Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

UN members reach deal on Iran
news.com.au ^ | 28 July 2006

Posted on 07/27/2006 6:45:40 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher

KEY UN Security Council members agreed informally today on a resolution demanding Iran suspend nuclear enrichment and reprocessing work and threatening to consider sanctions if it refuses.

The draft text must first be approved by governments of the five Security Council members with veto power - the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China - as well as Germany, a European negotiator on the Iran controversy.

Western countries, which have been haggling with Russia and China on a text over the past two weeks, were optimistic of a deal a week ago only to see the talks drag on.

But today, two diplomats close to the negotiations told Reuters there was "provisional agreement" among the six. If true, a vote could be scheduled for Tuesday after the full Security Council receives the draft.

Still, China's UN ambassador, Wang Guangya, expressed frustration earlier today with US delays and its watering down of a council statement on the deaths of four UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, one of whom was Chinese.

He said difficulties remained on the Iran resolution because "not all members share the same view".

Tehran has vigorously objected to the resolution and says its nuclear activities are to produce electrical power only. It has also indicated it might withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, if the resolution were adopted.

The draft is expected to demand Iran suspend all uranium enrichment-related and plutonium reprocessing activities as well as the construction of a heavy-water reactor.

It says that if Iran does not comply with the resolution, the council would consider measures under Article 41 of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which relates to economic and diplomatic sanctions. But it excludes military force.

The date set for compliance is expected to be August 31.

The latest draft is under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, Article 40, which says the council, before taking any action, can call on the those concerned to "comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary".

Chapter 7 makes a resolution mandatory and provides options for enforcement.

Originally, the Western drafters, who fear Iran's nuclear activity is a cover for bomb-making, also wanted a reference to Article 39 in Chapter 7 that refers to threats to international peace and security.

At a July 12 meeting in Paris, all six countries agreed Iran had given no indication it would engage seriously on a commercial and technological incentive package offered by major powers in early June, and referred the issue to the council.

Iran is building a heavy-water nuclear reactor at Arak, 190km southwest of Tehran. Western nations are concerned the plant's plutonium by-product could be used to produce nuclear warheads.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: geopolitics; iran; madmoozies; nukes; proliferation; un; wasteoftime; whybother
"...threatening to consider sanctions if it refuses".

Fair dinkum, why would you bother? What a monumental waste of energy the UN is!

1 posted on 07/27/2006 6:45:41 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

Iran will get it's bomb, the Useless Nations will see to it.


2 posted on 07/27/2006 6:47:32 PM PDT by diverteach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

It's just great that they could come to an agreement. Too bad Iran will turn them down.


3 posted on 07/27/2006 7:01:10 PM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

And if you don't stop making bombs then we will consider to consider starting up discussions on considering sanctions.


4 posted on 07/27/2006 7:07:07 PM PDT by silentknight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher
OOh, that'll show 'em, after being refused a hundred bazillion times with arrogance and attitude, they will threaten! Threaten, can you imagine it? Actually threaten! Threaten to consider - gosh, it just gets worse and worse. How ever will the Iranians stand it? Just think, a half a dozen major powers threatening to consider something! And what, pray tell, are they threatening to for the first time consider? Why, "sanctions". The horror. The horror. So utterly unspecified! Why, they might restrict air travel for Iranian politicians! Veto their south of France vacations. Restrict their access to the World Cup - no wait - the Olympics (but China doesn't actually...) maybe nuts, maybe rugs! Just think, rug exports! (But not oil, merely $100 billion a year you know). Thank the maker though, that they didn't so much as hint that Iran getting nuclear weapons might be a threat to international peace and security, because lord knows that would have been a threat to international peace and security, and we sure can't have any of those! Threats of consideration of sanctions are scary enough. Thankfully, they will only even threaten to consider them, *if*. If Iran does not see the LIGHT, embrace their knees, say it is sorry, kiss their shoe, beg forgiveness - no wait...
5 posted on 07/27/2006 7:16:50 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

Is this "UN Harshly Worded Letter #951"? It's easy to lose count.


6 posted on 07/27/2006 7:20:33 PM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Islamofascism = Evil + Insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

Oh I bet Iranian fruitloop is shaking in his jihadist boots!


7 posted on 07/27/2006 7:34:38 PM PDT by BARLF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silentknight

Not only that, but we may consider becoming deeply concerned.


8 posted on 07/27/2006 7:37:42 PM PDT by JewishRighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Aussie Dasher

What a useless joke


9 posted on 07/27/2006 8:36:11 PM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JasonC

VERY WELL PUT!!!


10 posted on 07/27/2006 8:38:09 PM PDT by Valin (http://www.irey.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson