Soltanieh says Iran will not backdown on legitimate NPT rights

IRNA - Islamic Republic News Agency

Vienna, June 9, IRNA -- Iranian Ambassador to IAEA Ali Asghar Soltanieh said on Thursday that Iran will never backdown on legitimate rights enshrined by Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In his statement to Board of Governors of International Atomic Energy Agency, Soltanieh expressed the sincere appreciation for the valuable support of the family members of the NAM in the course of over last eight years including the statement read out in this meeting by distinguished Ambassador of Egypt.

'This is a clear indication of their commitment to the founding principles of the Movement for establishment of peace and prosperity based on justice and non-discrimination. We will resist the pressures and sanction imposed by western countries and shall not compromise our inalienable right for peaceful uses of nuclear energy enshrined in the Agency’s Statute and the NPT while we will continue our cooperation with the IAEA, putting nuclear facilities and activities including enrichment under full scope safeguards in accordance with our obligation under NPT. Undoubtedly if Iran does not resist such pressures then other developing countries would face the same unjust conduct in the future.

'Those few western countries which illegally conveyed Iran’s nuclear issue to the UN Security Council should have learned a lesson that it was a historical mistake which has complicated the situation and damaged the cooperative environment in the IAEA, forcing Iran to suspend voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and the modified code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangement. I advise them to correct the trend by stopping debates in New York and let the IAEA to do its technical job according to the Statute and NPT.

'Referring to the recent written report (GOV/2011/29) and the introductory statement of the Director General, I would like to inform that a comprehensive explanatory note on DG report would be distributed. However I have to declare the following main points:

1) The report (GOV/2011/29) is not balanced and factual since it has not duly reflected the extensive cooperation made by the Islamic Republic of Iran, the contents of letters and explanations to the questions of or communication made with the Agency.

2) The Work Plan (INFCIRC/711) of August 2007 was the fruitful result of high level political negotiation between former Director General and the former Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, aiming at resolution of past issues and putting an end to debates at the Board of Governors which have politicized and polarized this august technical organization. I recall that while international community, specifically the NAM, welcomed this historical event, four ambassadors of the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Japan made a demarche against former Director General rather than appreciating his tireless effort and that of Iran’s concession in taking voluntary steps mostly beyond Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. The Work Plan was then endorsed by the Board of Governors.

It is regrettable that the agreed work plan has been totally ignored by the DG since he took the office, with an exception where pursuant to strong request by the Non-Aligned Movement Member States, he referred to it in his February 2011 report. I am very much disappointed that once again he has refrained from reflecting the agreed work plan in his recent report GOV/2011/29 date 24 May 2011. This is a clear indication that the DG is presumably not willing to respect the legal obligation of the Agency under the Work Plan. This attitude and conduct would certainly damage the impartiality and credibility of the Agency and no other Member State would trust the Secretariat for mutual agreements in the future.

'I have to recall that based on the Work Plan, there were only six outstanding issues and as the former Director General explicitly reported in November 2007 and February 2008 all six outstanding issues had been resolved and the Islamic Republic of Iran had responded to all questions about the outstanding issues in accordance with the Work Plan.

The first paragraph of chapter IV of the Work Plan which reads that “These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities”, therefore introducing new wording in paragraph 35 of the report GOV/2011/29 reading that “the Agency has received further information related to such possible undisclosed nuclear activities, which is currently being assessed by the Agency.' and 'there are indications that certain of these activities may have continued beyond 2004.' and the assertion of DG in his introductory statement to the Board of Governors on 6th June 2011 saying that: “there are indications that certain of these activities may have continued until recently” are in full contravention with the Work Plan. It is obvious that all nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the past and present have been for peaceful purposes and have been and will be continuously subject to full scope Comprehensive Surveillance. Therefore any other information questioning the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activities is forged, fabricated, false and baseless allegation.

'As H.E. Dr. Abbasi, the Vice-president and the president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran eloquently explained in his letter of 26 May 2011 addressed to DG, Iran was obliged, according to the Work Plan, upon receiving all related document, to merely give its assessment about the alleged studies. As DG reported, Iran did provide its assessment on alleged studies in a confidential package containing 117 pages. Therefore the request of DG in his letter for the provision of access to all sites, equipment, persons, and documents fully contradict the letter and spirit of the Work Plan and thus puts the credibility of the Secretariat at jeopardy. I have heard from open source that the DG has taken its unjustified and partial hasty position, in pursuing the willingness of couple of western countries. I hope this is incorrect and Mr. Amano shall resist pressure as his predecessor did in 2007 vis-à-vis four ambassadors protesting the conclusion of the Work Plan.
As the Work Plan has fully been implemented, thus in accordance with paragraph 5 of chapter IV of the Work Plan the implementation of safeguards in Iran has to be conducted in a routine manner.

