YouSaid · the spoken record

Zarif

lines on the record: 520
first: 1992-01-21
most recent: 2019-09-25
sittings or episodes: 43
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

“As IAEA Director General ElBaradei recently said, "A lot of what you see about Iran right now is assessment of intentions But one of the lessons we learned from Iraq is that we really need to be very, very careful coming to conclusions, because these issues make the difference between war and peace". As we are talking about intentions, while the main proponents of the resolution may have self- servingly claimed that they doubt ours, they themselves have said and done plenty so that no body in Iran or elsewhere in the world could have any illusions about theirs: one need only read the recent dangerously divisive statement by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Or take a look at the 23 August report by the staff of the Intelligence Committee of the United States House of Representatives on Iran's nuclear programme.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“Now, the same intelligence establishment is saying, not before 2015. Accusing Iran of having "the intention" of acquiring nuclear weapons has, since the early 1980s, been a tool used to deprive Iran of any nuclear technology, even a light water reactor or fuel for the American-built research reactor. I wonder which "Iranian intention" or which "proliferation concern" has prompted the main proponents of today's resolution to prevent Iran, for the past 27 years, from even acquiring civilian aircraft - or even spare parts for the civilian aircraft they sold to Iran, thereby jeopardizing the lives and safety of Iranian civilians, whom they hypocritically try to court these days - and, I might add, to no avail.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“Indeed, old-hand proliferators and suppliers of chemical weapons and nuclear weapon technology can hardly have proliferation concerns. The sponsors tell you that they do not trust our intentions. But the problem is that their "intentionometer" has a rather abysmal record of chronic malfunction. Suffice it to say that the former United States Director of Central Intelligence, Robert Gates, in testimony before Congress in March 1992, claimed that Iran was trying to acquire a nuclear weapons capability and added that this goal was unlikely to be achieved before the year 2000 - seven years ago. Later, in November of the same year, a draft National Intelligence Estimate by the same Central Intelligence Agency concluded that Iran was making progress on a nuclear arms programme and could develop a nuclear weapon by 2000 - seven years ago.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“But the answer to all of them will be the same, because what the United States, and apparently the EU-3 - in spite of what they told us during the negotiations - wanted, and the only outcome that they were and are ready to accept from these so-called negotiations, was - and still is - that Iran should "make a binding commitment not to pursue fuel cycle activities", as it is phrased in package proposed by the EU-3, of August 2005. We are here because we did not accept that unlawful demand, which, as many here already know, would not have been their last demand. At the same time, we were prepared to go to any length to allay their so-called proliferation concerns, in spite of the fact that we all know that these are no more than sheer unfounded and self-serving excuses.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“Did the United States and its European allies seriously consider our detailed reply of 22 August 2006, which, unlike their practice, provided a point-by-point reply to their 6 June package and made genuine proposals to address its shortcomings? All I know is that they even refused to refer to it in the present resolution. Did they discuss the offer of an international consortium which was presented by Iran in the course of the September and October 2006 negotiations in Vienna and Berlin and was initially considered very promising, leading to public statements of progress after those meetings - a prognosis that was rapidly and astonishingly reversed even before the ministerial meeting of the five-plus-one? Many other similar questions may be asked.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“[and] creating, through voluntary agreements and contracts, multinational, and in particular regional, MNAs for new facilities based on joint ownership, drawing rights or co-management for front-end and back-end nuclear facilities, such as uranium enrichment". Did the Iranian readiness to implement these ideas almost verbatim not present a unique opportunity to create a global model to strengthen the NPT and remove concerns about fuel cycle activities based on the recommendation of the best international experts brought together by the IAEA for this exact purpose? Was any other country with similar technology prepared to be as flexible as Iran?”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“The facility would also be jointly owned by the sharing countries, and the work could be divided based on the expertise of the participants." (CD/PV.1015, pp. 6-7) Were these suggestions not an exact replica of the main proposal of the IAEA experts on multinational approaches to nuclear fuel cycle activities published on 22 February 2005? For those members who may have not seen the report, it suggests "promoting voluntary conversion of existing facilities to [multilateral nuclear approaches (MNAs)], and pursuing them as confidence- building measures, with the participation of NPT non-nuclear-weapon States and nuclear-weapon States, and non-NPT States . . .”