IAEA Votes to Censure Iran for Nuclear Defiance

Discussion in 'West Asia & Africa' started by AirforcePilot, Nov 27, 2009.

  1. AirforcePilot

    AirforcePilot Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    61
    Location:
    Florida
    VIENNA — The U.N. nuclear agency's board censured Iran on Friday, with 25 nations backing a resolution that demands Tehran immediately mothball its newly revealed nuclear facility and heed U.N. Security Council resolutions calling on it to stop uranium enrichment.

    Iran remained defiant, with its chief representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency declaring that his country would resist "pressure, resolutions, sanction(s) and threat of military attack."

    The resolution — and the resulting vote of the IAEA's 35-nation decision-making board — were significant on several counts.

    The resolution was endorsed by six world powers — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — reflecting a rare measure of unity on Iran. Moscow and Beijing have acted as a traditional drag on efforts to punish Iran for its nuclear defiance, either preventing new Security Council sanctions or watering down their potency.

    They did not formally endorse the last IAEA resolution in 2006, which referred Iran to the Security Council, starting the process that has resulted in three sets of sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Their backing for the document at the Vienna meeting thus reflected broad international disenchantment with Tehran.

    It also appeared to signal possible support for any new Western push for a fourth set of U.N sanctions, should Tehran continue shunning international overtures meant to reach agreements that reduce concerns about its nuclear ambitions.

    Strong backing for the resolution at the meeting was also notable. Only three nations — Cuba, Venezuela and Malaysia — voted against the document, with five abstentions and one member absent.

    That meant even most nonaligned IAEA board members abandoned Tehran, despite their traditional backing of the Islamic Republic.

    The diplomats who reported the vote spoke on condition of anonymity Friday because of the sensitivity of the situation.

    Iran argues that attacks on its nuclear program are an assault on the rights of developing nations to create their own peaceful nuclear energy network. The United States and other nations believe Iran's nuclear program has the goal of creating nuclear weapons.

    The IAEA resolution criticized Iran for defying a U.N. Security Council ban on uranium enrichment — the source of both nuclear fuel and the fissile core of warheads.

    It also censured Iran for secretly building a uranium enrichment facility and demanded that it immediately suspend further construction. It noted that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei cannot confirm that Tehran's nuclear program is exclusively geared toward peaceful uses, and expressed "serious concern" that Iranian stonewalling of an IAEA probe means "the possibility of military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program" cannot be excluded.

    Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's chief delegate to the IAEA, shrugged off the vote.

    "Neither resolutions of the board of governors nor those of the United Nations Security Council ... neither sanctions nor the treat of military attacks, can interrupt peaceful nuclear activities in Iran, even a second," he told the closed meeting, in remarks made available to reporters.

    Source: FOX News
     
  2.  
  3. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Likes Received:
    5,670
    What new sanctions are going to be put on Iran if it defies the new UN resolutions??. I think they are going to go ahead with their nuclear enrichment despite UN resolution against developing nuclear weapons. It needs to be seen if strong sanctions will deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons or not.
     
  4. ppgj

    ppgj Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    156
  5. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,272
    Likes Received:
    11,275
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Seriously can't understand why people object to india voting against iran wrt its nuke program. We are good friends with it, but if we don't approve its nuke program we oppose it. What's the big deal? Who wants a nuclear iran and another big mess with nukes? China voted against it. Was it under US pressure? US thinks india is not doing enough to oppose iran and it was one of the reasons indias own nuke deal was in trouble as some in the Capitol opposed. India makes it own foreign policy and doesn't toe anyones line. If we had, india would have been a US stooge long back.
     
  6. Daredevil

    Daredevil On Vacation! Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    11,613
    Likes Received:
    5,670
    India voted against Iran because it thought it is illegal to develop nuclear weapons when you are a signatory of NPT. Simple as that. India did the right thing. Iran should come out clean about their nuclear weapons development and abandon it.
     
  7. prahladh

    prahladh Respected Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Messages:
    864
    Likes Received:
    144
    Location:
    Universal Citizen
  8. ppgj

    ppgj Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    156
    iran is one of the very few countries india has good relations with in the muslim world. we have a relationship going back to ages. india needs to keep that. that does not mean india supports their nukes.
    that is why it could have been an abstension - a more diplomatic maneur.

    no. but it is P5 member and a NPT signatory. that apart they want to shed/cover their proliferation track record.

    precisely why they forced india to vote against. that was unpublicised condition during bush era. the same continues now. still no final word on the india - US nuke deal with MMS trip to US.

    it is all interdependant world. no one can have independant foreign policy. particularly india whose leaders get easily flattered with platitudes from US.
     
  9. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,272
    Likes Received:
    11,275
    Location:
    BANGalore
    Ppgj, would you live with a nuclear iran?
     
  10. ppgj

    ppgj Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    156
    you have not read my original post or my reply to you. i said abstaining from the vote and not supporting the nukes.
    i also said it was under US pressure which is a fact.
     
