|
|
 |
Sanctions Talks Look Up for Iran
// South African Ambassador Returns UN Sanctions Resolution for Revision
The discussion in the United Nations Security Council of a draft resolution on Iran has hit an unexpected snag: during unofficial consultations this week, the text approved by six major world powers (permanent Security Council members Britain, the US, France, Russia, and China, plus Germany) provoked a flurry of criticism from the Council's temporary members, including current chair South Africa. In essence, the amendments proposed by these members would undo any progress that has been made so far on determining an appropriate punishment for Tehran. Now the vote on the resolution has been pushed back at least until Saturday, if not later. Dmitry Gornostaev, a correspondent for RIA Novosti in New York, has the details exclusively for Kommersant.
Before this week, US Ambassador to the UN Alexander Wolff had expressed certainty that the resolution would have no problem getting past the full 15-member Security Council, since its basic proposals had been approved by all of the Council's permanent members without any serious objections.
However, the mood of the resolution's original authors (it was officially introduced by Britain and France) was spoiled by South Africa, which gave up its own nuclear program in 1990. During the consultations yesterday, South African Ambassador to the UN and Security Council chairman Dumisani Kumalo unexpectedly informed the assembled members of his country's objections to the project's current form. Together with the representatives from Indonesia and Qatar, the two current members with Muslim majorities, the South African ambassador introduced amendments to the resolution that, according to an American diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity, "eviscerate the essence of the proposed sanctions" against Iran.
The initiators of the resolution were dumbfounded by the South African delegation's proposal of a 90-day moratorium on any further action by the Security Council on the question of Iran, as well as the removal from the resolution of key provisions, including an arms embargo against Iran, a travel ban for senior Revolutionary Guards commanders, and the freezing of their foreign assets and of accounts belonging to Iranian state-owned Bank Sepah and its subsidiary Sepah International.
When Ambassador Kumalo was asked why he had proposed the 90-day moratorium, he answered with a smile, "I did not propose it. It was proposed by [IEAE chief] Mohammad Elbaradei." Exuding easy confidence, he added, "So they are having further consultations because of an emergency? Good, good. That means that I created an emergency. And I will resolve it as the chairman [of the UN Security Council]. Incidentally, the authors of the resolution themselves asked me to introduce amendments. So we have introduced some."
A UN official told Kommersant that the move by the South Africans was truly extraordinary: "It has been a long time since a temporary member of the Security Council introduced changes into a text that had been agreed upon by the 'big five'. Nevertheless, every member of the Security Council, regardless of its status, has the right that the South African representative has invoked."
The US ambassador's comments were short and to the point: "The discussion will continue, because unanimity in the adoption of the resolution is important, but not any less important than the contents of the resolution," he said. Asked whether negotiations had been held concerning the text of the resolution, Mr. Wolff replied, "No, there were no negotiations. The three delegations simply introduced amendments." To further questioning from journalists regarding what he found most upsetting about the amendments, he excused himself, saying he had to leave.
The South African representative, who approached the journalists again after Mr. Wolff had left, was taken aback by his colleague's answers. "Those weren't negotiations? Then what were they? We exchanged opinions and discussed everything. What do you call that, if not negotiations?" huffed Mr. Kumalo.
British Ambassador Emyr Jones Perry and French Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, who appeared together, were unanimous in their conviction that pressure on Iran must be increased if any results are to be achieved. "What good are 90 more days, when we have been carrying on negotiations with Iran for three years? Three years, you understand? The proposal to suspend uranium enrichment is on the table, and Iran, if it wants to improve its relationship with the international community, should cease enrichment," snapped Mr. Jones Perry.
Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin had no harsh words to say against the South African initiative, at least not in public. He also did not rule out the possibility that the suggestions made by the Security Council's nonpermanent members might be eventually adopted. "Several of their suggestions could paint the resolution in a new light. There are several things that would improve the text of the resolution. [Russia] is ready to be flexible," Mr. Churkin told Russian journalists, adding, "the Security Council may adopt several suggestions aimed at underlining the importance of efforts at negotiation between the 'group of six' and Iran."
The Security Council will meet again today, but there will be no consensus before tomorrow at the earliest. "It is necessary for the permanent members of the Security Council to let us (the authors of the amendments) know which criticisms they are going to accept, after which we will share the information with our capitals back home and wait for further instructions," said Ambassador Kumalo.
In the opinion of observers, the resolution on Iran is not likely to be passed before the end of the week, much like the earlier resolution #1737, which was adopted last year on the Saturday before New Year's Eve. This time, however, it will be almost impossible to gather all of the ambassadors together on a weekend. The Chinese representatives have already hinted to Kommersant that the new resolution on Iran has a much longer path before it than Western diplomats would like to think.
&
Timing of Iranian President's Trip to New York Still Uncertain
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not yet decided on the date of his trip to New York to participate in a session of the United Nations Security Council at which voting will be held on a new resolution concerning the Islamic Republic. "The date is not yet set. We are waiting to find out when the review of Iran's 'nuclear dossier' will be scheduled in the UN Security Council," said President Ahmadinejad yesterday in an interview on Iranian television. Earlier he had alleged that the Security Council is attempting to deprive Iran of its right to peaceful nuclear technology. "If the American government gives me a visa, I will absolutely take part in the Security Council session and will defend Iran's right to peaceful atomic technology," he promised. Last Monday the US State Department said that the American authorities had already issued visas to the Iranian president and his entourage for his trip to New York.
RIA Novosti
UN General Secretary Comes under Fire in Baghdad
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's visit to Baghdad almost ended in tragedy yesterday when a powerful explosion jolted the room in which Mr. Ban and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki were holding a joint press conference. Soldiers later determined that a rocket had been fired at the building, which is near Mr. Maliki's residence, and had missed its mark by less than 50 meters. No one was injured in the attack. The UN Security Council condemned the incident yesterday, calling it a "disgusting terrorist attack on the chancellery of the prime minister of Iraq, where a joint press conference with the participation of the UN secretary general was taking place." The members of the Security Council expressed "unshakeable support for the efforts of the UN and its secretary general to advance a comprehensive and effective political process in Iraq that aims to achieve national reconciliation and to preserve [the country's] sovereignty and territorial integrity."
Dmitry Gornostaev
All the Article in Russian as of Mar. 23, 2007
|
|
|