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“On that occasion, he said, "in order to provide the greatest degree of transparency, the Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to engage in serious partnerships with the private and public sectors of other countries in the implementation of a uranium enrichment programme in Iran". (A/60/PV10, p. 8) Did they respond to the concrete proposal by the Iranian Foreign Minster at the Conference on Disarmament on 30 March 2006? Allow me to quote what he said. "In our View, one option to resolve the issue could be the establishment of regional consortia on fuel cycle development with the participation of regional countries . . . Of course, countries outside the region may also participate in such regional arrangements . . .”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“Did they ever propose how those positive elements could be enhanced or how the points of divergence could be bridged? Or did they, after consultations with a certain absent party, come back and simply say "It is not good enough. Continue to suspend"? Did they even bother to read our proposal of 18 July 2005, which suggested: "Allow the Agency to develop an optimized arrangement on numbers, monitoring mechanism and other specifics for an initial limited operation at Natanz, which would address our needs and allay [their] concerns"? Did they ponder the far-reaching non- proliferation potential of the proposal by the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran in his address to the General Assembly on 17 September 2005? Let me refresh the memory of Council members.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“Such a suspension was in place for over two years and, contrary to the excuse that the proponents of the resolution have presented here and there, the IAEA repeatedly verified that Iran fully suspended what it had agreed to suspend in each and every report from November 2003 to February 2006. So, we had a suspension for two years and on-and-off negotiations for three. The question is: What has been done during those three years to find an agreement? Have the EU three or the United States presented any proposal on what measures - short of outright revision of the NPT - would remove their so-called proliferation concerns? Having failed to do so, did they ever consider the far-reaching proposals that were offered by Iran in Paris on 23 March, 2005, which the EU three negotiators initially considered to contain positive elements?”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“They were from the very beginning bent on abusing this Council and the threat of referral and sanctions as an instrument of pressure to compel Iran to abandon the exercise of its NPT-guaranteed right to peaceful nuclear technology. It is now an open secret that their sole objective in the negotiations has always been to impose and then prolong and perpetuate the suspension of Iran's rights, in line with their arbitrary and fluctuating red lines. Finding solutions has never even been among the objectives. Suspension is not a solution. It is at best a temporary - one might call it a stop-gap - measure to allow time to find a real solution.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“Implicit in the paper is a recognition that we are not going to bring the Russians and Chinese to accept significant sanctions over the coming months, certainly not without further efforts to bring the Iranians around In return for the Russians and Chinese agreeing to [a Chapter VII resolution], we would then want to put together a package that could be presented to the Iranians as a new proposal." Now we see what motivated the presentation of the infamous package of incentives presented to Iran on 6 June 2006, and now we see why the United States and its EU three partners never even took the trouble to study various Iranian proposals.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“As to our negotiating partners, the Political Director of the British Foreign Office, in a letter dated 16 March 2006 addressed to his counterparts in France, Germany and the United States, revealed the more conniving British plan: "We may also need to remove one of the Iranian arguments that the suspension called for is 'voluntary'. We could do [that] by making the voluntary suspension a mandatory requirement to the Security Council." The letter gets even more interesting as we read on: "I agreed to circulate a short paper which we might use as a sort of speaking note with the Russians and Chinese.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“An informal paper entitled "Options for Addressing Iran's Nuclear Programme at the United Nations Security Council", circulated by the United States mission in October 2004 - exactly when the United States three European Union (EU) allies were ostensibly engaged in negotiations with Iran - states: "The United States has long believed that Iran's nuclear activities must be reported to the United Nations Security Council The United Nations Security Council has the legal authority to require Iran to stop its enrichment programme." That was the intention.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“The bringing of Iran's peaceful nuclear programme to the Council by a few of its permanent members, particularly the United States, is not aimed at seeking, nor will it help to find, a solution or at encouraging negotiations. Even their stated objective is not to achieve that. Their stated objective has always been to use the Council as an instrument of pressure and intimidation to compel Iran to abandon its rights. Knowing their bright recent history, we can all assume what the unstated objective has been. Allow me to provide just two examples of the stated objective.