A Carrier Pigeon Named Solana
By Parviz Esmaeili
18 June,
2008
Tehran Times
TEHRAN — EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana's
visit to Tehran and delivery of the 5+1 group's new package can be
analyzed from various angles.
A glance at the package, which was delivered after the official presentation of Iran's package of proposals, the new European Parliament statement, and a letter that the foreign ministers of the 5+1 group (five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) wrote to Iran's foreign minister leads to the following conclusions.
(1) No great change is seen in the new package. It contains positive and, of course, negative points. In the nuclear issue, it seems that the West has selected the Iranian nation as its main addressee. The fact that a press conference was held with the attendance of the director generals of political departments of the foreign ministries of five of the 5+1 group states, and distribution of copies of the new package and the 5+1 foreign ministers' letter to Mottaki to reporters at the press conference proves this point.
(2) The 5+1 group is hiding positive points in the package from the public to promote its status and has not revised its previous position. For example, we can look at a sensitive point that has been mentioned in both the letter and the package.
The 5+1 group has cited its concerns, saying, "IAEA reports have concluded that it is not able to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran."
In the previous two packages (August 2005 and June 2007), the group mentioned this point as the reason for its concerns and insisted "the agency has not reached a conclusion that Iran's nuclear programs are peaceful."
The meaning of these two sentences, which have remained hidden and unmentioned in Solana's words, is that the 5+1 group at least has acknowledged that the Islamic Republic's nuclear activities are peaceful, and this raises serious questions about the demand that uranium enrichment be suspended to build confidence.
(3) In the previous package, Iran was asked to suspend some nuclear activities and answer questions posed by the IAEA in order to restore confidence.
Iran began answering the questions by fully implementing the Action Plan and receiving documents from the IAEA, which answered the six remaining questions but were later used as a pretext to issue four Security Council resolutions against Iran, and in practice showed that the demand for suspension as a step for building confidence lacked technical justification.
(4) Another important point is that there is no mention of the issue of alleged weaponization studies in the package and the six foreign ministers' letter, which shows that although the claim was suspiciously highlighted in Mohamed ElBaradei's recent report on Iran, the 5+1 group has tacitly acknowledged that it is unfounded.
The documents about alleged weaponization studies that the U.S. submitted to the IAEA are so unbelievable and worthless that the agency was only allowed to show it to Iran and then sent it to their archives on the orders of U.S. intelligence officials. It was a disjointed unclassified document without any header, seals, or signatures and the authors were fully aware of this fact.
Meanwhile, the fact that there was no reference to these claims in the package shows that the IAEA director general, who ineptly highlighted it in his report, was again deceived by U.S. envoys to the agency and IAEA Deputy Director and Head of the Safeguards Department Olli Heinonen, who negatively influenced ElBaradei's report so that he can win U.S. support to replace ElBaradei as IAEA director general in the future.
(5) The other point is the structural difference in the letter and the package. In the letter of the foreign ministers, it has again been said that "negotiations can be resumed" when Iran halts its uranium enrichment program; while in the package, the subject of suspension has not been mentioned directly but only as a demand by the Security Council (Resolution 1803).
These points and also article 38 of the statement released by the European Parliament illustrate the difference between the EU and the U.S. on the one hand and China and Russia's differences with the U.S. on the other. In its statement, the European Parliament has asked the UN Security Council, and especially the two EU members (France and Britain), to return Iran's nuclear dossier to the IAEA and, by resuming negotiations without preconditions, lay the groundwork for total nuclear disarmament across the globe.
Solana's tone in Tehran also indicated a serous difference between the European Union and the U.S. in this regard because when a reporter questioned whether the 5+1 group confided in him fully, he answered, "I don't know about the views of my (accompanying) delegation, (but) I consider myself the representative of the group and 27 European Union countries with full capacity."
Thus, Mr. Solana is apparently viewed as a carrier pigeon by the influential members of the 5+1 group. The fact that he wasn't supported in cases like his 11-point agreement with Ali Larijani in Berlin is further proof of this.