  11. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,272
    Likes Received:
    11,275
    Location:
    BANGalore
    If you can't live with a nuclear iran then you oppose it. You vote against it. You are still not going to score any diplomatic points either if you abstain. Iran will still tell you that india should have backed it while the US would tell you to back its initiative. So its killing two birds at one go. You oppose them as a policy decision and also score diplomatic points that will help you in the future.
     
  12. ppgj

    ppgj Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    156
    on the one hand india says NPT is discriminatory and a regime of haves and have nots and then you oppose iran. is it not duplicity?
    atleast by abstaining you take a diplomatic neutral position knowing it is going to be voted against.
    as it is india- iran relations have been under strain. it will get even more strained.
    we want to use chabar port where india has made major investments plus the port acts as a hedge against gwadar. india depends on iran for major portion of oil.
    when has US been on india's good books. they have always given us the wrong end of the stick. even the INDO - US civil nuke deal still far away.
    strategically an abstension would have been a better choice.
     
  13. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    3,885
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    I'm pretty sure our vote was 'bought' from the sellouts at Congress. No way India would backstab Iran this way.
     
  14. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,272
    Likes Received:
    11,275
    Location:
    BANGalore
    You are not understanding. for iran, abstention is as good as voting again it and ditto for the US. Now make up your mind which way do we vote?
     
  15. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    3,885
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    Oh did we abstain? My bad then. I vaguely remember some news channel reporting we voted against.
     
  16. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,272
    Likes Received:
    11,275
    Location:
    BANGalore
    No india did not abstain. We voted against iran.
     
  17. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,076
    Likes Received:
    327
    AFP: US welcomes 'significant' IAEA Iran resolution

    US welcomes 'significant' IAEA Iran resolution

    (AFP) – 5 hours ago

    WASHINGTON — The United States welcomed as "significant" the IAEA's decision Friday to censure Iran over its nuclear program and demand it halt construction at a newly-revealed enrichment plant.

    The resolution "sends a strong signal of serious international concern about Iran's continued non-compliance to its obligations both to the IAEA and to the UN Security Council," a senior State Department official said.

    The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the vote was the outcome of "intensive American diplomatic efforts," including "a lot a very high-level work over recent weeks."

    China and Russia joined forces with Britain, France, Germany and the United States to approve the resolution at the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors meeting in Vienna.

    Western powers have long suspected Iran is seeking to develop an atomic bomb under the cover of its suspect civilian nuclear energy program, but have struggled to secure diplomatic support from China and Russia for sanctions or additional pressure on Tehran.

    On Friday, 25 nations of the UN atomic watchdog's 35-member board voted for the censure, the first against Iran since February 2006. Only Venezuela, Malaysia and Cuba voted against the motion.

    Efforts to negotiate a halt to Iran's nuclear enrichment, coordinated through the so-called P5+1 consisting of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council --- the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain -- plus Germany have floundered.

    Friday's vote came after the revelation in September that Iran, far from halting enrichment, had secretly been constructing a new uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom.

    The State Department official said the censure was "significant because it underscores the unity of purpose" among the P5+1 group, recalling that US President Barack Obama had held talks in recent weeks with his Russian counterpart Dmitri Medvedev and Chinese President Hu Jintao.

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also placed more than a dozen telephone calls in the last couple of days, according to the official.

    The IAEA had brokered a deal under which Russia would lead a consortium that would enrich uranium for Iran to use in a medical research reactor, but Tehran's envoy Ali Asghar Soltanieh said the Islamic republic would also consider "other options" to get fuel.

    The US official insisted the proposal "is still on the table, but time is running short."

    "We're committed to put together a package of consequences if we don't find a willing partners," the official added. "We hope that Iran takes note of that clear message."

    The resolution calls on Iran to "suspend immediately" construction at the Qom site and to explain the plant's purpose and the chronology of its construction.

    It pressed Tehran to confirm it "has not taken a decision to construct, or authorize construction of, any other nuclear facility which has as yet not been declared to the agency."
     
  18. Pintu

    Pintu New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    12,076
    Likes Received:
    327
  19. bhramos

    bhramos Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,206
    Likes Received:
    6,638
    Location:
    Telangana/India/Bharat
    then what about pak, did it abstain or vote against.
     
  20. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,519
    Likes Received:
    6,520
    all this international pressure on Iran may backfire Iran being an NPT signatory may drop out like North Korea did in the 1990's that woud make the situation worst, even with all the pressure in the past it did little to stop the nuclear program in Iran. With the backing of Russia and China Iran has very little to fear, this is all rehashed rhetoric. Iranian yellowcake program is about 3 years old usually it take 5 years to develop a working nuke in the yellowcake route, depending on the accuracy of when Iran started or when Iran received all the Pakistani centrifuges, Iran maybe 12-24 months away from a working nuke or may have possibly already developed one?
     
  21. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,272
    Likes Received:
    11,275
    Location:
    BANGalore
    cuba, venezuela and malaysia voted against I think. One abstained.
     

Share This Page