| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| UN Security Council stalled on Iran |
| 2006-03-23 |
| After nearly two weeks of haggling, a deadlocked Security Council put off full consideration of Iran's nuclear program on Tuesday, amid indications that Iran was close to taking a major step in its efforts to enrich uranium. Britain and France had promoted a statement calling on Iran to abandon its uranium activities, which the West believes is part of a nuclear weapons program. With American support, Britain and France want a two-week deadline with threats of possible punishment, but have met resistance from China and Russia. The Europeans said Tuesday that they would consult on possible revisions that could draw the unanimous support needed for the statement from all 15 Security Council members. The postponement followed a four-hour meeting on Monday of senior Foreign Ministry officials of Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States. "The impact on the negotiations which we are trying to do here was not as positive as we would have wished," said Emyr Jones Parry, the British ambassador. "So we're having to maintain the momentum. That is the basis problem." The impasse generated frustration among European and American negotiators, who said within the last week that the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna had briefed officials on Iran's uranium activities at its Natanz complex. Diplomats from different countries, who declined to be identified because they were discussing sensitive classified information, said Iran appeared on the verge of assembling 164 centrifuges, the number needed to form a "cascade" mechanism that could enrich uranium for nuclear energy or, eventually, bombs. In effect, they said the 164 centrifuges would significantly increase Iran's ability to make weapons, in defiance of demands by the United States, Britain, France, Germany and the United States that it cease its uranium activities immediately. "What this means is that time is not on our side," a European diplomat said. "It means that while we are negotiating, Iran is not wasting its time." Various diplomats also expressed a sense of urgency. France's ambassador, Jean-Marc de la Sablière, said: "It seems to me we will need some time, a few days, I suppose. But we don't have much time. I guess that we will have to come to the end of discussion very soon. But I cannot tell you exactly when." A long delay in progress could persuade the Western nations to abandon the plan for a statement and push instead toward a resolution, a much stronger action, but one that would require a vote. Resolutions need nine votes to pass but can be defeated by a veto, which China and Russia, as permanent members, each have the power to cast. R. Nicholas Burns, under secretary of state for political affairs, turned aside such speculation, saying in a telephone interview from Washington that he had heard strong sentiment for a statement at the Monday meeting, at which he represented the United States. "We believe that the members of the Security Council all have an interest in issuing this presidential statement, because the most important step we can now take is to send a common, united, clear message to Iran — that is, suspend your nuclear program and return to negotiations," he said. "It may take some time to achieve the final wording, but we believe that goal is attainable." The step that the Council is trying to agree on is a relatively mild one, a nonbinding statement that would list Tehran's failures to comply with demands from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, and urge Iran to resume the suspension of its uranium enrichment. China, while backing Russia, has proven more conciliatory in the talks, introducing a revised draft asking the director general of the nuclear agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, to report on Iran's program to his agency and the Council. The original text, first circulated two weeks ago, called for sending the progress report to just the Council. China and Russia feared that such a move would diminish the role of the agency and put the matter in the hands of the Council, which has the power to sanction Tehran. Beijing and Moscow oppose sanctions. China and Russia are also against a provision asking Dr. ElBaradei to submit his report in two weeks. China's ambassador, Wang Guangya, has recommended a four- to six-week time frame. Andrei Denisov, the Russian ambassador, has suggested a June deadline. Mr. Wang said Tuesday that senior officials at the nuclear agency had told Chinese diplomats that two weeks afforded too little time. "To give them 14 days is to ask them not to do it," he said. He said the Russians were troubled by the references to Iran's activities being a threat to international peace and stability, words that he said could become a pretext for imposing sanctions. Asked whether Beijing shared this concern, he said, "I believe that the Russian concern has its logic." The Russians also object to listing the demands on Tehran, arguing that they are included in the International Atomic Energy Agency resolution. Among the demands are that Iran suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and put into effect the "additional protocol" to the country's nuclear agreement, which gives inspectors the right to ask for exceptional access to plants. Mr. Wang said China favored a "brief political statement" that would reinforce the authority of the nuclear agency, call on the Iranians to cooperate and put "some pressure" on them to do so. Mr. de la Sablière, the French ambassador, voiced doubt that much of the specific language could be dropped. "We are not in favor of a too general statement," he said. "We want a precise and strong message." Mr. Jones Parry, the British ambassador, also expressed misgivings at the idea of wholesale changes. "What France and Britain both feel is that if this text is to be amended further, it should be amended in order to come to an agreed conclusion," he said. "And if there is no prospect of an agreed conclusion, we won't be amending the text." |