(6) The other point is the linking of the cooperation offered in the package to full implementation of the additional protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, the agency does not demand full implementation of the additional protocol by countries whose nuclear activities are progressing, but demands that Iran implement the protocol. Germany, a member of the 5+1 group, and at least 13 other European countries are in exactly the same situation as Iran.
Under such circumstances, how can the demand that Iran fully implement the additional protocol as a confidence-building measure be justified? And should the world be just as suspicious of the U.S., Germany, and other countries which have not signed the protocol as they are of Iran?!
(7) There are important questions about a great mistake in the package and the letter of the foreign ministers where it says "to recognize Iran's right to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in conformity with its NPT obligations; to treat Iran's nuclear program in the same manner as that of any Non-nuclear Weapon State Party to the NPT once international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program is restored."
What is the criterion for establishing a body for establishing international confidence? Does the agency know about any such organization?
What is the purpose of restoring confidence about the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program?
(A) If the 5+1 group means establishing confidence like the 30-month suspension of Iran's nuclear activities this is a crude interpretation because the process of establishing confidence finds meaning when there are (nuclear) activities, otherwise it is an abolishment of the whole issue, which in fact makes the agency's monitoring of Iran's nuclear activities and even diplomatic efforts like the presentation of political packages meaningless.
(B) On the other hand, if the 5+1 group really believes that confidence about Iran's nuclear program was established during the voluntary 30-month suspension, then they should explain why they referred Iran's nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council on September 24, 2005 immediately after Iran resumed its activities. Moreover, during the suspension period, which of the European promises that were mentioned in the Tehran and Paris declarations were fulfilled?
(C) In addition to the agency's reports, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate report clearly acknowledges that Iran has had no nuclear weaponization program at least since 2003. Moreover, the basis for referring Iran's nuclear dossier to the Security Council for not reporting activities to the agency for 18 years, which was finally summarized in six questions in August 2006, collapsed when Iran answered the questions.
(D) But if the meaning of "restore" is a re-suspension of Iran's enrichment activities, it means the 5+1 group wants to turn the clock back, has failed to understand the new technical environment, and has not learned a lesson from past experiences, or, in other words, it is the same old package which should be imposed on Iran in a new form.
(8) Another negative point in the package is that it has made no mention of the nuclear commitments to Iran that were never fulfilled. The fact that Europeans countries like Germany, France and Britain have not mentioned their failure to fulfill their commitments in contracts for the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant, Iran's share in Eurodif, and uranium mine consortiums, and even refuse to recognize Iran's rights in this package, are reasons Iran should not trust their new promises.
Moreover, in the new package, like in the previous packages, the inalienable rights of the Iranian people, which had been trampled upon over the past three decades for no reason, have been mentioned as concessions to Iran. It is not clear whether the writers of the package, who have refused to provide Iran medicine, medical equipment, passenger airplanes, etc., expect the Iranians to trust them when they say they will guarantee Iran a supply of nuclear fuel.
(9) However, the common points in the new 5+1 package and Iran's package of proposals can open the path to negotiations since Iran's package is more comprehensive. For example, Iran's package focuses on nuclear disarmament and world peace and seeks collective consensus, while the 5+1 group's package has only summarized the current problem of nuclear weapons proliferation threats and blamed Iran's peaceful nuclear program for all the problems.
(10) Finally, since Solana -- in his statements -- and the 5+1 group -- in their letter -- have declared that they would welcome constructive dialogue, it is absolutely necessary to answer the following two questions to test the honesty of the West.
Is any room left for a "gesture of constructive dialogue" by the 5+1 group and Solana when the U.S. and one of its allies openly threaten to launch a military assault against Iran?
Recently, former White House spokesman Scott McClellan revealed that President George W. Bush "manipulated the sources of public opinion" in the run-up to the Iraq war, so what is Iran's guarantee that Condoleezza Rice -- who is the warrior princess of the neoconservative cabinet -- will keep her word and the 5+1 package will not prove to be another lie?!
