UNITED NATIONS, March 30: After three weeks of intense negotiations, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a presidential statement on Wednesday evening giving Iran 30 days to halt its uranium enrichment activity.
The non-binding statement expressed serious concern that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had so far been unable to confirm that there were no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran.
The statement called upon Iran to re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development.
“The Security Council expresses the conviction that such suspension and full and verified Iranian compliance would contribute to a diplomatic, negotiated solution that guarantees Iran’s nuclear programme is for exclusively peaceful purposes,” the Council said through a statement read out by its president, César Mayoral of Argentina.
The statement underlined ‘the willingness of the international community to work positively for such a solution, which will also benefit nuclear non-proliferation elsewhere’.
In a bid to break the deadlock over the statement, Britain and France, the authors of the final draft, amended the language suggesting that any Iranian drive to produce nuclear weapons would be a ‘threat to international peace and security’.
China and Russia maintained that the term established a pretext for sanctions, which they both oppose.
“When you speak about a threat to international peace and security, you must have strong, clear and legally proved evidence,” Andrei Denisov, the Russian ambassador, said before the council acted.
The statement also dropped references to specific charges and demands for compliance from Tehran and lengthened the period for the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Vienna-based United Nations nuclear watchdog, to 30 days from 14.
SHARED AUTHORITY: In order allay the fears expressed by the Chinese and Russian envoys, the Security Council gave the nuclear agency continuing shared authority over the Iran issue that earlier drafts assigned wholly to the UN.
British and French ambassadors conceded that the document had been watered down, but argued that it was still meaningful.
“There are some points not in the text that frankly we would have preferred to have seen in the text,” said Emyr Jones Parry, the British ambassador. “Other colleagues said no, that would send a different message at this particular time.”
The statement avoided suggesting any consequences for non-cooperation by Iran, but Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, France’s ambassador, said: “Iran has 30 days. We hope that Iran will comply. If Iran doesn’t comply, then the Security Council will have to take its responsibilities.”
US Ambassador John Bolton said: “This is an unambiguous signal to Iran that the Security Council, charged with the maintenance of international peace and security under the Charter, is now dealing with this issue.”
IRANIAN REACTION: Saying that Iran was ‘allergic to pressure and threats and intimidation’, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations declared his country had always been prepared to reach a negotiated agreement, saying ‘Iran is committed to its rights, and also committed to resolving the issues peacefully’.
“Iran had been ready for a negotiated solution and to address the concerns of the international community — if they really are the concerns of the international community and not only of some in the West,” asserted Iran’s envoy, Javad Zarif, at a press conference following the adoption of the Security Council statement.