| Posted by:Tholuck Chomble7555 |
| #18 I like Frank's idea! |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-03-23 21:26 |
| #17 Bet 'Mooseman's got it! Weird, yet a slugging percentage around .750. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-03-23 20:01 |
| #16 Ima thinking we need to up our arms deliveries to Taiwan....week by week, while China's intransigent. Hardball |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-03-23 19:29 |
| #15 Perhaps the Iraq files contain a bit more detail on French wrongdoing than has been publicly released. If we can blackmail Chiraq we should. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-03-23 17:39 |
| #14 China Stands With Russia - Drudge... Big surprise. Dragging it out for their hard currency buddies, the Mullahs. |
| Posted by: Snuper Thramp5041 2006-03-23 15:08 |
| #13 What's their motivation to play this straight? They've already demonstrated that money is all they truly care about. Look at Shroeder. Whatever happens down the road will be on somebody else's watch - or so they hope. Secretly, they are probably colluding with the Russkies and ChiComs - encouraging them to block any meaningful action. Lavrov has already made it clear that Russia won't support ANY sanctions of ANY kind, much less action. They haven't the sense or self-restraint to reinvest in their own oil industry. Putzes. This UN game is so flawed and pointless it amazes me. Window dressing for the inevtiable. |
| Posted by: Snuper Thramp5041 2006-03-23 14:19 |
| #12 I agree with LH to the extent that if we act without UN sanction, having the Germans and French on our side will be huge in terms of us being able to ride out (from a PR standpoint) the setbacks that will come when we have to act militarily. Also, I think it will matter within Iran. I suspect that the Iranian public, which does not want to be estranged from the world due to the Mullahs' foreign policy, cares a lot more about the France and Germany than they do about Russia and China. Of course, the Frogs may be playing the same double game they did before we went into Iraq or they may be waiting for Iran to buy their support. But I wonder if maybe we have the goods on them and they know we can embarrass them if they defect to the Iranian side. For instance, the captured Iraqi documents that are only now being posted daily on the Web may contain some inconvenient information. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-03-23 13:16 |
| #11 Hello, Mullahs? Yonder beckons the Stone Age. |
| Posted by: doc 2006-03-23 13:16 |
| #10 The UN is beyond worthless. Now that takes a concerted effort to get that far. The M²s know this and are playing the UN like a fish. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-03-23 11:08 |
| #9 Keep clicking your heels, LH. Someday the UN will do something other than condemn free countries. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-03-23 10:43 |
| #8 We should open direct discussions with Iran. The topic should be that we warn them to move civilians away from strategic sites. Not negotiations, but we need some cover when collateral damage happens. |
| Posted by: Master of Obvious 2006-03-23 10:42 |
| #7 Even the Russkies and Chicoms are being forced to accept the need for SOME resolution, but they want one that doesnt yet threaten sanctions. and they want more time. Theyre playing for time at this point. And the French and the Germans, not just the US and UK, are getting pissed with the Russians. Just a couple of years ago we saw a budding French-German-Russian alliance. Thats dead. From the POV of global US strategy, thats probably bigger news than anything happening in Iran. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-03-23 10:35 |
| #6 It's the density of UNium that stands out. |
| Posted by: Ulinter Elmock7099 2006-03-23 10:31 |
| #5 Inertia, too. |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-03-23 10:21 |
| #4 See. The UN considers this as "momentum". Objects at rest also have momentum. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2006-03-23 09:44 |
| #3 So we're having to maintain the momentum. See. The UN considers this as "momentum". |
| Posted by: tu3031 2006-03-23 09:40 |
| #2 A rare UN security council stall, eh ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-03-23 08:48 |
| #1 Since Russia and China, and probably France, are so willing to put their own interests above anything else, the US is forced to take the initiative across the board. If Israel wants to attack, we will not stand in its way, nor will we allow others to either stand in their way or retaliate against them. Depending on circumstances, we will either let them, assist them, or let them assist us. If we can prod Iran into making a foolish and ill-conceived attack against our interests, we may also be inclined to do that. Ironically, we have to protect the other nuclear powers from attack by Iran likewise, as their response would most certainly be singularly nuclear, and far more than we prefer. So they are rewarded for their duplicity with us protecting them, less they destroy much of the region. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-03-23 08:08 |