Foreign ministers of the six nations, the United States, Great
Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, set to gather in New
York on May 8 to continue discussions over the Iran nuclear issue
after the five permanent members of the UN Security Council failed
to reach agreement on May 5. That indicates the diplomatic wrangle
on the issue has entered a crucial stage.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi warned on
May 7 that any wrong UN Security Council resolution would turn
Iran's cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency into
its confrontation with the West.
Analysts believe that another round of diplomatic wrangles would
be sparkled at the New York ministerial conference.
On April 28 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei submitted a
report to the UN Security Council and the IAEA, declaring that Iran
did not observe the UN's order for suspension of uranium enrichment
program within 30 days. On May 2, representatives of the six
countries met in Paris where they exchanged views and prepared for
the New York conference of their foreign ministers.
On May 3, Britain and France tabled the first draft resolution
to the UN Security Council, demanding Iran to halt any activities
related to the uranium enrichment program, or facing "further
actions" against it in line with the UN Chapter 7.
The rhetoric of the draft is sharper than expected as the
Chapter 7 allows mandatory measures, including military actions, in
case of imperiled peace or aggression.
The UN security Council members recognize that a resolution is
necessary to send a uniformed, clear signal to Iran, urging Iran to
take a more cooperative attitude on the nuclear issue, freeze all
uranium enrichment and related activities and accept IAEA
inspections.
The fruitless rounds of negotiations between the European Union,
represented by Britain, France and Germany, and Iran over the years
have pushed the EU closer to the US on tougher attitude toward
Iran. The US, which has always advocating economic and military
sanctions in case of breakdown of diplomatic efforts, is pressing
the Security Council to pass the draft proposed by Britain and
France.
However, Britain, France and Germany have not given up the
principle of resolving the crisis through diplomatic efforts
although they have hardened their stands. Russia insisted that
force would not be the way to go no matter what the draft has
proposed.
Preference to diplomatic mediation and objection to economic
sanctions or military actions prevails both within the Security
Council and the whole international community. There are two
reasons underlying that.
Firstly, economic sanctions or military strike may not work.
Iranian rulers will hardly make any concessions in the face of
threat because they need internal unity and public support.
External pressure of sanctions will further ignite the antagonistic
sentiment of the Iranian government. Most commentators are
concerned about disastrous consequences of military strikes on
Iran. The Iraqi example is a bitter lesson to learn.
Secondly, it is still possible for Iran to make substantial
compromise if it is given a chance to find out an appropriate and
decent resolution. What justifies that is Iran's repeated
clarification that it has no intention of developing nuclear
weapons and is willing to cooperate with the international
community.
At the end of last month Iran said it would produce a timetable
within the following three weeks if the nuclear issue remained "in
full, in the framework of the IAEA and under its safeguards".
Analysts think the UN Security Council members will have
intensive discussions about the British-French draft in the
following days, focusing on whether a Chapter 7 resolution will be
adopted and what wording will be used.
It still takes time for the UN Security Council to reach a
resolution. It also takes time to know what impact the resolution
will have on the Iran nuclear issue.
(People's Daily Online May 9, 2006)
