The following is the transcript of a Press TV interview with Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki.
Press TV: Iran has wrapped a nuclear conference called 'Nuclear Energy for All - Nuclear Weapons For None.' Why don't you tell us, if this conference was in your eyes a success.
Muttaki: In the name of God the compassionate, my rarity for the chance that has been given to me. The Tehran conference was just a beginning. It was the first international conference on disarmament. It was purely content-wise, and it was held in a free and friendly environment, in the presence of both officials from various countries, as well as NGOs, research institutions, and a substantial number of journalists and reporters. And all the contents, whatever discussed was related to the whole world.
Therefore I think, because it's a new chapter, different countries could freely speak and the success for the conference was actually the shared borderlines that everyone was emphasizing.
The participants in the conference found disarmament and nuclear necessity and also the need for solidarity. Therefore, I think this is the strong point of this conference.
Press TV: Well, let's expand more on the strengths of this conference and what was achieved. Are they going to have an impact on the upcoming NPT conference coming up in New York?
Muttaki: Definitely, the participants and also, the reflection of what they said, their comments at the Tehran conference, will have the impacts at the NPT review conference that will be held in New York.
There are three pillars to the NPT. That includes the possibility for use of nuclear energy, peaceful nuclear energy for member states, the non-proliferation as a serious policy [to] be adopted and another one, disarmament.
As a matter of fact, these [are the] three axes of the pillars. When we cast a look upon the forty year history of the NPT, we will see there is not a shining record for the NPT.
The major reason is that the safeguards, or the guarantors of the NPT that are the very possessors of nukes at the time when this treaty was devised; they were not able to fulfill their commitments.
They undertook three commitments: Commitment to help countries in order to peacefully use nuclear energy; this assistant was never rendered. The second obligation of theirs was to try and prevent non-proliferation.
Regrettably, some permanent members of the security counsel themselves caused the arming of some other members of the international community, and some regimes, like the Zionist regime.
They actually equipped them with nuclear arms. This is in clear violation of the commitment that they had undertaken.
And the third part of the NPT, that is Article Six of the NPT, [is] aimed at disarmament, and no practical step was taken so far.
Press TV: I was going to mention Article Six, you mentioned the three-pillars. When you put that together, where is going to be a starting point, so at least there will be a beginning to the road towards nuclear disarmament.
Muttaki: Well, you just mentioned an important point. I believe the starting point is just the raising of this need in the international community, the starting point is actually taking steps in order to create culture for nuclear disarmament.
The starting point is just to kick starting this, let's call it train of disarmament. The Tehran conference kind of prepared the infrastructure and laid the railway tracks in order for the disarmament train, if you will, to get moving.
Building of culture is really significant at a time they thought that security means creating a balance of intimidation and fear. Actually, the balance of nuclear arsenals together could kind of deter the other side from attacking.
This arms race that was with the aim of creating this balance of fear and intimidation brought insecurity to the world. Everyone was concerned about another fighting that may occur somewhere.
Later on, it was the issue of disarmament. It was not taken seriously. Diplomacy was looked upon as an option so that it could stop. We could avoid fighting. Diplomacy is able to stop the fighting.
Today, they are talking [about] 'deterrence diplomacy'. Fifteen years ago, the leaders of the UN Security Council got together in New York; Mr. Petrosgali, the then UN secretary general, came out with a plan called 'Agenda for Peace'.
There, there were axes like preventive diplomacy. Well we believe the means and tools for this diplomacy need to be provided. One of the means, to create confidence and trust for this diplomacy to succeed is disarmament.
That is the international community's concerns about the arsenals WMD's. This concern should be removed to be that this is the demand of all the people in the world. Well, people do support this thesis, when you have the slogan. Look at the slogan of this conference. There are just a few numbers. They are pity but meaningful: "Nuclear energy for all and nukes for no one."
This approach, this attitude is what is acceptable, has high acceptability. We call the academics, the university lecturers who came from Europe, and some other thinkers who joined us from the US, the foreign ministers that came from our region or outside of our region.
I both paid attention to their speeches, and also what they told me when we met. I realized that all of them are in a way satisfied. They are feeling that there was a vacuum for this, that there was a serious need for such a forum.
Therefore we think nuclear energy for all, and nuclear weapons for no one. This is a comprehensive, an all encompassing slogan accepted by all the level of international community.
This is a good beginning; for building of the culture for disarmament. If disarmament happens then we will have a more secure world, and this a very good, in my opinion, for disarmament.
Press TV: You mentioned the fact that there is going to be some kind of an attack by a nuclear states, and the terror that it causes. And I want to talk about what US President Barack Obama said at the Nuclear Security Summit in the United States, and that was on Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal.
And his comment was, 'no comment' when asked about that. Doesn't this posture by the US lose credibility for them?
