UNSC/IRAN: RESOLUTION 1747 UPS THE SANCTIONS; FM

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000251 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL UNSC KNNP IR SUBJECT: UNSC/IRAN: RESOLUTION 1747 UPS THE SANCTIONS; FM MOTTAKI CALLS COUNCIL ACTION "UNLAWFUL" REF: STATE 37801 ¶1. Summary. On March 24, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a second Chapter VII Security Council Resolution imposing sanctions on Iran for its failure to comply with its obligation to suspend its enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water activities and cooperate fully with the IAEA. Iranian FM Mottaki responded to the Council's action with a 45-minute diatribe that blamed the Council, and in particular its permanent members, for decades of anti-Iranian actions. Mottaki said suspension "was not an option". End Summary. ¶2. The Security Council voted unanimously on Saturday, March 24 to adopt resolution 1747 and impose additional sanctions on the Government of Iran for its failure to comply with previous Security Council resolutions, including resolutions 1696 and 1737, and the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors. In addition to imposing travel notification and financial controls on an additional fifteen individuals and thirteen entities linked to Iran's military, nuclear or missile activities, resolution 1747 imposes a mandatory ban on the export or transfer of any arms or related materiel from Iran. The resolution maintains the structure of resolution 1737, including a mandatory requirement for Iran to suspend enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and work on heavy-water related projects. It calls for a report from the IAEA Director General within sixty days on whether Iran has suspended its proliferation-sensitive activities, and makes clear the Council's intent to adopt additional measures at that time should Iran remain in non-compliance. The full text of the resolution has been transmitted reftel. Video coverage of the Council meeting can be found via the UN website (http://www.un.org/webcast). The four skeptics speak first... ... but end up in the yes column -------------- ¶3. Indonesia, Qatar, Congo and South Africa spoke prior to the vote. Each of these four delegations had expressed concern about the draft resolution during the negotiations, and Indonesia, Qatar and South Africa had proposed amendments. Each of the four statements sounded similar themes, noting the need for implementation of "all aspects" of the NPT, including the disarmament provisions in Article VI, and calling for a negotiated solution to the issue. Qatar, which had sought language in the resolution calling for the establishment of a "zone free of weapons of mass destruction" in the Middle East, said the Council should use the "same approach" to address non-proliferation issues with "all countries that do not comply with their obligations under the NPT, as well as towards those that do not respect it in the first place." Qatar's Al-Nasser added, "We do not doubt Iran's genuine intentions as regards the peaceful purposes of its nuclear program." Of the four who spoke prior to the resolution, only Congo explicitly called on Iran to suspend its enrichment programs as called for by the Council. P-5 and others call on Iran to comply -------------- ¶4. Following the unanimous adoption of resolution 1747, UK PR Jones Parry read the ministerial statement issued by the P-5 and Germany, which reaffirmed that the proposal made by the six governments to Iran in June 2006 remains on the table as the basis for a negotiated solution. The UK and France, in their national statements, each emphasized the need for Iran to make the choice to return to the path of negotiations via suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing activities. Both noted that the measures imposed by the Council were incremental, proportionate and reversible, should Iran comply. ¶5. On behalf of the U.S., Ambassador Wolff said that the Council was forced to take further measures against Iran given the failure of the Iranian leadership to take the steps necessary to overcome "more than twenty years of deception" of the IAEA and the international community. The Council, he said, would continue to act in a "careful and deliberate manner" but needed to address Iran's failure to comply with the demands of Council resolutions. The measures were aimed at "Iranian institutions and officials that support Iran's nuclear and missile programs" and "encourage the leadership of Iran to choose a different path." Wolff rejected Iranian claims that the Council sought to deny Iran access to peaceful nuclear energy, noting that the six governments had offered Iran help with civilian nuclear power in exchange for the suspension of its proliferation-sensitive activities. He said the international community should be "deeply troubled" by Iran's rejection of this offer. ¶6. Russian PR Churkin said the Council's action had "sent an unequivocal message to Tehran" on the need for full cooperation with the Council and the IAEA. "It is clear that the way the situation develops in the future will depend largely on Iran's actions." Churkin emphasized that the adoption of the resolution under Article 41 of the UN Charter, "precludes the possibility of the use of force" to resolve the situation. ¶7. China, said PR Wang, is "disappointed that the Iranian side has failed to respond positively to the requests of the of the IAEA and the Security Council." A solution to the issue "requires all-around diplomatic efforts, especially diplomatic efforts outside the Security Council." Wang added all parties needed to "show full flexibility" to find a negotiated solution. "The time-out proposal by IAEA DG El Baradei and the establishment of a mechanism for talks that include Iran also deserve our consideration." ¶8. Panama, Slovakia, Belgium and Ghana also spoke. Panamanian PR Arias called for the resumption of negotiations "by all parties" to resolve the conflict over Iran's nuclear program. Slovak DPR Matulay called on Iran to provide "maximum cooperation and transparency" and noted Slovakia's support for targeted sanctions measures given "Iran's continued failure to comply." Belgium PR Verbeke said that his country "deplores the lack of cooperation and transparency" by Iran. Ghana, said PR Effah-Apenteng, voted for the resolution "because we believe in the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," but called on the Council to "pay attention to the issue of selectivity" in attempting to check the spread of WMD. Iran tries to change the subject... ... and remains defiant -------------- ¶9. Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki had arrived at the UN prior to the beginning of the Council session. However, he and other members of the Iranian delegation did not enter the Council until it was time for Iran to speak. (A lower-level official had occupied the Iranian seat at the table during the vote and the Council members' statements, presumably to avoid being at the table when fifteen hands went up in support of the resolution.) Mottaki delivered a forty-five minute statement that declared the Council's resolutions on Iran "unlawful, unnecessary and unjustifiable." The Security Council, he said, "cannot pressure countries into submitting either to its decisions taken in bad faith or to its demands negating the fundamental purposes and principles of the UN Charter." With regard to the Council's demand that Iran suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities, Mottaki said, "Suspension is neither an option nor a solution." ¶10. The core of Mottaki's statement was an attack on the Security Council and, in particular, its Permanent Members. Mottaki claimed that the Council sided against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. If Iran had complied with the Council resolutions then, Mottaki argued, "We would still be begging the Council's then-sweetheart, President Saddam Hussein, to return our territory." He claimed that Iraq's war against Iran "was designed by certain permanent members and implemented through an endless supply of weapons and petrodollars, missiles, Mirage and Super Etandard aircraft, intelligence support and promises from the former United States Secretary of Defense." Referring to the July 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Mottaki claimed that "for more than a month, two members of this Council, with full and prior knowledge of the Zionist regime's intention to commit aggression against Lebanon, prevented any decision in this Council ... to put an end to that regime's atrocities." ¶11. In defense of Iran's nuclear program, Mottaki focused on language in the recent IAEA report that said that the IAEA "is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran." He did not address the many other aspects of the report that criticized Iran's cooperation with the IAEA or the IAEA's inability to provide assurances about the peaceful nature of Iran's program. (The full text of Mottaki's statement, along with the rest of the Council's deliberations, is available via the UN document system (document S/PV.5647).) WOLFF