Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Conference on Disarmament

General Assembly
First Committee

UN Disarmament Commission

Gender and Disarmament

Corporate Connections

NGO Database

Governmental Contacts

Fact Sheets

Take Action

Publications

More Treaties

More Disarmament Machinery

Civil Society Work for Disarmament

Search:

 

Reaching Critical Will is a project of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.
USUN PRESS RELEASE # 058 (07)                                 March 20, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Remarks by Ambassador Alejandro D. Wolff, The Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations on Iran at The United Nations, New York, March 20, 2007

Ambassador Wolff:  Let me just start by addressing a rumor that I've heard circulating around that the United States has not -- will not  approve visas for the Iranian president, who has requested to attend the Security Council session to adopt a resolution on the Iranian nuclear program, and that is categorically false.  We are -- we have approved the visas.  We abide by our host country obligations assiduously.  And this rumor has no basis whatsoever.  The visa has been approved, and we understand that there are dozens more visa requests that were submitted yesterday and we're processing those as quickly as possible.                                                

Reporter:  Well, while we're on the subject, are you aware of President Ahmadinejad's travel plans, like, for example, when he's going to arrive in New York?

Ambassador Wolff:  I'm not aware of them, but I assume they will be in time for adoption of the resolution, so we'll need to know when that happens as well.

Reporter:  And when will that happen, sir?                                                                                                        

Ambassador Wolff:  Well, we're eager to have it happen this week.

Reporter:  What is the U.S. response now -- now that you've had perhaps a chance to study the South African proposals for a 90-day suspension of sanctions, et cetera?

Ambassador Wolff:  Well, again, as I mentioned yesterday, we have a very good draft resolution text that builds on the 1737 framework.  It is -- has met with the agreement of the P-5 and other members of the council.  Others still have some questions and
additional ideas.  We will hear them out and look forward to them getting this resolution adopted this week.

Reporter:  Mr. Ambassador, considering the differences that already exist and the demands for, like, amendments by the South Africans, do you still think it's practical that a vote will take place by the end of this week, which is very close?  You're talking about Friday, I assume.

Ambassador Wolff:  I think it's doable.  We're having a number of consultations on this, including today and tomorrow.  We'll hear
all the delegations.  We'll have a good, thorough discussion, and the expectation is we should be able to move on this fairly quickly.

Reporter:  Are there amendments to the text, or is it a take-it-or- leave-it for the non-permanent --

Ambassador Wolff:  It is not a take-it-or-leave-it text, and we will discuss -- we will discuss ideas on how to improve it.

Reporter:  Mr. Ambassador, do you -- can you say now that the position of the five permanent members is still as solid as it was before the South African amendments, or are there any cracks in the unity of the five on the text proposed?

Ambassador Wolff:  I am confident that the P-5 remain supportive of this text as they were before.  Again, I want to note that this was not presented in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion, so we will have a thorough discussion of others' ideas and explain why the text that we've presented is the right course to pursue, why it's consistent with the approach that the council has already adopted in two
previous resolutions, and why it is the best -- why it offers the best hope for a political solution.

Reporter:  A follow-up, if I may.  The things -- the sort of redlines that you will not allow in the resolution, would they include the time out -- the 90 days, for example?

Ambassador Wolff:  Well, I want to be clear on this time-out notion. Resolution 1737 in essence already calls for suspension by the council of all measures once Iran verifiably suspends its activities.  There's your time out; it's built into 1737.

Reporter:  But why not have time out to negotiate over reaching this decision to suspend the enrichment by Iran, sir?

Ambassador Wolff:  Because we have a resolution that clarifies how to get to those negotiations.

Reporter:  But is it not better to discuss it at the international atomic agency?

Ambassador Wolff:  The IAEA has been discussing this now for years and we are supporting its efforts, and this resolution obviously is designed to ensure that we can get back to a political dialogue and allow to IAEA to do its work and verify that Iran's program is indeed for peaceful uses and not military uses.

Reporter:  But Mr. ElBaradei suggested 90 days time out on this.     

Ambassador Wolff:  Well, the suspension for suspension has no time frame limited to it.  So, as I say, once Iran suspends, it's
very clear that that's verified, that the measures would be suspended and there would be ample time to negotiate.

Reporter:  Yesterday, Ambassador, since realistically -- since Iran is a bit -- a few hours away, a Tehran flight to New York would take a few hours -- are we still within that 24-hour limit in case you put it to the vote?  So basically, will you stick
to the 24-hour notice regardless and let the Iranians worry about figuring out when, or will you wait for the president of Iran to say, well, no, I'm ready to come?

Ambassador Wolff:  Well, we will proceed with a timetable and a timeline for a resolution that's defined by the council itself, and I'm sure there will be ample time for the president of Iran to attend the session if that's what he wants to do.

Reporter:  Ambassador, let me change the subject just a second here.  Following Mr.  Guehenno's briefing to the Security Council yesterday on Sudan, what is the U.S. feeling about the prospects for going ahead with the draft resolution that would
tighten sanctions, possibly extend the arms embargo or really increase the pressure on Sudan? Working with the U.K. on this, you know, how are you going to proceed, in what time frame?

Ambassador Wolff:  Well, this is being discussed right now.  One of the things that is abundantly clear is that the response from President Bashir is non-responsive.  It's unacceptable.  It is a step backwards, and the council will have to take stock of that response and react.

Reporter:  Mr. Ambassador, Iran is not known as a world arms expecter -- not a major weapons exporter.  So what is this -- the ban on the exports -- has to do with the enrichment program, sir?

Ambassador Wolff:  Well, the question here is whether Iran has military applications for its nuclear programs.  And the military applications obviously tie in directly to the Iranian military, and the Iranian military gets revenues from its arms exports.  So the link for us is very clear.

Reporter:  But if you trust the allegations, for example, that they provide some groups like Hezbollah or something, they don't really do that for money.  So I mean, they don't really -- it's not like North Korea, they would take the money to do something else.  They have other other sources of income than weapons exports.  So if you can explain to us how does this fall in the framework of enrichment, sir?

Ambassador Wolff: Because Iran derives revenues from its military exports.

Reporter:  But also from oil and gas as well.

Ambassador Wolff:  And from oil and gas as well, but those are not directly related to the nuclear and proliferation sectors.  Thank you.