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“It brings back the horrors of the long years when this Council turned a blind eye to the extensive and brutal use of chemical weapons against Iranian civilians and soldiers and, by so doing, made itself responsible for the tens of thousands of Iranians who continue to suffer and perish as a result of chemical weapons whose components, incidentally, came from certain countries permanently seated in this Council. We do not need to go far to find those victims. Only last month, I lost one of my brightest colleagues in the mission, Mahdi Vahidi, to cancer caused by those very chemical weapons. He was only 39 years old. I dealt with the pretexts used for the involvement of the Security Council in Iran's peaceful nuclear programme in my statement before the Council on 30 July. I will not repeat them today. Allow me to simply make a few points.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“It is also a reminder of the Council's indifference in the face of a military coup, organized by two of its permanent members, which restored the dictatorship. It refreshes the memory of the Iranian people of the time when the Council did not consider the massive invasion of Iran by the former Iraqi regime as a threat to international peace and security, and refused to even call on the invading army to withdraw from Iranian territory.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“With such tendencies, it is not at all surprising that a nation is being punished for exercising its inalienable rights, primarily at the behest of a dangerous regime with aggression and war crimes as its signature brand of behaviour, which is apparently being rewarded today for having clandestinely developed and unlawfully possessed nuclear weapons. Does anyone expect that to enhance the credibility of the Council or to strengthen the authority of the NPT? Put into perspective, today's resolution can only remind the Iranian people of the historic injustices that this Security Council has done to them over the past six decades. It is reminiscent of the attempt made in the Council to punish the Iranian people for their nationalization of their oil industry, claimed to present a threat to peace.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“The reaction of the Security Council to the Israeli regime's unlawful possession of nuclear weapons will show whether the Council is even considering to act - as it is obliged to do under Article 24 of the Charter - on behalf of the members of the international community that have made their views on that issue abundantly clear, or whether it is merely a tool in the toolbox of a few of its permanent members, which only misuse it to fix their foreign policy problems and to serve their short-sighted perceived interests.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“President, it is indisputable that nuclear weapons in the hands of an Israeli regime with an unparalleled record of non-compliance with Security Council resolutions - if that is the criteria that is being applied today - and a long and dark catalogue of crimes and atrocities, such as occupation, aggression, militarism, State terrorism, crimes against humanity and even apartheid, pose a uniquely grave threat to regional and international peace and security. The reversal of the hypocritical policy of strategic ambiguity followed by the Israeli regime has removed any excuse - if there ever were any - for continued inaction by the Council in the face of that actual threat to international peace and security.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“The same Governments that have pushed this Council to take groundless punitive measures against Iran's peaceful nuclear programme have systematically prevented the Council from taking any action to nudge the Israeli regime towards submitting itself to the rules governing the nuclear non-proliferation regime. By so doing, they have provided it with wide latitude and even encouragement to indulge freely in the clandestine development and unlawful possession of nuclear weapons, and even in public boasting about them with impunity. As I pointed out in my letter of 20 December 2006 addressed to you, Mr.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“Today is a sad day for the non-proliferation regime. Only a few days ago, the Prime Minister of the Israeli regime boasted about his regime's nuclear weapons, but instead of even raising an eyebrow, let alone addressing that serious threat to international peace and security and to the non-proliferation regime, the Security Council is imposing sanctions on a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) that, unlike Israel, has never attacked or threatened to use force against any Member of the United Nations; has categorically rejected the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on ideological and strategic grounds; was prepared to provide guarantees that it would never withdraw from the NPT; has placed all its nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); fully implemented the Additional Protocol for over two years, and stated its readiness to resume its implementation; allowed over 2,000 person days of IAEA scrutiny of all its related and unrelated facilities, resulting in repeated statements by the Agency on the absence of any evidence of diversion; voluntarily suspended its lawful enrichment activities for over two years, as verified by the IAEA, in order to build confidence and provide ample opportunity to find a mutually acceptable solution, if that ever were the intention of its negotiating partners; presented various far-reaching proposals to ensure permanent non- diversion; and has consistently called for time-bound and unconditional negotiations to find a mutually acceptable solution - a call that was repeated yesterday by the Iranian Foreign Minister.”