'The concluding section of the response of H.E. Dr. Abbasi to the DG states that upon the declaration by the Agency of the conclusion of the Work Plan, Iran shall be prepared to answer questions and remove ambiguities if any, is a unique opportunity for pragmatic breakthrough opening a new chapter, putting an end to boring confrontational debates. I advise DG to seize this opportunity and not to ignore the expectation of the majority of Member States.

3) The Director General of an international organization is expected to spare no effort to bridge the gap among Member States, propose innovative ideas or solutions to them prevent polarization and confrontation in the organization. He or she must refrain from any statement and or language in reports which create misunderstanding and pave the way for confrontation. In case of the IAEA, I have to advise DG to exercise maximum vigilance in his reports to avoid of making any polarization and or creating confrontation among Member States and preventing involvement of other bodies or organizations such as the UNSC which leads to downgrading the authority of the IAEA.

4) According the Statute, the Agency must facilitate exchange of information and equipment for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. In this context the Director General is not expected to merely pass a request from one Member State to others. I am very much disappointed that pursuant to the Tehran Declaration on Tehran Research Reactor Fuel, desperately needed for producing radioisotope for cancerous patients, while Director General, calling cancer projects as a priority, has not made any tangible action assisting Iran after I delivered the official letter with unprecedented concession over a year ago. I remind Mr. Amano and my friends in this hall that when I requested Dr. Hans Blix in late 80s, then the Director General, for an assistance on provision of fuel for the same reactor, he took serious prompt steps which led to receiving the fuel from Argentina. I have to confess the Dr. El-Baradei also tried his best to assist but unfortunately the words and deeds of supplying states were inconsistent.

5) Director General is expected to work hard to prevent the establishment of a double standard and conditions leading to discrimination and depriving a Member State or Group of Member States benefiting from membership of the Agency. During discussions on assurances of supply no one heard anything from the Director General in this regard while proposals and resolutions with a lot of deficiencies were discussed. It is a dark section in the history of the Agency that the resolutions in this respect specifically on Agency bank were not even approved by consensus within Board of Governors which represent only one fifth of the membership. It is however commendable that some delegates committed to principles did not vote for these resolutions in spite of huge political pressures by the United States, since the resolutions were clearly in contravention with the principle of non-discrimination and equality. What was the role and contribution of the Secretariat and DG? Typing the text and distributing among members of the Board!

'I have to declare that according to the unjust resolution on Agency’s fuel Bank, Iran and some other countries are deprived from using the Agency’s Fuel Bank.

'Fortunately, the Islamic Republic of Iran made right decision years ago to embark on enrichment and continued it based on its inalienable right enshrined in the NPT without any interruption.

6) In several occasions the Director General has been requested to take steps and report back, but he has either ignored or not fully acted upon. Let me mention some:

a) On 8 March 2011, on behalf of my Government I delivered a request to the DG the act upon the following measure equipping non- nuclear weapon states in Europe with nuclear weapons and delivery systems related to the deployed nuclear arsenals by the United States of America are in full contravention with non-proliferation obligations, and requested:

i. “…to inform all Member States whether the Agency has received declarations of the exact locations and amounts of weapon-grade nuclear material in these non-nuclear weapon states and whether the Agency has verified such declarations.

ii. …to investigate the technical specification and locations of nuclear weapons in Europe, specifically in the territory of the non-nuclear weapon States in Europe, which have already international obligations to refrain from doing so.

iii. … to report the non-compliance of the United States of America and the European countries hosting nuclear weapons, with their obligations undertaken under the NPT, which is undoubtedly a serious threat to the global peace and security, to the Board of Governors as well as to the 55th General Conference. Such non-compliance requires prompt action by the United Nations Security Council.”

This is a matter of serious concern that Mr. Amano has totally ignored this request for action.

b) During the Meeting of the Board of Governors in March 2011 I informed that the City Mayor of Tokyo had expressed the view that Japan has to have nuclear weapon. This is a matter of serious concern considering the fact that Japan has tons of high enriched uranium and plutonium. I requested Mr. Amano to investigate and report back. He has not done so. I am hundred percent sure that if a city Mayor of any developing country has done so, Mr. Director General had written several letters to the country concerned and made several interviews.

c) After the journalist of the Associated Press. Mr. George Jian informed released confidential information and declared that he had got from one of the staff of the Agency, I officially requested DG to instruct investigation. In response to my inquiry DG said that the result of Internal Oversight is inconclusive. The matter is simple, either the AP journalist had told the truth then DG had to expel the staff violating staff regulation releasing confidential information endangering national security of Member States or he had told a lie then he and the AP had to be sued because of serious damage to the credibility of the Secretariat. DG is highly expected to act upon and report to all Member States.

