Mutual Understanding Between Iran And West Possible

parviz esmaeili


Parviz Esmaeili is a member of iranian nuclear team and has closely ties with Iranian Supreme National Security Council.Esmaeili is also editor-in-chief of iranian mehr news agency.as good ties with ali larijani and Iranian Supreme National Security Council ,his views mostly reflect iranian formal nuclear policies.

--Last week Iran agreed to study the recent nuclear proposal of the 5+1 group. Welcoming logical, equal, and unconditional nuclear negotiations, the Islamic Republic promised to respond to the offer of incentives, whether in the form of suggestions for changes or a counter-proposal and its own package.

The West is impatient to receive Iran’s response. Meanwhile, Iran is patiently and carefully seeking to restore its national nuclear rights, which it has been deprived of for years by the West, while stressing the need for dialogue.

In its response, Iran can call for the clarification of a list of ambiguities and the removal or addition of certain points in the text of the Western offer.

The text of the 5+1 proposal has both positive and negative points.

The West has offered Iran the minimum amount of incentives and wants Iran to provide the maximum amount of commitments, but there needs to be a balance.

Some of the positive points or incentives are ambiguous. For instance, recognizing Iran’s right to make peaceful use of nuclear energy based on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), supporting the construction of research or light water reactors in Iran, and helping the Islamic Republic expand its trade ties with the world, including with Euroatom, are not concessions but Iran’s international rights.

Other incentives, like transferring equipment or advanced technology in the fields of aviation, communication, agriculture, etc. to Iran, basically indicate the West’s discriminatory approach toward the Islamic Republic and other countries.

This offer is in fact an attempt by the West to rectify its mistake, although the effort is in itself more positive than the abovementioned issues!

Recognizing Iran’s right as stipulated in the NPT is only a formality and indicates the West’s duplicitous approach toward international law.

If the West recognizes Iran’s rights based on the NPT, referring to its efforts to help Iran attain these rights as incentives is meaningless. Here lies the contradiction.

Most of the concessions have been mentioned in an ambiguous manner. For instance, the offer to actively support the construction of light water nuclear reactors in Iran through international consortiums does not specify the level of support. Is there any guarantee? What will the capacity of the reactors be? Exactly what will the makeup be of the international consortium that is to guarantee implementation of the project, and over what amount of time?

There have been numerous instances, in North Korea, Egypt, Brazil, etc. where the United States has given written guarantees to construct nuclear reactors but has not lived up to any of its commitments. Now, how can we be sure than an unknown international consortium will not do the same?

Maybe this incentive package could be acceptable if put in a way that would require three Western powers, specifically the U.S., Britain, and France, to practicably start the construction of a new generation of light water reactors with a minimum capacity of 1000 megawatts in Iran and to guarantee their completion.

The 5+1 proposal is meant to help Iran and the West reach a political compromise on the dispute over the country’s nuclear program. But proposals should be based on the NPT and Iran’s international nuclear rights not on the Western offer.

Requesting a suspension of Iran’s nuclear activities even for one moment is an overt violation of Article 4 of the NPT. Iran deems itself obligated to international nuclear regulations, even if the West thinks it can violate international law.

The West’s illogical insistence on this demand, which violates Iran’s national sovereignty and has also faced opposition from Russia and China, is a coup de grace to diplomacy and dialogue.

The West has said that it can only reach long-term agreements with Iran once the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN Security Council are completely certain that there is no undeclared nuclear material or activity in Iran.

However, the involvement of the Security Council in Iran’s nuclear dossier is unjustifiable since it has not issued a resolution in this regard and the IAEA is still conducting its regular inspections in the country.

The West has also asked Iran to implement the additional protocol to the NPT, but based on a Majlis ratification, Iran will not be able to implement it before its nuclear dossier is completely removed from the Security Council and returned to the IAEA.

Iran regards the approach of dialogue as useful and will soon give its response to the West, a response based on international law and international relations, but this certainly doesn’t mean that Iran will renounce its rights in order to prevent the West from taking illegal measures against the country.
source:tehran times
posted by ali ghannadi-irannuk