voted in favor of the resolution.

"The fact that Peru, Singapore, Ghana, India, and Ecuador voted to support this resolution undercuts Iran's argument that this is purely Western political pressure," said a Western diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

3.

BRITAIN DRAWS U.N. INTO IRAN NUCLEAR ROW
By Peter Conradi

Times (London)
September 25, 2005

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1796394,00.html

A stand-off over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions took a dramatic turn last night when Britain persuaded the world’s atomic energy watchdog to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council.

British diplomats, backed by America and the European Union, convinced the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to take the initiative amid growing international concern over what is feared to be the Islamic state’s covert weapons program.

A British resolution, passed by the IAEA’s board at a meeting in Vienna, said there was an “absence of confidence” that Iran’s atomic program was exclusively peaceful, which gave rise to questions “within the competence of the security council.”

However, the resolution did not say when Iran would be referred to the UN -- watering down an earlier draft that had called for the issue to be taken up immediately. Diplomats said that this would probably give Iran at least until the IAEA board meets again in November to climb down.

America, which has long suspected Iran of trying to develop nuclear arms, said a clear signal had to be sent to Tehran. “The IAEA has called on Iran to come clean,” said Gregory Schulte, the chief American representative to the meeting.

Iran, which has denied it wants to build a bomb, immediately threatened retaliation. “Threat invokes threat,” said Javad Vaeidi, head of the Iranian delegation, without giving more details.

Before the vote, Iran indicated it might react to any attempts to impose sanctions on it by resuming enrichment of uranium at a mothballed facility in Natanz -- a possible step towards the making of nuclear arms. It said it would also stop IAEA inspectors working in the country.

The threats were contained in unsigned letters shown by a member of the Iranian delegation to Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA.

The resolution was backed by 22 of the 35 members of the IAEA’s governing board, with 12 abstentions and one vote against.

In an important victory for western efforts to ratchet up the pressure on Tehran, both China and Russia, which had strongly opposed the EU’s proposed resolution, eventually abstained. Venezuela was the only country to vote against it.

Britain, France, and Germany -- the so-called EU3 -- have tried for two years to persuade Iran that it must abandon its program to enrich uranium fuel if it is convince the world that it is not trying to build an “Islamic bomb.”

Iran responded last year by voluntarily suspending work at its uranium conversion facility at Isfahan and its enrichment plant at Natanz. But last month it rejected an EU offer to be supplied with nuclear fuel from abroad and unilaterally restarted conversion work at Isfahan. This prompted the EU3 to join Washington, which had been long been calling for the case to be sent to the security council.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the new hardline president, giving his maiden speech before the U.N. general assembly last weekend, accused the West of “nuclear apartheid” and declared his intention to build a civilian nuclear industry.

Iran struck an equally belligerent tone at military parades on Friday marking its 1980-88 war with Iraq. Ahmadinejad warned any enemy would find “the flame of the Iranian nation will be very destructive and fiery.”

The U.N. could impose sanctions if it determines Iran violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty but the draft made no mention of what measures might be taken -- apparently in recognition of Russian and Chinese opposition. As members of the security council, both countries wield vetoes.

4.

NO-CHOICE DELHI VOTES WITH U.S.
By K.P. Nayar

Telegraph (Calcutta)
September 24, 2005

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050925/asp/frontpage/story_5282278.asp

WASHINGTON -- Caught between the devil and deep sea, India today decided to make the best of a bad situation in Vienna by voting with the European Union and the U.S. on a resolution by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) requiring Iran to be reported to the U.N. Security Council at an unspecified date to be in doubt about the peaceful nature of its nuclear program.

For South Block, whose Iran operations had virtually moved to New York in the last 10 days, it was one of the most difficult decisions in Indian foreign policy since an equally controversial decision about a decade ago to establish diplomatic relations with Israel.

India’s decision on the Iran crisis went through a roller-coaster of ups and downs in the last few days.

At the New York Palace hotel in the Big Apple, foreign secretary Shyam Saran had set up a virtual operations room since prime minister Manmohan Singh returned home on September 16 to work out a decision on the IAEA vote.

There he was joined yesterday by South Block’s pointman for the U.S., S. Jaishankar. External affairs minister Natwar Singh has also been in New York.

From his temporary operations headquarters in the New York Palace hotel, Saran remained in constant touch with Sheel Kant Sharma, India’s permanent representative to the U.N. in Vienna, including the IAEA.

How crucial was India’s vote today at the IAEA is obvious from the response of the U.S. delegation to its outcome.

As soon as the vote was over, Matt Boland, spokesman for the U.S. delegation to the IAEA, came out and told reporters that the fact India backed the resolution showed New Delhi shared the “concern with Iran’s established pattern of deception.”

What Boland did not say was that before India voted with the EU and the U.S., it had engaged in intense negotiations with France, Germany, Britain, and the U.S. to ensure that they did not ride roughshod over Iranian interests.

At India’s behest, the Europeans amended their resolution, which initially called for an immediate reference of the Iranian crisis to the U.N. Security Council.

They also agreed, at India’s request, to give more time within the IAEA for negotiations.

Once these were done, South Block took the view that it would be churlish to vote against a resolution, where Indian concerns have been accommodated.

