YouSaid · the spoken record

Motaki

lines on the record: 27
first: 2007-03-24
most recent: 2007-03-24
sittings or episodes: 1
sources: un-security-council

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“We have always endeavoured to play a constructive and effective role as a responsible member of the international community.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“The great Iranian people, guided by Islamic teachings and values, are a peace-loving and civilized nation. It is a fact that our people have never had any role in crimes against humanity such as the ones committed during the last two world wars, the genocides that have taken place in various parts of the world, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedies, the Viet Nam war, the crimes perpetrated during the war in the Balkans, or the atrocious crimes that are being 18 systematically committed against the Palestinian people. Iran has not started any war in the past 200 years. We have even been the victim of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction during the eight-year war imposed on us. We call for peace, stability and the well-being of all peoples throughout the world, especially in our own region.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“Can this resolution block these valuable assets? Were eight years of an imposed war - a war that was designed by certain permanent members and implemented through an endless supply of weapons and petrodollars, missiles, Mirage and Super Etandard aircraft, intelligence support and promises from the former United States Secretary of Defence - able to confiscate these great assets? The Iranian nation, following its esteemed leader, advises you not to undermine the dignity of the United Nations and of the IAEA. We invite you to return to the correct path of negotiation, on the basis of truth and justice. The only way forward is to abandon unwise preconditions and return to the negotiating table in good faith. Suspension is neither an option nor a solution.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“Probably at no other time in Iran's history have its entire people been so solidly behind a national demand. Just as the Iranian nation paid a heavy price for the nationalization of its oil industry and its eight years of sacred defence, we realize that we must now be prepared to pay the price for our dignity and our independence. But the world must know - and it does - that even the harshest political and economic sanctions or other threats are far too weak to coerce the Iranian nation into retreating from its legal and legitimate demands. If you are seeking to sanction and block the wealth and capabilities of the Iranian nation, particularly with respect to our national heroes mentioned in the resolution, then I will tell you what our main assets are: faith in God, seeking justice, and resisting threats and intimidation.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“It has been clear from the outset that there are only two alternatives in dealing with Iran's peaceful nuclear programme: cooperation and interaction, or confrontation and conflict. The Islamic Republic of Iran, confident of the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme, has always insisted on the first alternative. Iran does not seek confrontation, nor does it want anything beyond its inalienable rights. I can assure the Council that pressure and intimidation will not change Iranian policy. If certain countries have pinned their hopes on the possibility that repeated resolutions would weaken the resolve of the great Iranian nation, they should not doubt that they have once again faced a catastrophic intelligence and analytical failure vis-a-vis the Iranian people's Islamic revolution.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“The only outcome of the resolution is that freedom-loving people and Governments throughout the world will gain confidence that they cannot rely on multilateral institutions to attain their legitimate rights. Because of the unlawful and unjust approach of the Security Council, its resolutions have so far failed to lead to a settlement of the issue. Those resolutions, and the certainty of some permanent members that they can get them adopted one way or another, are, and always have been, a part of the problem and an impediment to finding a real and mutually acceptable solution. That is why Iran continues to insist on the imperative of stopping this practice, which will only exacerbate the situation and will erode the authority and undermine the credibility of the Council.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“Finally, the resolution has been adopted against Iran's peaceful nuclear programme even as the major nuclear powers continue to flout the persistent demand of the international community for nuclear disarmament and instead jeopardize international peace and security by developing new generations of those weapons and threatening to use them. Does the adoption of the resolution strengthen international peace and security? Does it enhance the credibility of important international mechanisms such as the NPT, the IAEA and even this very Council? Does it increase the confidence of countries and developing nations that they can attain their rights through these mechanisms and instruments? Does it increase trust in multilateral mechanisms? Does it decrease unilateralist tendencies? Certainly the answer to all of those questions is "No".”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“Iran has done its best to achieve that objective and has presented numerous proposals to provide necessary assurances about the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme. In the past several weeks, other proposals have been advanced, each of which could have provided an opportunity to break the current stalemate and to lead to a rational and just resolution. The only interpretation that can be made of the rush to adopt this resolution and prevent negotiations is that there are ulterior motives on the part of the sponsors and a lack of political will to find solutions.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“By targeting my country's defence, economic and educational institutions, it is pursuing objectives far beyond Iran's peaceful nuclear programme. The sanctions provided for in the resolution are clearly targeting an independent, proud and tireless nation with thousands of years of culture and civilization. What can the harming of hundreds of thousands of depositors in Bank Sepah, which has an 80-year history in Iran, mean other than a confrontation with ordinary Iranians? T hirdly, the resolution has been adopted at a time when not only have all rational proposals and initiatives to return to a negotiated solution been neglected, but also certain countries have not even allowed such proposals to be presented. Iran has always been ready for time-bound and unconditional negotiations aimed at finding a mutually acceptable solution.