Oooooooooo, I bet Iran is afraid of the UN,haha
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The U.N. Security Council passed a weakened resolution Monday giving Iran until Aug. 31 to suspend uranium enrichment or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions.
Iran immediately rejected the council action, saying the resolution would only make negotiations more difficult over a package of incentives offered in June for it to suspend enrichment.
"All along it has been the persistence of some to draw arbitrary red lines and deadlines that has closed the door to any compromise," Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Javad Zarif, said. "This tendency has singlehandedly blocked success and in most cases killed proposals in their infancy."
"This approach will not lead to any productive outcome and in fact it can only exacerbate the situation," he said.
Because of Russian and Chinese demands, the text was watered down from earlier drafts, which would have made the threat of sanctions immediate. It now essentially requires the council to hold more discussions before it considers sanctions.
The resolution passed by a vote of 14-1. Qatar, which represents Arab states on the council, cast the lone dissenting vote.
Drafted by Britain, France and Germany with U.S. backing, the resolution follows a July 12 agreement -- by the foreign ministers of those four countries, plus Russia and China -- to refer Tehran to the Security Council for not responding to the incentives package.
The ministers asked that council members adopt a resolution making Iran's suspension of enrichment activities mandatory. The resolution includes that demand and calls on all states "to exercise vigilance" in preventing the transfer of all goods that could be used for Iran's enrichment and ballistic missile programs.
"If you remember the reason for that resolution is to make the suspension of enrichment and related activities mandatory and then to give Iran a deadline by which it should accept the now mandatory requirement that it suspend its enrichment activities," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters on a flight from Jerusalem.
In a lengthy speech after the resolution was adopted, Zarif told the council it had no legal legitimacy to demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing. He repeated Iran's claim that it has every right to pursue nuclear technology and does not want to develop nuclear weapons.
Zarif faulted the United States and Britain for supporting a 1953 coup in Iran, and blasted the council for being slow to address Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980 and its use of chemical weapons against Iranians.
Tehran said last week it would reply to the Western incentive package on Aug. 22, but the council decided to go ahead with a resolution and not wait for Iran's response.
On Friday, Iran called again for international negotiations on its nuclear ambitions and said it was considering the incentives. Western nations have dismissed the idea of such talks without a halt to Iran's uranium enrichment.
The United States and some of its allies accuse Iran of seeking to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran maintains its nuclear program is purely peaceful and aimed at generating electricity.
The resolution calls on the U.N nuclear watchdog, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back by Aug. 31 on Iran's compliance with the resolution's demands.
If Iran does not comply, the council would move to adopt political and economic sanctions, the resolution said.
Diplomats said the threats spelled out in the resolution would be revoked if Iran agrees to the package of incentives.
"It does not mean an end to the negotiations and we reaffirm the proposals," France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said. "We appeal to Iran to positively respond to the substantive proposals that we made last month."
Explaining his "no" vote, Qatar's U.N. Ambassador Nassir Al-Nasser said that while the demands of the six nations were legitimate, the resolution will only exacerbate tensions in the region and Iran should be given more time to respond.
"We do not agree with the tabling of this resolution at a time when our region is in flames," Al-Nasser said. "We see no harm in waiting for a few days to exhaust all possible means and in order to identify the real intentions of Iran."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/ ... index.html
U.N. gives Iran 31 days or else
Moderator: S2k Moderators
U.N. gives Iran 31 days or else
0 likes
- stormtruth
- Category 2
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:15 pm
- Audrey2Katrina
- Category 5
- Posts: 4252
- Age: 75
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
- Location: Metaire, La.
Or else what?..... probably or else we'll have another meeting and issue another warning.... and the beat goes on.
A2K
A2K
0 likes
Flossy 56 Audrey 57 Hilda 64* Betsy 65* Camille 69* Edith 71 Carmen 74 Bob 79 Danny 85 Elena 85 Juan 85 Florence 88 Andrew 92*, Opal 95, Danny 97, Georges 98*, Isidore 02, Lili 02, Ivan 04, Cindy 05*, Dennis 05, Katrina 05*, Gustav 08*, Isaac 12*, Nate 17, Barry 19, Cristobal 20, Marco, 20, Sally, 20, Zeta 20*, Claudette 21 IDA* 21 Francine *24
Were the UN effective then those who decry its ability to act on the world stage would be railing against its intrusion on the sovereignty of the United States.
The fact is this :
The United Nations consists only of its member states, and those states are not equal, and it is an outdated institution which sprung out of WWII.
But there are few institutions in the world that are given as much consideration as the United Nations Security Council. While its not popular to acknowledge this it is undeniable to those who study recent history. The UNSC has passed both effective sanctions and ineffective sanctions (just as states wage effective and ineffective wars, trade policies, etc), but their reach is global and they can act as a means for asserting the international community's will.
The other organizations I'd take more serious than the UN (if I were Iran) are NATO and the US.
The fact is this :
The United Nations consists only of its member states, and those states are not equal, and it is an outdated institution which sprung out of WWII.
But there are few institutions in the world that are given as much consideration as the United Nations Security Council. While its not popular to acknowledge this it is undeniable to those who study recent history. The UNSC has passed both effective sanctions and ineffective sanctions (just as states wage effective and ineffective wars, trade policies, etc), but their reach is global and they can act as a means for asserting the international community's will.
The other organizations I'd take more serious than the UN (if I were Iran) are NATO and the US.
0 likes
- The Sandcrab
- Tropical Low
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 12:30 pm
- Location: Space City/Best Kept Secret on the Gulf Coast
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests