By Tao Wenzhao
At last, Iran gave its formal answer to the six-party package on
August 22.
Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, said: "We prepared
the answer to the proposed package positively. And despite
ambiguities on many cases, we tried to pave the way for fair talks
with a logical and positive approach." He spoke in a meeting in
Teheran with ambassadors from Britain, China, France, Germany,
Russia and Switzerland as caretaker of US interests in Iran.
Taken at face value, the 21-page Iranian paper sounds reasonable
and properly toned. The answer, however, is disappointing to the
international community, steering clear of the heart of the
six-party plan stopping uranium enrichment. With this response,
Iran presents a hard nut for the six countries and the
international community to crack.
The United Nations Security Council's Resolution 1696 mandates
that Iran would face sanctions if it fails to halt all activities
related to uranium enrichment before August 31.
?
But Iranian officials declared on various occasions that Iran
refused to accept the terms. For example, Mohammad Saidi, deputy
director of Iran's Atomic Energy Agency, stated on August 21 that
it was virtually impossible now to stop uranium enrichment
activities in view of the progress made by Iranian scientists in
the nuclear field. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attended and
presided over the ceremony dedicating the heavy water plant in
Arak. Foreign media was invited to the ceremony, which were meant
to expand the influence of the event as well as exhibit Iran's
nuclear transparency. The Iranian president stated at the
dedication ceremony that Iran would defend its nuclear rights with
all means, including force.
Taking all this into account, one thing is crystal clear it is
absolutely impossible for Iran to abide by the UN resolution before
August 31.
What shall the six countries do? Implement sanctions against
Iran by the UN mandate before having negotiations with that
country? Or, have negotiations first, shelving the sanction options
for a while?
If the six countries agree to resume negotiations with Iran, a
new round of diplomatic talks on Iran's nuclear program would be
set in motion and new prospects, therefore, would be opened up. But
Resolution 1696 would be sidetracked, which is embarrassing for the
six countries.
Why not impose sanctions right away? Sanctions at this stage,
however, seem unreasonable because Iran has not yet slammed the
door on negotiations.
Obviously, Iran's aim is to neutralize the UN Security Council's
resolution, and it has. The country has scored a point
diplomatically.
The intention of the United States is equally clear: Sanctions
should be imposed on Iran now that its answer falls short of
meeting the Security Council's demand.
John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN, made it clear that
Washington is preparing a draft resolution for sanctions, which is
expected to be submitted to the Security Council soon.
The problem, however, is that Iran refrains from saying a
definite "yes" or "no" to the six-party package. Its stance seems
to remain open, urging that no prerequisites for talks be set. This
means that the issue of uranium enrichment is still open for
discussion. A smart maneuver.
The content of Iran's answer has not yet been made public so
far. If some constructive steps, as we guess is the case, are
contained in the answer such as the commitment not to use nuclear
material procession to the ends of building bombs Iran could win
over support from Security Council members. These steps may also
include checks on Iran's nuclear facilities and video monitoring of
these facilities.
Iran has always refused to accept any preconditions, including a
stoppage of uranium enrichment activities, before the incentive
measures contained in the six-party package are discussed.
Conversely, Western countries emphasize that there would be no
discussions about the incentives until Iran stops its uranium
enrichment.
The United States and Iran have remained hostile to each other
for the last 27 years, with no diplomatic or economic relations
existing between the two sides. This is really a peculiar
situation.
Russia has made it clear that it will stick to negotiations
where the settlement of Iran's nuclear program is concerned. What
is important at the present stage, from the Russian point of view,
is to decipher the subtle connotations in Iran's answer and
pinpoint the constructive elements in it.
Conditioned on this, can the decision be made on whether
co-operation with Iran on the basis of the six-party plan will be
continued or not? China has stated time and again that diplomatic
negotiations are the best option for resolving the issue and that
all parties concerned should leave no stones unturned to see the
resumption of the talks.
In the United States, opinions differ widely, and heated
argument is still going on. Hawks urge that Iran's overseas
properties be frozen as one sanction measure before this month is
out. They also wish to ban the sale to Iran of products that can be
used for either civilian or military purposes.
The doves argue that these terms will face difficulty winning
approval from other members of the Security Council, Russia and
China in particular. They call for caution since the sanctions
would be the first ever directed against Iran. They suggest,
therefore, the adoption of token sanctions such as denying
high-ranking Iranian officials visas for the US or other nations.
With such measures in place, no matter how symbolic or
insubstantial they are, a US diplomatic triumph is achieved.
Iran's influence has been heightened by the chaotic Middle East
situation of recent years. This is the reality that must be
reckoned with by the international community in addressing the
issue of Iran's nuclear program.
In this scenario, a US military strike against Iran seems
unfounded and economic sanctions should also be pursued with
extreme caution. In addition, Iran has a pool of
counter-measures.
In the opinion of this author, negotiations will ultimately be
resorted to so that a way can be found that guarantees the national
interests of Iran on the one hand and assures non-proliferation on
the other.
In sum, a bumpy road is ahead.
The author is a researcher with the Institute of American
Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
(China Daily August 30, 2006)