2006-12-23 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5612 (2006) · source
“Now that Afghanistan has entered a new phase of its history, we expect more cooperation on the part of the international community and the Afghan Government in the process of voluntary repatriation of refugees. Despite the commendable actions taken in the past several years, progress has yet to reach a satisfactory level. We had expected the Security Council mission to address the important issue of refugees and their return in a more serious manner during its visit and in its report.”
2006-12-07 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5581 (2006) · source
“During his latest visit to Iran last May, President Karzai, heading nine cabinet ministers and several provincial governors, conferred with Iranian authorities and discussed the expansion of relations in areas of mutual interest. During the Visit, seven agreements and memorandums of understanding on exchange of prisoners, extradition of criminals, promotion of investment and construction of the Khwaf-Herat railway, as well as cooperation in cultural, judicial and economic fields, were signed. The people and Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran have warmly hosted 3 million Afghan refugees for about three decades, incurring huge costs in the process.”
2006-12-07 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5581 (2006) · source
“In this context, my Government has always been at the forefront of efforts to support a regional dialogue to combat terrorism, extremism and traffic in drugs. We have also actively promoted regional cooperation for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, as well as cooperation on refugee issues. We continue to have an enormous stake in the success of the Afghan people and thus have extended our unreserved cooperation to them and their representatives throughout the process. Of $560 million worth of reconstruction assistance for Afghanistan pledged by Iran at the Tokyo Conference - which is the highest pledge in terms of per capita income of donor countries - we have thus far spent $270 million on mutually agreed projects in the areas of infrastructure, technical and educational services and financial and in-kind assistance.”
2006-12-07 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5581 (2006) · source
“For its part, the Islamic Republic of Iran has fought a costly war against heavily armed drug traffickers and is resolute in its continued fight against that menace. Meanwhile, for Iran to sustain its ongoing fight against drug trafficking, international support, especially the cooperation of neighbouring countries, is essential. Given the importance of regional cooperation to help the Afghans cope with growing insecurity, we look with hope to a number of positive steps taken in the past several months with a view to enhancing cooperation between Afghanistan and its neighbours in more rigorously addressing the insecurity and terrorist threats in the south, south-east and east of Afghanistan.”
2006-12-07 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5581 (2006) · source
“To effectively address this menace, greater efforts and resolute actions on the part of both Afghanistan and the wider international community are unquestionably needed. We share the View that a more robust campaign against drug traffickers, the elimination of illicit poppy cultivation, demand reduction, crop substitution, the strengthening of law enforcement, promoting and diversifying lawful livelihoods and stepping up Government activities to arrest and prosecute major drug traffickers, regardless of their position or status, and proceeding with the energetic implementation of all elements of the National Drug Control Strategy are Vital and indispensable if this menace is to be contained, let alone eradicated.”
2006-12-07 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5581 (2006) · source
“In this regard, it is imperative to redouble the efforts to establish a trusted and effective Afghan National Police throughout the country and to address the inadequate and belated efforts to develop the Afghan National Army. As a neighbouring country, the Islamic Republic of Iran is extremely concerned over the increase in poppy cultivation and opium production in Afghanistan, which according to various findings has increased from 180 tons in 2001 to 6,100 tons this year, representing more than 60 per cent of Afghanistan's gross domestic product. We concur with the mission's interlocutors, who have identified Afghanistan's flourishing narco-economy as a primary threat to the stability of the country and as a cancer that is fast becoming the number one problem in Afghanistan and the wider region.”
2006-12-07 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5581 (2006) · source
“We strongly condemn the terrorist acts perpetrated in Afghanistan and remain steadfast in our unwavering support for the Afghan people and Government in their efforts to achieve development and security. In the meantime, we believe that in combating terrorism and insecurity in Afghanistan, any action, including contacts and talks with terrorists who are responsible for insecurity and mayhem, that could be wrongly interpreted as rewarding terrorists and criminals should be avoided. We support the report's conclusion that establishing a strong and sustainable Afghan National Army is of vital importance in effectively addressing the surge in terrorist activities and violence in certain parts of Afghanistan.”
