VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0251/01 0871549
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 281549Z MAR 07
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1620
INFO RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 0656

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000251 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL UNSC KNNP IR
SUBJECT: UNSC/IRAN: RESOLUTION 1747 UPS THE SANCTIONS; FM 
MOTTAKI CALLS COUNCIL ACTION "UNLAWFUL" 
 
REF: STATE 37801 
 
¶1. Summary.  On March 24, the UN Security Council unanimously 
adopted a second Chapter VII Security Council Resolution 
imposing sanctions on Iran for its failure to comply with its 
obligation to suspend its enrichment, reprocessing and heavy 
water activities and cooperate fully with the IAEA.  Iranian 
FM Mottaki responded to the Council's action with a 45-minute 
diatribe that blamed the Council, and in particular its 
permanent members, for decades of anti-Iranian actions. 
Mottaki said suspension "was not an option".  End Summary. 
 
¶2. The Security Council voted unanimously on Saturday, March 
24 to adopt resolution 1747 and impose additional sanctions 
on the Government of Iran for its failure to comply with 
previous Security Council resolutions, including resolutions 
1696 and 1737, and the requirements of the IAEA Board of 
Governors.  In addition to imposing travel notification and 
financial controls on an additional fifteen individuals and 
thirteen entities linked to Iran's military, nuclear or 
missile activities, resolution 1747 imposes a mandatory ban 
on the export or transfer of any arms or related materiel 
from Iran.  The resolution maintains the structure of 
resolution 1737, including a mandatory requirement for Iran 
to suspend enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and 
work on heavy-water related projects.  It calls for a report 
from the IAEA Director General within sixty days on whether 
Iran has suspended its proliferation-sensitive activities, 
and makes clear the Council's intent to adopt additional 
measures at that time should Iran remain in non-compliance. 
The full text of the resolution has been transmitted reftel. 
Video coverage of the Council meeting can be found via the UN 
website (http://www.un.org/webcast). 
 
The four skeptics speak first... 
... but end up in the yes column 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶3. Indonesia, Qatar, Congo and South Africa spoke prior to 
the vote.  Each of these four delegations had expressed 
concern about the draft resolution during the negotiations, 
and Indonesia, Qatar and South Africa had proposed 
amendments.  Each of the four statements sounded similar 
themes, noting the need for implementation of "all aspects" 
of the NPT, including the disarmament provisions in Article 
VI, and calling for a negotiated solution to the issue. 
Qatar, which had sought language in the resolution calling 
for the establishment of a "zone free of weapons of mass 
destruction" in the Middle East, said the Council should use 
the "same approach" to address non-proliferation issues with 
"all countries that do not comply with their obligations 
under the NPT, as well as towards those that do not respect 
it in the first place."  Qatar's Al-Nasser added, "We do not 
doubt Iran's genuine intentions as regards the peaceful 
purposes of its nuclear program."  Of the four who spoke 
prior to the resolution, only Congo explicitly called on Iran 
to suspend its enrichment programs as called for by the 
Council. 
 
P-5 and others call on Iran to comply 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶4. Following the unanimous adoption of resolution 1747, UK PR 
Jones Parry read the ministerial statement issued by the P-5 
and Germany, which reaffirmed that the proposal made by the 
six governments to Iran in June 2006 remains on the table as 
the basis for a negotiated solution.  The UK and France, in 
their national statements, each emphasized the need for Iran 
to make the choice to return to the path of negotiations via 
suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing activities. 
Both noted that the measures imposed by the Council were 
incremental, proportionate and reversible, should Iran comply. 
 