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“First, by establishing sanctions, the resolution is punishing a country that, according to the IAEA, has never diverted its nuclear programme. The resolution punishes a country that has been a committed party to the NPT, with all of its nuclear facilities monitored by IAEA inspectors and their cameras. The resolution imposes sanctions on a country that has fulfilled all of its commitments under the NPT and the IAEA safeguards, and demands nothing more than its inalienable rights under the Treaty. Could there be any better way to undermine an important multilateral instrument that deals directly with international peace and security? Is not this action by the Security Council, in and of itself, a grave threat to international peace and security? Secondly, the resolution clearly departs from the stated claims of its sponsors.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“How could an organ of the United Nations, established to maintain peace and security, be manipulated by certain States not only to act contrary to the fundamental purposes and principles of the Charter, but also to aggravate an issue that could be easily resolved into an international crisis? However, it is evident that such an approach will strengthen the resolve of developing countries to expedite their independence-seeking efforts and attain even greater scientific and technological achievements. Although those who voted in favour of the resolution just adopted concerning Iran's peaceful nuclear programme did not even bother to listen to my country's positions and explanations before the vote, I would like to highlight a number of elements of that resolution for the record and for the awakened global public opinion.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“To do that would violate established principles of international treaty law and the principle set forth in the Preamble to the Charter, namely, to establish conditions under which justice and respect for treaty obligations are to be maintained. Who could deny that depriving a whole nation of higher education in specific fields and of the benefits of nuclear technology for humanitarian and civil uses is contrary to the basic right of all people to education and development? Is not that an alarmingly discriminatory approach vis-a-vis knowledge and development?”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“While Member States have agreed, in accordance with Article 25 of the Charter, to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter, the Security Council cannot pressure countries into submitting either to its decisions taken in bad faith or to its demands negating the fundamental purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Likewise, as the International Court of Justice held in its 1971 Advisory Opinion, Member States are required to comply with its decisions only if they are in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Does the Charter authorize the Security Council to require States Members of the United Nations to give up their basic rights emanating from treaties?”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“It is very unfortunate that the Security Council, under the manifest pressure of a few of its permanent members, persists in trying to deprive a nation of its "inalienable right" to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, while that nation has met, and continues to honour, its international obligations. The Security Council's decision to try to coerce Iran into suspension of its peaceful nuclear programme is a gross violation of Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations and contradicts the Iranian people's right to development and right to education.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“As recently as February 2007, the IAEA Director General stated in his report (S/2007/ 100, annex, enclosure) that "pursuant to its NPT Safeguards Agreement, Iran has been providing the Agency with access to declared nuclear material and facilities, and has provided the required nuclear material accountancy reports in connection with such material and facilities". The same report also indicates that "the Agency is able to verify the non- diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran". The Director General also indicated to the Board of Governors on 5 March 2007 that the Agency has seen no "industrial capacity to produce weapon-usable nuclear material, which is an important consideration in assessing the risk".”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“Are the permanent members of this Council even prepared to inform the international public of the number of centrifuges they own? In fact, over the last four years, the IAEA has conducted more than 2,100 person-days of scrutiny of all Iranian nuclear facilities. All reports by the IAEA since November 2003 until now have been indicative of the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear programme. The Agency confirmed in 2003, and has maintained since then, that to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities were related to a nuclear weapons programme. On several occasions, the Agency concluded that all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“According to a recent report in an American newspaper, "most United States intelligence shared with the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran". The same news article also quotes a senior IAEA official as saying "since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong". However, in order to enable the IAEA to reach this conclusion, Iran had to implement transparency measures outside all IAEA safeguards and protocols and allow the IAEA inspectors to make over 20 visits to its sensitive military sites which had no connection whatsoever with its nuclear programme. Would any member of this Council agree to do likewise?”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“How can Iran's peaceful nuclear programme be considered in the Security Council while Iran has carried out all its obligations and cooperated to the fullest extent possible, far more than it is obliged to do in accordance with its treaty obligations, namely those under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the Safeguards Agreement? Is it not simply because the IAEA could not find any diversion from lawful and peaceful purposes? How could one expect the IAEA to prove a negative fact? In order to achieve the politically motivated and unlawful goal of depriving Iran of its inalienable right to nuclear technology, attempts have been made to manufacture evidence.