2006-12-07 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5581 (2006) · source
“However, it is unfortunate that, despite all these positive and encouraging developments, the Afghan people are still facing grave and daunting challenges in their endeavours towards stability, security and development. The security situation, as mentioned in the reports, has, in general, remained precarious throughout the country, with the increasing threat of suicide attacks and other forms of terrorism, posed mostly by the Taliban and Al-Qaida. We agree with the finding of the mission that the spread of insurgent and terrorist activity by the Taliban, Al-Qaida and other extremist groups, linked with the illegal drug trade and coupled with other menaces such as corruption, collectively disrupt rehabilitation and reconstruction work in Afghanistan, thus posing a grave threat to reconstruction and nation-building.”
2006-12-07 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5581 (2006) · source
“As rightly mentioned in the reports of the mission and of the Secretary-General, in the past several years, Afghans have undertaken significant efforts, with the support of the international community, towards the development and stability of Afghanistan. These achievements are grounds for hope and optimism. As these reports indicate, the major achievements of the Afghans in the past several years include the establishment of democratic institutions, economic growth, per capita income increase, trade and investment expansion - principally with regional partners, including Iran - significant infrastructure projects, and successful national programmes in the fields of education, health and rural development, along with the development of new Afghan security institutions.”
2006-12-07 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5581 (2006) · source
“The recent Security Council mission visited Afghanistan at a crucial juncture, at a time when, on the one hand, the Afghan people have many reasons to be satisfied with their accomplishments, while, on the other, a number of grave challenges have tempered their legitimate hopes with signs of disillusionment. It is indeed imperative to emphasize in words and in deeds the continued commitment of the international community to support the Government and people of Afghanistan and the Afghanistan Compact, under Afghan ownership and leadership, which remains the central and strategic framework for cooperation between the Afghan Government and the international community.”
2006-12-07 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5581 (2006) · source
“I wish to begin, Sir, by congratulating you on your assumption of the Council's presidency for this month. I am confident that you will lead the Council with your well-known wisdom and ability. I also extend my appreciation to your predecessor. Allow me also to thank Ambassador Oshima for his informative briefing on the recent mission to Afghanistan. We are grateful to the Secretary-General and to his Special Representative, Mr. Tom Koenigs, as well as to their colleagues in UNAMA, for their tireless efforts and dedication. We continue to underline the central role of the United Nations.”
2006-12-07 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5581 (2006) · source
“Indeed, the Council should take the calls and concerns of the international community about the Zionist regime's aggressive policies and inhuman practices in the occupied territories more seriously and stop the Israeli regime from insolently making a mockery of the international community and of the Security Council by hypocritically preaching peace here and carrying out acts of terror, horror and barbarism and crimes against humanity in the region, particularly in the occupied Palestinian territory.”
2006-11-09 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5564Resumption1 (2006) · source
“As the ongoing aggression seriously threatens international peace and security, the Security Council has an enormous responsibility under the Charter to take necessary and prompt steps with a View to putting an end to this aggression. We hope that, recognizing the need for taking decisive action in the face of this new escalation in the region, all members of the Security Council will live up to their responsibilities in properly addressing this grave situation and, as a first step in this regard, adopt the draft resolution before the Council.”
2006-11-09 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5564Resumption1 (2006) · source
“Regrettably, owing to the inaction imposed on the Security Council by certain permanent members, all of these crimes continue to be committed -there has been no meaningful action by the Council. Indeed, the impunity with which the Israeli regime has carried out its crimes so far has emboldened it to continue and even to increase its aggressive policies and terrorist acts. The international community and the Security Council must take resolute measures, which are long overdue, to counter these illegal, aggressive and criminal policies and actions by the Israeli regime, to stop its war machine and its acts of State terrorism and to help put an end to the violence brought about by the persistent illegal occupation of Palestinian territory.”
2006-11-09 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5564Resumption1 (2006) · source
“We strongly condemn the aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity and State terrorism of the Zionist regime perpetrated systematically against the Palestinian people over the past six decades. Its recent acts of brutality are equally appalling and must be strongly condemned. It is evident that this latest example of brutality, which, like the numerous previous ones, has targeted civilians and vital civilian infrastructure, is an act of collective punishment and a war crime, carried out in defiance of the most basic principles of international law and international humanitarian law. It is imperative that the international community at long last truly address the situation and prevent these terrorist designs against the Palestinians from continuing.”