It also became clear to India as the vote was approaching that only Venezuela would vote against the resolution.

The alternative for India was to abstain, but it was felt that after all the efforts to secure a compromise resolution, it was pragmatic to vote for it rather than to abstain.

5.

IRAN'S NUCLEAR DISPUTE SPARKS EAST-WEST RIVALRY
By Thalif Deen

Inter Press Service
September 25, 2005

http://www.asiantribune.com/show_news.php?id=15715

At the height of the Cold War in the 1950s and 1960s, the United States and the former Soviet Union jealously safeguarded their own global political and military interests by vetoing each other's resolutions in the most powerful body at the United Nations: the Security Council.

"We will soon see the same cat-and-mouse game," predicts one Asian diplomat, "only the players, and the power alignments, may be different."

The issue that has triggered a new political battle is Iran's attempt at developing what it calls "peaceful nuclear energy" -- not nuclear weapons, as the Western world contends.

But the United States and the 25-member European Union (EU) are refusing to buy the Iranian argument. Collectively, they are threatening to punish Iran -- on charges that it may be on the verge of developing nuclear weapons -- by referring the matter to the Security Council, and possibly calling for military and economic sanctions against Tehran.

However, their attempts are being thwarted by two veto-wielding permanent members of the Council, namely China and Russia, who are opposed to any immediate action against Iran.

The two key players in the new game are the EU, on the side of the United States, and China on the side of Russia. India, another nuclear power, is backing Iran despite pressure from the United States.

"This dispute has given definition to a new East vs. West rivalry, with the Eastern nuclear powers Russia, China, and India forming a bloc against the interests of the Western nuclear powers," Michael Spies, program associate at the New York-based Lawyer's Committee on Nuclear Policy, told IPS.

Both the United States and the EU are trying to persuade the 35-member International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna to adopt a consensus resolution singling out Iran for censure by the Security Council in New York.

But with at least 10 countries opposed to such a move, the IAEA is in danger of splitting. A consensus resolution is unlikely to be a reality.

"Russia and China in particular have remained steadfast in their opposition to Iran's referral to the Security Council by the IAEA Board," Spies said. He pointed out that even India, also an IAEA Board member, has come out in opposition to a Security Council referral.

"Russia has specifically stated that this matter is still at the stage where it is most appropriately addressed by the IAEA and through negotiations. Russia and China have also indicated they would likely veto any action taken by the Security Council," Spies said.

The speculation at the United Nations is that all three countries, namely Russia, China, and India, have been pushing forward with their own current or planned economic and military projects with Iran -- despite warnings from the United States that they halt nuclear cooperation with the government in Tehran.

Iran has also been seeking to expand military and security cooperation with all three states, prompting them to protect their own national interests.

Spies predicted that a Security Council referral would certainly harden Iran's position. "In the event of referral, Iran has threatened to resume uranium enrichment, which is still suspended, and to cease cooperation under the Additional Protocol, which it has to ratify," he said.

He said that the involvement of the Security Council would mean the end of the diplomatic path, which requires all sides to make concessions on their current position in order to reach a mutually acceptable outcome.

Iran's concessions to date have included both the suspension of certain activities and an intrusive inspection regimen, above and beyond the requirements of the Additional Protocol. All this would certainly come to an end if the IAEA Board votes to refer, Spies warned.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was quoted as saying: "I am quite certain that at some point in time Iran is going to be referred to the Security Council, particularly if Iran continues to demonstrate that it is not prepared to give the international community assurances that is not going to try to build nuclear weapons under cover of civil power."

She also said that Iran's referral for possible sanctions is "nearly certain," but only the timing is not.

Addressing the U.N. General Assembly last week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took a defiant stand, stressing his country's "inalienable right" to develop nuclear energy.

He also accused the United States and its allies of nuclear "apartheid" for their double standards in ignoring the development of nuclear weapons by Israel. He said that a proposal for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East is being thwarted by Israel.

Both the United States and the EU have expressed disappointment over the hard line taken by the Iranian president. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said the speech was "anything but helpful". Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary of Britain, the current EU chair, also described the statement as "unhelpful."

Spies of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy said that while it seems plausible that Iran is striving for the capability to produce fissile materials, there is no evidence one way or the other that its current programme goes beyond the role of supporting its civilian reactor program, which has been under construction since the 1970s.

"Security Council referral and a more aggressive international posture would certainly be perceived in Iran as a threat to its security, likely providing impetus to those elements in Iranian society which call for it to develop a nuclear weapon as the ultimate guarantor of its security," he argued.

In the broader geopolitical context, he said, the current Iranian regime very quickly decided that political and economic integration with the West is not essential for its development.

"Hence in all spheres of its policy, Iran is looking to develop either complete self-sufficiency or is looking to bolster its transnational relations within its own region and with the major powers in Asia," Spies said.

Backing from the larger states in particular has certainly emboldened Iran's posture in regards to this issue. Also, it should be noted that all the active players on both sides of this debate, with the exception of Germany, are nuclear powers, he added.

--Thalif Deen is U.N. Bureau Chief & Regional Director of the Inter Press Service News Agency.