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“There is every reason to assert that the Security Council's consideration of the Iranian peaceful nuclear programme has no legal basis, since the referral of the case to the Council and then the adoption of resolutions fail to meet the minimum standards of legality. Iran's peaceful nuclear activities cannot, by any stretch of law, fact or logic, be characterized as a threat to peace. Rather, certain members of the Security Council decided to hijack the case from the IAEA, the principal specialized technical organ in charge of the issue, and to politicize it.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“As an organ of an international Organization created by States, the Security Council is bound by law, and Member States have every right to insist that the Council keep within the powers that they accorded it under the Charter of the United Nations. The Security Council must exercise those powers consistently with the purposes and principles of the Charter. Equally, the measures it takes must be consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations and with other international law. Members of the Security Council do not have the right to undermine the Council's credibility.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“Who among you does not know - and rest assured, international public opinion does know - that for more than a month, two members of the Council, with full and prior knowledge of the Zionist regime's intention to commit aggression against Lebanon, prevented any decision in this Council, the Rome Conference, and any initiatives to put an end to that regime's atrocities? You in the Council could not even adopt an appropriate position vis-a-vis the bombing of United Nations facilities in Lebanon, which caused the death of your own representatives. The Security Council should be held accountable not only for its unlawful actions and decisions, but indeed for its repeated failures to act against threats to international peace and security.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“I am confident that today, most of the permanent members of the Council do not even want to remember that travesty of justice, the Charter and international law, let alone blame Iran for non-compliance with resolution 479 (1980). I am also confident that they do not want to remember that when the Iranian people nationalized their oil industry, they attempted to impose a resolution on the Council condemning Iran for threatening peace and security. But they cannot force international public opinion to forget that, and the Iranian people will certainly never forget it.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“We resisted eight years of carnage and use of chemical weapons, coupled with pressure from the Council and sanctions from its permanent members. In the course of the war, the United States joined the United Kingdom, Germany, France and the Soviet Union, along with other Western countries, in providing Saddam with military hardware and intelligence and even with the material for chemical and biological weapons. For several years, and despite mounting evidence and United Nations reports, the Security Council was prevented from dealing with Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iranian civilians and military personnel.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“When Saddam Hussein invaded Iran 27 years ago, the Council waited seven days so that Iraq could occupy 30,000 square kilometres of Iranian territory. Then it unanimously adopted resolution 479 (1980). That unanimously adopted resolution asked the two sides to stop the hostilities, without asking the aggressor to withdraw. That is, the Council - at that time as well - effectively asked Iran to suspend some of its rights, in that case, its right to approximately 30,000 square kilometres of its territory. As expected, the aggressor dutifully complied. But imagine what would have happened if Iran had complied. If we had, we would still be begging the Council's then-sweetheart, President Saddam Hussein, to return our territory. We did not agree to suspend our right to our territory.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“Undoubtedly, those resolutions cannot indicate universal acceptance, particularly when the heads of State of the nearly two thirds of the States Members of the United Nations that also belong to the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) supported Iran's position as recently as September 2006 and expressed concern about the policies pursued within the Security Council. Those resolutions do not even reflect the views of the Council's own 15 members, since most of them were not thoroughly informed about - let alone engaged in - the discussions held in secret meetings where only a few parties, among them non-Council members, made decisions for the entire Council. This is not the first time that the Security Council has asked Iran to relinquish its rights.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“Indeed, there has been no doubt on our part from the beginning, nor should there be any on the part of the Council, that all the schemes of the sponsors of the resolution are dictated by narrow national considerations and are aimed at depriving the Iranian people of their inalienable rights, rather than emanating from any so- called proliferation concerns. In order to give this scheme a semblance of international legitimacy, its initiators first manipulated the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and - as they acknowledged themselves - coerced some of its members to vote against Iran on the Board, and then have taken advantage of their substantial economic and political power to pressure and manipulate the Security Council to adopt three unwarranted resolutions within 8 months.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source
“Mr. Motaki (Islamic Republic of Iran) (spoke in Persian; English text provided by the delegation): This is the fourth time in the last 12 months that, in an unwarranted move orchestrated by a few of its permanent members, the Security Council is being abused to take an unlawful, unnecessary and unjustifiable action against the peaceful nuclear programme of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which presents no threat to international peace and security and therefore falls outside the Council's Charter-based mandate. As we have stressed time and again, Iran's nuclear programme is completely peaceful. We have expressed our readiness, taken unprecedented steps and offered several serious proposals to address and allay any possible concern in that regard.”
2007-03-24 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5647 (2007) · source