The recent Security Council resolution of 1737 on Iran’s peaceful nuclear program is reminding the Iranian people of the historic injustices this Security Council has done to them in the past. The irony of history is being repeated. It is reminiscent of the attempt made in this Council to punish the Iranian nation for nationalizing their oil industry, claimed to present a threat to peace. It is also a reminder of the Council´s indifference in the face of a military coup, organized by two permanent members, which restored the dictatorship and destroyed the newly emerged Iranian democracy in the 1950s. It refreshes the memory of the time when the Council did not consider the massive invasion of Iran by Saddam Hussein army as a threat to international peace and security, and refused to even call on the invading army to withdraw from Iranian territory. It brings back the horrors of the long years when this very Council turned a blind eye to the extensive and brutal use of chemical weapons against Iranian civilians and soldiers, and by so doing, shouldered responsibility for tens of thousands of Iranians who continue to suffer and perish as a result of chemical weapons whose components came from Western European countries permanently seated in this Council.

Bringing Iran´s peaceful nuclear program to the Council by few of its permanent members is not aimed at, nor will it help, seeking a solution or encouraging negotiations. The United States and EU3 never even took the trouble of studying various Iranian proposals raised by Secretary of Iranian National Security Council in its negotiations with EU Foreign Policy Commissioner in several round of talks.  The reason is crystal clear. They were – from the very beginning – bent on abusing this Council and the threat of referral and sanctions as an instrument of pressure to compel Iran to abandon the exercise of its NPT guaranteed right to peaceful nuclear technology. However, suspension of our research and development in gaining nuclear energy is at best a temporary measure to allow time to find a real solution. Such a suspension was in place for two years and contrary to the excuse that the proponents of the resolution have presented here and there, the IAEA repeatedly verified that Iran fully suspended what it had agreed to suspend in each and every report from November 2003 to February 2006.  So, we had a suspension for two years and on and off negotiations for three years. Now the question is: What has been done during these 3 years to find a solution?

- Have the EU3 or the United States presented any proposal on what measures – short of outright revision of the NPT – would remove their so-called proliferation concerns?

-  Having failed to do so, did they ever consider the far reaching proposals that were offered by Iran on March 23, 2005, which the EU3 negotiators initially considered to contain “positive elements”?

- Did they ever propose how those positive elements could be enhanced or how the points of divergence could be bridged? Or did they, after consultations with a certain absent party, simply say “it is not good enough. Continue to suspend.”

- Did the US and its European allies seriously consider our detailed reply of 22 August 2006, which -- unlike their practice -- provided a point by point reply to their June 6th Package and made genuine proposals to address its shortcomings? 

- Did they discuss the offer of international consortium which was presented by Iran in the course of the September and October 2006 negotiations in Vienna and Berlin and was initially considered very promising, leading to public statements of progress after the meetings?

The answer is clear. What the United States and apparently the EU3 – in spite of what they told us during negotiations -- wanted, and the only outcome that they were and are ready to accept from these so-called negotiations, was -- and still is -- that Iran should “make a binding commitment not to pursue fuel cycle activities.” The unlawful demand we did not accept because of our inalienable rights under NPT which nowadays facing a bleak future. It’s not the first time the rights of a sovereign country is denied by exerting force, but in this case, it will establish a precedence to purge the very basic rights of all countries in their endeavor to use modern technology for utilizing clean sources of energy.

End.
Last Updated: 17 January 2007