Haider Rizvi

UNITED NATIONS, Jul 31 2006 (IPS) — Iran accused the United States and its allies on Monday of trying to use the United Nations Security Council as a cover to justify their “threats of resorting to force” against the Islamic Republic.

“A few big powers have spared no efforts in turning the Security Council into a tool to prevent Iran from exercising its inalienable right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes,” said Javad Zarif, Tehran’s ambassador to the U.N.

His remarks came in reaction to a new Security Council resolution urging Iran to immediately suspend all of its uranium-related activities in compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s demands.

The resolution, endorsed by 14 members of the Council with Qatar the only member to vote against it, warns of additional “appropriate measures” after Aug. 31 if Iran failed to abide by the IAEA requirements within the next month.

The Iranian ambassador reiterated that his country’s nuclear programme posed no threat to international peace and security because it was meant to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

He said that in order to dispel any doubts about its peaceful nuclear programme, Iran enabled the IAEA to carry out a series of inspections, adding that that in the past three years the IAEA had conducted “more than 2,000 inspector-days of scrutiny.”

The IAEA has not said that Iran is engaged in efforts to build nuclear weapons. However, it remains unclear about certain aspects of the Iranian nuclear programme.

Last August, Iran resumed its uranium-enrichment activities after Germany, France and Britain, also known as “EU Three”, pressed Tehran for a binding commitment on fuel cycle activities.

Iran describes that demand as “illegal and unwarranted” and believes that remains the sole reason for the imposition of IAEA resolutions and Security Council statements.

“Today’s proposed action is the culmination of those efforts aimed at making the suspension of uranium enrichment mandatory,” the Iranian envoy said, describing the resolution as a violation of the “fundamental principles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and IAEA Board.”

The United States dubbed the Iranian reaction as “continued intransigence”.

“Iran’s nuclear programme constitutes a direct threat to the international peace and security,” John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., told the Council after the vote on the resolution.

“The international community has shown a great patience,” added Emyr Jones Parry, the British ambassador. “The choice is now for Iran.”

Both the U.S. and Britain have repeatedly threatened to seek another resolution under Article 41 of the U.N. Charter if Iran failed to respond in the next 30 days. Article 41 provides for the imposition of economic sanctions but rules out the possibility of military action, an option that the United States has not excluded from its potential punitive measures against Iran.

On the question of possible sanctions, both Russia and China have repeatedly indicated their reluctance to go along with the U.S. and its allies.

“Talking about the use of sanctions is not our choice,” said Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin, who described the resolution as a “positive package” that could lead to “serious negotiations with Iran.”

The resolution underlines the IAEA role and endorses the package of incentives put forward by the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China in June.

Though China endorsed the resolution, its ambassador echoed Iran’s argument that the negotiations should involve the IAEA, not the Security Council.

“The IAEA should always be the main mechanism for dealing with this issue,” said Liu Zhenmin, the Chinese envoy, adding that the Security Council “cannot handle this issue single-handedly.”

In the Iranian ambassador’s view, the U.S. and its allies not only lacked “genuine will” to reach a “mutually acceptable resolution”, but also indicated their “propensity to resort to threats”.

“The EU Three and the United States are in a rush to prematurely hamper the path of negotiations,” he said, comparing this “rush” to the fact that the U.S. and its allies have for the last three weeks prevented any action on the urgent situation in Lebanon.

Last Sunday, the Security Council again failed to condemn the continued bombing by Israeli war planes in southern Lebanon as a result of U.S. opposition.

The Council confined itself to expressing its “shock and distress” over the bombing of a residential apartment complex in the village of Qana that killed dozens of civilians, including women and children.

“You be the judge of how much credibility this leaves for the Security Council. Is it anything but pressure and coercion?” the Iranian ambassador asked.