2006-11-09 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5564Resumption1 (2006) · source
“The magnitude of the crimes of the Israeli regime in Beit Hanoun was partly reflected in the recent statement by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in Gaza, which has called the situation there "desperate", adding that "Death, destruction and despair are the terms to describe the situation [which] is very grim There is destruction and devastation everywhere The entire population has been living in fear." The Israeli aggressors and assassins have callously spared no effort to deprive Palestinian civilians of even their basic necessities and continue to perpetrate crimes and acts of brutality which are reminiscent of the savagery committed in medieval times.”
2006-11-09 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5564Resumption1 (2006) · source
“To add to the misery and suffering of the innocent Palestinian civilians, the Israeli regime has, in many cases, even blocked medical crews from gaining access to the injured and the dead in Beit Hanoun, and has placed hospitals in the area under siege. It has even attacked and killed Red Crescent Society paramedics in the Gaza Strip in yet another flagrant violation of international humanitarian law. As Palestinian officials have said, the destruction wreaked by the latest Israeli aggression against Beit Hanoun is worse than anything the town has suffered as a result of past Israeli aggression. There is no electricity, the people have no water or food, telephone lines have been cut and infrastructure is damaged.”
2006-11-09 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5564Resumption1 (2006) · source
“The recent Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people, especially in the Gaza Strip and in Beit Hanoun, has raged in flagrant defiance of the most basic principles of international law and the fundamental provisions of the United Nations Charter. It has been described by the Israeli regime's own officials as one of the largest of its kind against the Gaza Strip, once more displaying for all to see the lawless nature of that regime. More than 100 Palestinians, including several women and children, have been killed so far; over 350 have been wounded, and many of them are in critical condition. The international community was deeply shocked and appalled to learn that 19 Palestinians, including women and children, were massacred in cold blood, and dozens of others wounded, when the Israeli regime shelled homes in Beit Hanoun yesterday.”
2006-11-09 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5564Resumption1 (2006) · source
“Allow me to join previous speakers in congratulating you, Mr. President, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month, and in thanking your predecessor. I would also like to express our appreciation for your decision to convene this urgent meeting of the Security Council to address the latest aggression and atrocities of the Israeli regime. The international community has witnessed with outrage and indignation yet another round of Israeli aggression and an escalation in its persistent policy and practices of State terrorism and war crimes against the Palestinian people.”
2006-11-09 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5564Resumption1 (2006) · source
“So, it is pertinent to ask: What is the motive behind this long-standing urge of some permanent members to bring Iran before the Security Council? And what is the current rush? Is it anything but pressure and coercion? I would suggest that this approach will not lead to any productive outcome and that in fact it can only exacerbate the situation. The 12 people and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran are not seeking confrontation and have always shown their readiness to engage in serious and result- oriented negotiations based on mutual respect and on an equal footing. They have also shown, time and again, their resilience in the face of pressure, threat, injustice and imposition.”
2006-07-31 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5500 (2006) · source
“This rush becomes even more suspect if one takes into account repeated statements of the Director-General of the IAEA, numerous United States experts and even the United States intelligence community about the absence of any urgency. Compare this rush to the fact that some of the very same Powers have for the past three weeks prevented any action - not even a 72-hour humanitarian truce - by the Security Council on the urgent situation in Lebanon, which has been officially and publicly interpreted by the aggressors as a green light to continue their onslaught, unfortunately including the recent carnage in Qana. Security Council members can be the judge of how much credibility this leaves for the Council. Millions of people around the world have already passed their judgement.”
2006-07-31 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5500 (2006) · source
“Yet, an arbitrary deadline was set, ex post facto, without any justification and only to serve the totally ulterior objective of maximizing pressure. Indeed, it is informative to note that it took the EU-3 nearly five months, from March to August 2005, to consider a very serious proposal made by Iran last year. And even then the EU-3 came up with a response that did not address any elements of that proposal. And yet, while the Islamic Republic of Iran has clearly stated that it requires three more weeks to conclude its evaluation of the proposed package and come up with a substantive reaction, it is astonishing - and indeed telling - to see that the EU-3 and the United States are in such a rush to prematurely hamper the path of negotiations by imposing a destructive and totally unwarranted Security Council resolution.”
