IAEA adopts resolution on Iran's nuclear program

AFP ^

[s2baccha]

The UN atomic watchdog adopted by vote Saturday an EU proposal that sets Iran up for referral to the UN Security Council, a spokesman said, in what would be a sharp escalation of the West's face-off with the Islamic Republic.

The vote was by 22-1, with 12 abstentions on the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA spokesman Peter Rickwood told reporters.

[elfman2]

" Not only a resolution...but a STRONGLY WORDED resolution."

5-10 more of those and we’ll pass one that threatens "serious consequences”. But it takes some unknown number after that or we’re “rushing to war”.

[Carry_Okie]

"Or else we will be very angry, and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are."

You would prefer the UN were capable of enforcement?

[hail to the chief]

Of course!

[Carry_Okie]

Of course!

I see. You want the UN to have an army under UN command.

I suggest to you that, if the UN was capable of enforcing resolutions against one state, it would seek to be capable of enforcing those same resolutions against ANY state, including the USA.

No thanks. I'm happier with it as a debating society. Giving an inherently corrupt organization more power is not a good idea. There is no such thing as recourse with a global government.

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

I didn't say the French were tough, only that they sounded tough.

The French made noises that Saddam must disarm, they voted for 1441, and they assured our Secretary of State they would be with us. I remember that at one point the French even claimed they were all for military action, if only we would give it another six months or a year.

Of course we now know they were privately assuring Saddam that they would save his bacon and that Chirac bagman Patrick Maguin was in receipt of Iraqi payola. And you are right in that at the end of the day Chirac brandished the veto to prevent further UN resolutions.

[F14 Pilot]

bump

[JasonC]

The actual votes by country -

FOR: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Equador, France, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden, UK, USA

AGAINST: Venezuela

ABSTAIN: Yemen, Algeria, Brazil, China, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Viet Nam

Chavez. Mexico abstained? They should get a riot act reading. Notice the commies, Islamic countries, and oil producers on the list.

[AdmSmith]

India, which had originally opposed the EU resolution, inexplicably voted for it.
Russia and China have long opposed efforts to refer Iran's nuclear dossier to the Security Council.

Both countries fear a UN referral will cause the standoff over Iran's program to escalate into an international crisis. The EU resolution requires Tehran to be reported to the Security Council, but at an unspecified date -- watering down an earlier demand from the Europeans for an immediate referral.

This means Iran would most likely not be referred to the Council until the IAEA Board meets in November, diplomats say. The resolution, which diplomats said was prepared in close consultation with Washington, says Iran's "many failures and breaches" of its NPT Safeguards Agreement "constitute non-compliance" with the pact.

'It added that there was an "absence of confidence" that Iran's atomic program was exclusively peaceful and this gave rise to questions "within the competence of the Security Council". For two years, the EU's three biggest powers -- France, Britain and Germany -- have tried to persuade Iran to give up its right to uranium enrichment, a demand which runs counter to the NPT.

Last month, the talks collapsed after Tehran resumed uranium processing and rejected an EU offer of economic and political incentives if it scrapped its uranium enrichment program, prompting the EU trio to join Washington in calling for the case to be sent to the Security Council. On Friday, diplomats said the Iranian delegation showed some board members and IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei two unsigned letters informing the IAEA what would happen if the EU resolution were approved.

One letter said that Iran would begin enriching uranium, a process that produces nuclear fuel, at the Natanz facility. The second says Tehran would end short-notice inspections under a special NPT protocol.


http://www.mehrnews.ir/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=233325

[M. Espinola]

Good vote! Does anyone have the breakdown of the actual vote? Who were 1 against, with 12 abstentions?

[Cautor]

"YIKES!!! A resolution that may lead to a (gasp) referral! Terrifying!!!!"

Now, we're really getting somewhere.

[fooman]

Bush's fault.

[newzjunkey]

The IAEA's Resolution. (Acrobat PDF format)

The IAEA's Iran Report. (Acrobat PDF format)

Unrelated, the IAEA has returned from Iraq after annual inspections.

Still trying to locate a vote breakdown.

[newzjunkey]

Thanks for finding that info.

[hail to the chief]

It is irrelevant whether the UN has command of an army. Clearly they would never use military force to back up their resolutions. What I was referring to was the lack of willingness on the part of the nations involved to act for their own good, instead of waiting for permission from such an inept organization. If nobody takes action, this resolution may as well not exist. The mullahs don't care about resolutions from the UN; if they were interested in our opinions, they wouldn't be building weapons to attack us in the first place.

[Carry_Okie]

It is irrelevant whether the UN has command of an army. Clearly they would never use military force to back up their resolutions.

They'll fail until they get the powers they want.

What I was referring to was the lack of willingness on the part of the nations involved to act for their own good, instead of waiting for permission from such an inept organization.

That has nothing to do with whether the UN has a standing army.

The mullahs don't care about resolutions from the UN; if they were interested in our opinions, they wouldn't be building weapons to attack us in the first place.

Best not to obsess too much about our current opponent and forget the Chinese in the process.

All I was pointing out is that to put a standing UN army in place only to turn the US military over to Hillary would be a potentially fatal move. It may not look so bad in Bush's hands, but that's not enough. Expecting an American veto to protect us from a UN reorg into a world government when the abmassador is Hillary's is a very foolish risk.

[moose2004]

Sharon has stated publicly that Israel will not accept a nuclear armed Iran, no chance. So if the UN Security Council doesn't have the guts to handle it, Israel will.

[hail to the chief]

I apologize; I didn't communicate clearly. I absolutely do not want the UN to have control of an army. The only intention of my posts was to say that I think military action should be given stronger consideration by the US and our stronger allies, instead of bickering about it in the UN for another decade while Iran builds bombs.

[Carry_Okie]

No arguent there.

[mainepatsfan]

That'd be a big step for them.

[dodger]

The Feckless Carter should have declared war on Iran the instant they attacked our sovereign embassy.