¶5. On behalf of the U.S., Ambassador Wolff said that the 
Council was forced to take further measures against Iran 
given the failure of the Iranian leadership to take the steps 
necessary to overcome "more than twenty years of deception" 
of the IAEA and the international community.  The Council, he 
said, would continue to act in a "careful and deliberate 
manner" but needed to address Iran's failure to comply with 
the demands of Council resolutions.  The measures were aimed 
at "Iranian institutions and officials that support Iran's 
nuclear and missile programs" and "encourage the leadership 
of Iran to choose a different path."  Wolff rejected Iranian 
claims that the Council sought to deny Iran access to 
peaceful nuclear energy, noting that the six governments had 
offered Iran help with civilian nuclear power in exchange for 
the suspension of its proliferation-sensitive activities.  He 
said the international community should be "deeply troubled" 
by Iran's rejection of this offer. 
 
 
¶6. Russian PR Churkin said the Council's action had "sent an 
unequivocal message to Tehran" on the need for full 
cooperation with the Council and the IAEA.  "It is clear that 
the way the situation develops in the future will depend 
largely on Iran's actions."  Churkin emphasized that the 
adoption of the resolution under Article 41 of the UN 
Charter, "precludes the possibility of the use of force" to 
resolve the situation. 
 
¶7. China, said PR Wang, is "disappointed that the Iranian 
side has failed to respond positively to the requests of the 
of the IAEA and the Security Council."  A solution to the 
issue "requires all-around diplomatic efforts, especially 
diplomatic efforts outside the Security Council."  Wang added 
all parties needed to "show full flexibility" to find a 
negotiated solution.  "The time-out proposal by IAEA DG El 
Baradei and the establishment of a mechanism for talks that 
include Iran also deserve our consideration." 
 
¶8. Panama, Slovakia, Belgium and Ghana also spoke. 
Panamanian PR Arias called for the resumption of negotiations 
"by all parties" to resolve the conflict over Iran's nuclear 
program.  Slovak DPR Matulay called on Iran to provide 
"maximum cooperation and transparency" and noted Slovakia's 
support for targeted sanctions measures given "Iran's 
continued failure to comply."  Belgium PR Verbeke said that 
his country "deplores the lack of cooperation and 
transparency" by Iran.  Ghana, said PR Effah-Apenteng, voted 
for the resolution "because we believe in the 
non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," but called 
on the Council to "pay attention to the issue of selectivity" 
in attempting to check the spread of WMD. 
 
Iran tries to change the subject... 
... and remains defiant 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶9. Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki had arrived at the UN 
prior to the beginning of the Council session.  However, he 
and other members of the Iranian delegation did not enter the 
Council until it was time for Iran to speak.  (A lower-level 
official had occupied the Iranian seat at the table during 
the vote and the Council members' statements, presumably to 
avoid being at the table when fifteen hands went up in 
support of the resolution.)  Mottaki delivered a forty-five 
minute statement that declared the Council's resolutions on 
Iran "unlawful, unnecessary and unjustifiable."  The Security 
Council, he said, "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 UN 
Charter."  With regard to the Council's demand that Iran 
suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities, Mottaki 
said, "Suspension is neither an option nor a solution." 
 
¶10. The core of Mottaki's statement was an attack on the 
Security Council and, in particular, its Permanent Members. 
Mottaki claimed that the Council sided against Iran during 
the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.  If Iran had complied with 
the Council resolutions then, Mottaki argued, "We would still 
be begging the Council's then-sweetheart, President Saddam 
Hussein, to return our territory."  He claimed that Iraq's 
war against Iran "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 Defense."  Referring to the July 2006 
Israel-Lebanon conflict, Mottaki claimed that "for more than 
a month, two members of this Council, with full and prior 
knowledge of the Zionist regime's intention to commit 
aggression against Lebanon, prevented any decision in this 
Council ... to put an end to that regime's atrocities." 
 
¶11. In defense of Iran's nuclear program, Mottaki focused on 
language in the recent IAEA report that said that the IAEA 
"is able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear 
material in Iran."  He did not address the many other aspects 
of the report that criticized Iran's cooperation with the 
IAEA or the IAEA's inability to provide assurances about the 
peaceful nature of Iran's program.  (The full text of 
Mottaki's statement, along with the rest of the Council's 
deliberations, is available via the UN document system 
(document S/PV.5647).) 
WOLFF