d) The weak and slow-motion reaction of the Secretariat specifically DG to the Fukushima accident was very disappointing. DG was expected to get reliable information from Japan, validate them and transmit promptly to Member States. Not only this simple legitimate expectation was not fulfilled but the technical staff of the Safety Department was not in position or permitted to explain and answer questions in technical briefings. We all had no more than what we receive from news media. The Japanese operators being unable to manage the accident possibly due to the panic expected to receive immediate technical advice since they were in the scene of accident. But DG did neither establish promptly a team of eminent experts from the Agency or from the world nor did he send timely a team to help them how to prevent escalation. Therefore we are witness of the release of radioactivity to whole world. I recall that DG did not even ask for information from CTBTO on the radioactive release from its stations until we insited during briefing. The world specifically the neighboring countries had the right to get prompt reliable information of contamination which has health hazards to their people. I brief neither the Agency nor Japan have fully been in compliance with both post Chernobyl conventions that is Early notification and emergency assistance in case of nuclear accidents.

'Careful review of all DG report proves that the sanctions have had no effect on nuclear activities particularly enrichment. In contrary Iran’s determination and solidarity to protect their inalienable right has been strengthen. I assure that political pressures, sanction, threat of attacks against nuclear installation, cyber-attacks, and assassination of nuclear scientist by terrorists, would not stop Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities. In fact the proponents of UNSC resolutions, specifically the United States and couple of EU members have targeted people especially cancerous patients by prevention of radioisotope exports and refraining from delivering the fuel to the passenger planes. This proves that they do not care of the health and security of normal citizen. The hidden agenda is to increase the involvement of UN Security Council in the IAEA affairs and undermine its authority. Regretfully the unbalance inconclusive reports of DG prior to completion of investigations based on “nuclear material verification” being concluded on the basis of the invalidated and unauthenticated information from US and Israeli intelligent services, have created confusions and miss-interpretations and have facilitated this dangerous plot as we are witnessing in the case of Syria which I will thoroughly elaborate on at the latter stage.

'With respect to issue of negotiation with 5+1, I have to recall relevant part of the letter of H. E. Dr. Jalili, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of the Islamic Republic of Iran, to H.E. Madam Ashton:

“In response to your letter dated February 11, 2011 for the continuation of the talks, while welcoming your return to the path of dialogues, I would like to inform you that as it was emphasized in the Geneva 3 and Istanbul talks, the Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared as it was the case in the past, by utilizing its national, regional and international capacities, to talk on the topics that can be a subject matter for cooperation based on common logic and proportional with the requirements for cooperation in order to achieve a comprehensive and sustainable agreement for cooperation. This is the capacity that in the last 3 years, the Islamic Republic of Iran with its goodwill presented to the other negotiating parties. The proper engagement with it could bring the excellent opportunities in order to establish “Peace, Justice and Prosperity” in the international arena”.
Thank you for your attention.

COMMENTS on some Statements

'I believe this is the right time to review many example of non-compliance and double standard policies approach of the Board of Governor and mismanagement of the Secretariat to deal with them:

1- I have to recall the report of former DG on the clandestine nuclear activities of South Korea on highly enriched uranium even higher than 70% which only is useful for nuclear weapon as well as plutonium separation. DG declared that it was a matter of serious concern. South Korean Government declared that the scientists have conducted clandestine activities without knowledge of authorities. It is very worrisome that individuals had been easily able to conduct such a sensitive activities without the permission of the Government in a country having many nuclear power plants and tons of enriched uranium and plutonium produced in their power plant.

'It is unbelievable that how the Board of Governors neglected such serious non-compliance which should have been promptly reflected to the UNSC and the issue was closed while in the case of Iran`s peaceful activities with over 8 years most robust inspections, with clear bill of health of no evidence of diversion of nuclear material to military purpose, is still in the Agenda of the BoG as well as the UNSC.

'I demand DG to thoroughly review the existing documents and to report to the next meeting of BoG and to all Member States.

2- Since the official declaration of the former prime minister of the Zionist regime of possession of nuclear weapons and the denial of its reprehensive to the IAEA, I had in several occasions demanded DG to pursue appropriate measures including sending Fact Find Mission to Israel to clarify who is telling the truth. Although the international community is aware of the policy of deception and concealment and hypocrisy of this regime established by occupation, genocide, and continuous crimes against humanity as UN declared after Gaza massacre. I once again urge DG not to ignore such a matter of global security concern.

3- The Agency does not have any control on huge uranium exploration and exports of main producers claiming that they implement Additional Protocol and modified code 3.1 of subsidiary arrangement, preaching others to do so! Austria and Canada are example of concern due to their past nuclear weapon oriented activities particularly enrichment. According to open sources uranium is exported to non-NPT members and the Zionist regime of Israel. I demand DG t6o thoroughly review and report the uranium capacity and the accurate amount of uranium exported and the list of recipients.

4- According to SIR and information I have got from different sources that there have been numerous case of failures implementing safeguards in many Member States. DG is expected to inform all these failures with detailed type, venue, date and consequences for verification of the IAEA.'