Tweet
UK: UK changes goal-posts in dispute over Iran’s nuclear program
02-06-2010
London, (IRNA): The British government has welcomed Turkey and Brazil's efforts to secure a deal with Iran but insists that the resulting ground-breaking Tehran Declaration does not go far enough even though it was encouraged by the US.
“The joint declaration does not address the core issue surrounding Iran's concealment and lack of cooperation with the IAEA that are the focus of the international community's concerns and United Nations sanctions,” Foreign Office spokesman Barry Marston said.
“It is also of great concern that Iran seems intent on continuing to enrich uranium to 20%, something which there is no non-military justification for and which raises serious questions about Iran's intentions,” Marston claimed.
“The UK wants Iran to enter substantive discussions on its nuclear program and address those concerns,” he told IRNA.
US President Barack Obama has already been accused of being “dishonest” with Iran after the publication of his letter to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva showing support for negotiations that led to the ground-breaking Tehran Declaration.
“Washington supported mediation by Brazil and Turkey when it did not expect them to succeed and turned its back when they accomplished exactly what the Obama administration said it sought from Iran,” the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) said.
“The contradiction between President Obama's letter to President Lula and the US response to the Brazil-Iran-Turkey offer is the latest evidence that the US does not intend to negotiate with Iran in good faith and has hidden motives,” CASMII said.
Marston declined to say whether the UK supported the US in initially encouraging mediation by Brazil and Turkey, insisting instead that the British government consistently stated that it wanted to “resolve this issue through dialogue.”
“The deal tabled with the IAEA is a matter for the Vienna Group to consider and the UK is not a member,” he also said when questioned whether the deal was similar to last October's offer of a fuel swap pact sponsored by the US.
"For us, Iran’s agreement to transfer 1,200 kg of Iran’s low enriched uranium (LEU) out of the country would build confidence and reduce regional tensions by substantially reducing Iran’s LEU stockpile,” Obama said in his letter to Lua in April.
But in changing the goal-posts, the British Foreign Office spokesman complained that the deal would export “less than half” of Iran’s LEU stockpile to Turkey.
“It would only hold confidence building elements now if it led to substantive engagement on Iran's nuclear programme, something Iran have repeatedly refused to discuss,” he also said in apparent contradicting Obama’s letter.
Marston also attempted to justify the imposition of more sanctions, claiming that there had been none new for over two years when the focus switched to engagement but that Iran “reduced cooperation and expanded their nuclear programme.”
“Because of the Iranian government's foot dragging it has proved necessary to demonstrate international resolve through such measures,” he argued.
“In addition to holding talks, particularly as throughout the last two years for most of this time it has proved impossible to get Iran's representatives to agree to sit with the E3+3 to discuss the nuclear issue,” he added.
02-06-2010
London, (IRNA): The British government has welcomed Turkey and Brazil's efforts to secure a deal with Iran but insists that the resulting ground-breaking Tehran Declaration does not go far enough even though it was encouraged by the US.
“The joint declaration does not address the core issue surrounding Iran's concealment and lack of cooperation with the IAEA that are the focus of the international community's concerns and United Nations sanctions,” Foreign Office spokesman Barry Marston said.
“It is also of great concern that Iran seems intent on continuing to enrich uranium to 20%, something which there is no non-military justification for and which raises serious questions about Iran's intentions,” Marston claimed.
“The UK wants Iran to enter substantive discussions on its nuclear program and address those concerns,” he told IRNA.
US President Barack Obama has already been accused of being “dishonest” with Iran after the publication of his letter to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva showing support for negotiations that led to the ground-breaking Tehran Declaration.
“Washington supported mediation by Brazil and Turkey when it did not expect them to succeed and turned its back when they accomplished exactly what the Obama administration said it sought from Iran,” the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) said.
“The contradiction between President Obama's letter to President Lula and the US response to the Brazil-Iran-Turkey offer is the latest evidence that the US does not intend to negotiate with Iran in good faith and has hidden motives,” CASMII said.
Marston declined to say whether the UK supported the US in initially encouraging mediation by Brazil and Turkey, insisting instead that the British government consistently stated that it wanted to “resolve this issue through dialogue.”
“The deal tabled with the IAEA is a matter for the Vienna Group to consider and the UK is not a member,” he also said when questioned whether the deal was similar to last October's offer of a fuel swap pact sponsored by the US.
"For us, Iran’s agreement to transfer 1,200 kg of Iran’s low enriched uranium (LEU) out of the country would build confidence and reduce regional tensions by substantially reducing Iran’s LEU stockpile,” Obama said in his letter to Lua in April.
But in changing the goal-posts, the British Foreign Office spokesman complained that the deal would export “less than half” of Iran’s LEU stockpile to Turkey.
“It would only hold confidence building elements now if it led to substantive engagement on Iran's nuclear programme, something Iran have repeatedly refused to discuss,” he also said in apparent contradicting Obama’s letter.
Marston also attempted to justify the imposition of more sanctions, claiming that there had been none new for over two years when the focus switched to engagement but that Iran “reduced cooperation and expanded their nuclear programme.”
“Because of the Iranian government's foot dragging it has proved necessary to demonstrate international resolve through such measures,” he argued.
“In addition to holding talks, particularly as throughout the last two years for most of this time it has proved impossible to get Iran's representatives to agree to sit with the E3+3 to discuss the nuclear issue,” he added.