28 Mar 2024
Friday 26 April 2013 - 15:01
Story Code : 26005

To nudge Iran talks, new UN resolution needed

[caption id="attachment_23920" align="alignright" width="300"] EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton listens to a question during her news conference after the high-level talks between world powers and Iranian officials in Almaty, Kazakhstan, Saturday, April 6, 2013.[/caption]
UN Security Council resolutions that Iran must stop 'all' enrichment activities are outmoded, unrealistic, and hurt the Iran talks. A new resolutionshould promise to lift sanctions if the parties reach a reasonable agreement on Iran's nuclear program.


The latest round of nuclear talks betweenIranand P5+1 international negotiators ended earlier this month withno more than an agreement to resume negotiations at a later date. As usual, pundits on both sides offered their assessments about why the talks did not succeed.
But one factor UN Security Councilresolutions that Iran suspend all enrichment-related activities may play more of a role in fruitless negotiations than most commentators realize.


Since 2006, when the Security Council first made that demand, it has repeated it in three subsequent resolutions, the latest being Resolution 1929, adopted in June 2010. But the demand to cease all uranium enrichment is overly restrictive, essentially denying Iran the ability to develop even peaceful nuclear power. For the negotiation process, this restrictiveness poses several problems.

First, the resolutions are out of touch with the realities on the ground in Iran namely, enrichment taking place that is not at bomb grade (at least not yet). They are also out of date, neglecting all the developments and understandings that both sides have achieved throughout various rounds of negotiations since 2006.

Today, after years of multilateral negotiations, most negotiating countries seem to have adopted a more pragmatic and practical approach and no longer truly expect a full suspension of Irans nuclear activities. Nonetheless, the shadow of the Security Councils unrealistic and outdated request still looms over the talks.

Second, because of the Security Councils radical stance on enrichment, world powers cannot legally offer Iran any meaningful relief on international sanctions in exchange for fair and reasonable concessions fromTehran. In the present climate, agreeing to anything short of a full suspension of Irans nuclear activities would breachUNresolutions, and that would set a bad precedent and dent the credibility of the UN collective security regime.

Third, because of the legal restrictions that these UN resolutions impose on all states, including on Western states that are in the process of negotiating with Iran, P5+1 negotiators cannot legally offer Iran any technical incentive to secure its cooperation. The Security Council effectively bans most forms of assistance to, and investment in, Irans nuclear and energy sector. That restricts the P5+1 negotiators, which are legally bound to maintain the full force of the resolutions, from offering any captivating alternative to Iran.

To illustrate the point,Germanys Green Party submitted a proposal last year in which the German government would help Iran build a solar energy facility in exchange for Iran curbing some aspects of its nuclear program. Such a proposition, and similar ones, could have been put on the table by the P5+1 to increase the negotiations change of success. But the Security Council renders such creative initiatives irrelevant as their realization would be illegal under its resolutions.

In other words, because of these legal strictures, the P5+1 goes to the negotiation table without having the capacity to offer its counterpart any positive incentive, something that most negotiators would find a handicap rather than a leverage to their advantage.


Of course, despite these legal restrictions, various international actors have occasionally been able to offer promising deals to Iran. For example, in May 2010,BrazilandTurkeypersuaded Tehran to ship 1200 kg (2640 pounds) of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey (as a confidence-building measure) based on a proposal that was initially drafted by theObama administration. However, theUnited Statesitself subsequently blocked the bargain on the ground that it still did not meet the restrictive demands of the Security Council.

While it would be a positive step for Iran to transfer low-enriched uranium off of its soil as it agreed to do last October, Iran said today that it would continue its 20 percent enrichment, which is a direct violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions, theWhite Housesaid in a statement.

In sum, despite the fact that the UN Charter mandates the world body to encourage and facilitate peaceful settlements of international disputes, it seems that in the case of Irans nuclear crisis, the Security Council has had the exact opposite effect.

The way out of this conundrum is for the Security Council to issue a new resolution. The resolution would do two things: It would explicitly acknowledge whatever achievement the P5+1 track has so far produced. And it would promise to lift its sanctions if the parties reach a reasonable agreement notwithstanding previous resolutions.

Such a move by the Security Council would greatly help to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem in a peaceful manner. It would give Iran the long-awaited assurance that its cooperation would be met with some degree of reciprocation. And it would free Western negotiators from the burden of having to work within the unrealistic and outdated UN strictures on enrichment.

It remains to be seen which member of the Security Council is bold enough to propose such a draft resolution.

By The Christian Science Monitor

 

The Iran Project is not responsible for the content of quoted articles.



https://theiranproject.com/vdcen78w.jh8p7ik1bj.html
Your Name
Your Email Address