2006-07-31 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5500 (2006) · source
“Only the tactics have changed. All along, the threats by some to bring this issue before the Council and to take it out of its proper technical and negotiated structure have loomed large over the negotiations and have impeded progress, derailed discussions and prevented focus on a mutually acceptable resolution. The manner in which negotiations over the recently proposed package have been conducted is a further indication of the same propensity to resort to threats and the lack of genuine will to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. Iran, publicly and in a show of good faith, reacted positively to this initiative and indicated its readiness to engage in fair, non-discriminatory and result- oriented negotiations about the package within a mutually agreed time frame and without preconditions.”
2006-07-31 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5500 (2006) · source
“Iran offered far-reaching proposals to address concerns as well as to usher in a new era of cooperation: in August 2004, in January 2005, in March 2005, in April 2005, in July 2005, in September 2005, in January 2006, in February 2006 and in March 2006. Throughout that period, Iran adopted extensive and extremely costly confidence- building measures, including the suspension of its rightful enrichment activities for two years, to ensure the success of those negotiations. All along, it has been the persistence of some in drawing arbitrary red lines and deadlines that has closed the door to any compromise. This tendency has single-handedly blocked success and in most cases killed proposals in their infancy. This has been Washington's persistent strategy ever since Iran and the EU-3 started their negotiations in October 2003.”
2006-07-31 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5500 (2006) · source
“As I indicated earlier, Iran's cooperation with the Agency was far more extensive and comprehensive before action was imposed on the IAEA Board to engage the Security Council. That cooperation enabled the Agency to conclude, last September, that good progress had been made "in the Agency's ability to confirm certain aspects of Iran's current declarations, which will be followed up as a routine safeguards implementation matter" (IAEA document GOV/2005/67, para. 43). As for returning to the negotiating table, Iran has always been ready for negotiations. For almost three years, Iran tried to sustain, and even to resuscitate, negotiations with the EU-3.”
2006-07-31 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5500 (2006) · source
“The new threshold regarding enrichment is as arbitrary as the previous ones, and is simply another excuse to begin a trend to prevent the realization of the rights of the members of the NPT to peaceful use while, according to the United States Ambassador, non-members could legitimately continue producing nuclear bombs. It has been argued that intervention by the Security Council is needed to ensure cooperation by Iran with the Agency and to bring Iran back to the negotiating table. I suggest that Security Council involvement is not needed to achieve that goal. In fact, involvement by the Council hinders rather than helps this ongoing process, because it is designed as an instrument of pressure.”
2006-07-31 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5500 (2006) · source
“Yet, in spite of the massive political and propaganda machine, no one in today's world can accept the convoluted logic that it is okay for some to have nuclear weapons while others are prevented from developing nuclear energy. Another destructive trend is the imposition of arbitrary thresholds, which are often a function of bilateral considerations rather than objective or technical criteria. It should be interesting to recall that the United States began by trying to deny Iran any kind of nuclear activity. Even as late as 31 January 2003, the State Department spokesman was saying that "we have consistently urged Russia to cease all such cooperation with Iran, including its assistance to the light water reactor at Bushehr".”
2006-07-31 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5500 (2006) · source
“This goes so far that, when it suits the United States, even the acquisition of nuclear weapons by non-NPT members becomes "legitimate", to quote the United States Ambassador. That is one awkward way to strengthen the NPT or ensure its universality. That trend has reached such a horrendous, and indeed ridiculous, state that the Israeli regime - a non-member of the NPT, whose nuclear arsenal, coupled with its expansionist, repressive and State- terror policies and behaviour are repeatedly recognized, including by NPT Review Conferences, as the single most serious threat to regional and international peace and security - finds the audacity to cry wolf about Iran's peaceful nuclear programme and to lead a global campaign of threats, lies, deception, pressure, blackmail and outright extortion.”
2006-07-31 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.5500 (2006) · source