|
Security Council powers mull strategy on Iran crisis
(Reuters)
Updated: 2006-03-09 11:21
The dispute over Iran's nuclear program moved to the UN Security Council on
Wednesday where the five permanent members met for the first time in search of a
plan for Iran to shelve its nuclear ambitions.
Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov speaks to reporters at the United Nations
headquarters in New York, March 8, 2006.
[Reuters] |
Most diplomats agree the 15-nation
council would issue a statement urging Iran to comply with resolutions taken by
the 35-member board of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But the statement's contents are still in dispute and the five nations with
veto power -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France -- intend to
meet again on Friday before the issue is referred to the full council next week.
In Vienna, the IAEA board ended a meeting late on Wednesday on Iran's nuclear
program that opened the way for Security Council action. IAEA director Mohamed
ElBaradei then sent a February 27 report on Iran to council members.
But Russia seemed to rule out tough council measures. Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov said sanctions against Iran would be ineffective and military action was
not a solution.
"I don't think sanctions as a means to solve a crisis have ever achieved a
goal in the recent history," Lavrov told reporters after meeting U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Russia is generally opposed to using Security Council mandates to punish
Iraq. "We should all strive for a solution which would not endanger the ability
of the IAEA to continue its work in Iran, while of course making sure that there
is no danger for the nonproliferation regime," Lavrov said.
Britain suggested the council should ask for a report from the IAEA within 14
days on whether Iran had made any progress in complying with its requests,
diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
IAEA demands include that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment-related
activities, which Western nations fear is a cover for bomb-making.
But Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrei Denisov said 14 days was too short and
warned that the controversy should not "spin out of control of the IAEA."
British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry called the talks preliminary and said,
"This is an incremental approach."
France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere agreed and said the council
would follow a "gradual approach" that would be "reversible if Iran goes back to
suspension."
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, who chaired the meeting, told reporters, "We
talked about the role and reaction of the Security Council to the continued
Iranian violation of the (nuclear) Nonproliferation Treaty."
"It has been a core element of our position since I have been working on this
that Iran has to cease enrichment activities. And I think what comes next is the
word 'period,"' Bolton said.
In Washington, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told a congressional
committee that the United States wanted a binding Security Council condemning
Iran as well as sanctions if Tehran did not comply.
He also indicated that if action failed in the Security Council the United
States would look elsewhere.
"It's going to be incumbent upon our allies around the world, and interested
countries, to show that they are willing to act, should the words and
resolutions of the United Nations not suffice," Burns said.
Iran's reaction in Vienna on Wednesday was fierce. It blamed the United
States for its insistence on Security Council action.
"The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain," Javad Vaeedi,
a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator, told reporters. "But it is also susceptible
to harm and pain.
"So if the United States wants to pursue that path, let
the ball roll," he said.
|
