www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/international/europe/04iran.html
Iran's nuclear program on Friday, largely because of American opposition to a clause indirectly criticizing Israel's nuclear weapons status, according to several diplomats. But late Friday evening the dispute was apparently resolved after the Americans backed down and accepted compromise language, an American official said. In Washington, R Nicholas Burns, under secretary of state for political affairs, said the way had been cleared for the adoption of the resolution on Saturday. EA board is now poised to adopt a very important resolution declaring the international community's lack of confidence in Iran," he said.
United States would have to accept a compromise on the clause, which mentions support for the creation of a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East. The clause was insisted upon by Egypt, with the strong backing of the nonaligned nations on the agency's board. Egypt and other Arab states routinely demand references to a "nuclear-free zone" in the Middle East in Security Council documents. They argue that Israel -- which has never admitted that it has nuclear weapons and, unlike Iran, has never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- should be made part of a general security framework in the Middle East. The issue temporarily exposed a split between the Americans, who opposed the Egyptian demand, and Russia, China and the Europeans, who supported it. On Thursday night, Britain circulated a new, informal draft that added a clause that recognized that "a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue would contribute to the goal of a Middle East free of all weapons of mass destruction, and their means of delivery." That language reflected the official position of the 25-member European Union.
Condoleezza Rice, initially opposed the compromise language, saying it could be used by Iran as a propaganda weapon against Israel, four senior diplomats said. "The Americans are worried that once it is there, it will stay there forever and allow the Iranians to hide behind it," one ambassador involved in the negotiations said. It was not immediately clear which compromise Washington had agreed to, though a senior official said the resolution would make reference to a nuclear-free zone. Earlier, a State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, had said the United States accepted in principle that "we all hope for a day when the Middle East achieves a state where there are not nuclear weapons." Throughout the day on Friday, the Europeans pressed the Americans to change their position. Another key ambassador called the Americans "dogmatists," predicting that for the resolution to pass, "The Americans will have to give in." Gregory Schulte, the American ambassador to the agency, told reporters that he expected strong support when a vote was taken. "We are convinced we have a solid majority for the resolution that reports Iran to the Security Council," he said. Many diplomats here also said the resolution might not pass with as strong a majority as many had hoped, because of opposition among the 16-member bloc of nonaligned countries. Diplomats met behind closed doors throughout the day to meet some of the demands of the nonaligned countries, which wanted to delete all references to the Security Council or at least delay any report to New York until after the nuclear agency makes its full assessment of Iran's nuclear program in March. The current text is a compromise between the American push for immediate action against Iran by the Security Council and Russia's preference for a monthlong delay for more diplomacy. The resolution mentions Iran's "many failures and breaches of its obligations" under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and "the absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes." In one important concession, the draft resolution was changed to reflect the fact that actions taken by Iran to build international "confidence" that it is not pursuing a nuclear weapon are "voluntary and non-legally binding." In another development, Javad Vaidi, the head of Iran's nuclear delegation, told reporters on Friday that if the resolution reported Iran to the Security Council, it would be the end of a Russian proposal under which uranium would be enriched for Iran's energy purposes at a site in Russia under solely Russian authority. Underscoring the fluid nature of the diplomacy, however, a Russian diplomat said that talks on the proposal were continuing. EA in a letter that all "voluntary" nuclear cooperation with the agency would end if the agency's board reported Iran's nuclear case to the Security Council. That would mean that the agency would no longer be allowed to do voluntary spot inspections and would lose access to important sites and installations. Steven R Weisman contributed reporting from Washington for this article.
|
http://csua.com/feed/