Muttaki: Well, after all, we live in a world of paradoxes and contradictions. We think that the time for clarifying stances is ripe. Stances based on bullying unilateralism or threatening other countries to use weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons. Well, maybe, the United States needs to work for another fifty years, of course, in a peaceful way. So that it could remove the crime that it committed 65 years ago in Japan's Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They need to work to sort of try to remove these from the future generation's minds.
A few years ago, one of the leaders of a European country adopted this stance, while visiting the nuclear installations of that country, and they said that we might use these weapons.
Today this is a strategic mistake. This has been repeated by Mr. Obama. I suggest, I recommend, that this very statement be put to a public opinion, both in the United States of America and in Europe and elsewhere in the world.
The world public opinion will tell them how far their stance, how unacceptable their stance is. Nobody approves of that kind of stance. Threatening views, nukes, what application, what good can it do apart from destruction?
Of course later on they said we could not make our stances well understood that there was a misinterpretation. And we hope that's true. And therefore, we recommend that if such statements are true then they themselves need to correct it and clarify it, if there is a misunderstanding.
But regarding the Zionist regime, when it comes to the nuclear issue, and the proliferation that Mr. Obama just raised regarding the fact, that everybody should adhere to the NPT; even at that level, the Zionist regime, did not show flexibility and it kind of adopted a posture, and that shows that the Zionist regime is not committed to any regulations or commitments.
During its existence, the Zionist regime has always infringed on all kinds of regulations and laws. And we think that this must be imposed on this regime to abide by the NPT regulations, and also to accept inspections of the IAEA.
To say that there is no comment, that Mr. Obama has no comment on that, well, this as a matter of fact will weaken America's status at the world level and we are hopeful that they will take more heat of their status in the world.
Press TV: Let's take our attention back to Iran. You just said today that a nuclear fuel swap could build an opportunity to build trust. And trust we know is very important. How optimistic are you that there is actually going to be a will on both sides to finally get a nuclear swap deal? And I underline the word 'will' because that has been quite a bit.
Muttaki: Well, diplomats are usually optimistic. And I have also tried to maintain my optimism. I believe that this is both necessary and practicable. Therefore, we need to set the stage for that today. Today we just conferred and discussed with the foreign minister of Turkey, and also with some members of the Security Council. In the past three months, we have had discussions.
Next week, I am also meeting with the European members of the UN Security Council; the non-permanent members, the European non-members. There is Austria and Bosnia. We will have meetings with them. And I think this formula is a good one, and it will benefit all sides, like you rightly said, and I just mentioned it today. It can create a kind of all sided confidence, multilateral confidence.
Therefore, the fuel swap can, in fact, bring about, actually, serve the interests of all sides in this group.
Press TV: Lets move on again to another subject. Again, on Iran, this involves sanctions against this nuclear program. Now, Iran's posture on this has been that this is illegal.
Now given that, if sanctions were going to take place, would Iran take legal action against countries who are pursuing anti-Iran sanctions.
Muttaki: Well, regardless of the fact sanctions today are effective or not, regardless of the fact that whether these sanctions that were placed on Iran in recent years, and if they have been effective or not. And punishing the country should be done for violation of regulations. It should be done for, lets say any illegal act. What illegal act has Iran done?
It has been forty years that we are a committed member of the NPT. All our nuclear activities are under supervision of the IAEA. More that 4,500 days of inspections over Iran's nuclear installations have been conducted. More than 20 reports have been issued by the secretary general of the IAEA.
In all these reports, one statement was repeated and that was that in Iran, there has been no diversion in Iran's peaceful purposes. Based on a certain modality with the IAEA, we came up with responses to all their questions; we tried to remove all the ambiguities on the part of the IAEA.
If you look at the record between Iran and the IAEA, if they publish it, you would not see many countries remembering the agencies to see that vast expanse of cooperation with the agency. Based on that modality, we came up with replies to all the questions of the IAEA, and reciprocally, the IAEA was supposed to announce that all the nuclear activities of Iran are peaceful and that the doors here are closed.
But one certain member of the IAEA, one certain member, a permanent member of the Security Council, insisted, and actually interfered, and raised some claims in order for that IAEA measure not to take place.
Iran as a member has had no inversion. Why should it be punished then? On this basis, that we would say that sanctions against Iran is illegal. Sanctions cannot be imposed on the will of one or two members of the Security Council, but it must not be imposed on others.
When you look at this broad picture, the way that they have actually pressured each and every member of the Security Council in various ways, these pressures themselves make this decision making illegitimate. At the same time, Iran has had no diversion activities. Sanctions have been a failed experience in the past five years.
If there are people who insist, especially those who say that we have come to change the policies, we have come to treat people fairly, we have come to actually correct and rectify the wrong approach of the policies of the past, if they want to pursue the same failed experience in policies, if they want to pursues the same failed experiences and policies, if they want to try those wrong things again, well, it's up to them.
They have two options facing them. One of them is based on interaction and cooperation, and the other being confrontation.
We prefer the option on interaction and constructive cooperation. And we are hopeful that they too will make the right choice.
[Source: Press TV]
Add a comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|