Cyrus Nasseri, a member of Iran's nuclear negotiating team with the European Union troika, Britain, Germany, and France, here Thursday read the
statement of the Islamic Republic at the emergency meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), according to
Hereunder comes the full text of the statement:
"The issue at hand was simple: Iran has commenced operation at a safeguarded facility to produce feed for nuclear fuel under full scope monitoring of
"Let me state this again with a slight modification: An NNWS party to the treaty and the member of the agency's safeguards has commenced operation
at a safeguarded facility to produce feed for nuclear fuel under full scope monitoring of the IAEA.
"This is the core of the debate.
"Was anyone able to explain how this could be an issue in the first place? Was anyone able to suggest why and under which pretext the board had to
convene urgently to deliberate on this matter? Was anyone able to describe what provoked an alarm that called for a quick-fix reaction?
"I do not believe anyone here had a single convincing response to these questions. The reason is clear because there is none. How can this body be
called to react to an act, which is in full conformity with the NPT and the safeguards and constitutes a limited
manifestation of the exercise of an inalienable right? A right, which by its own simple meaning, cannot be alienated from anyone.
"The states, who prompted this debate and were the proponents of this decision today imply that they do so under the precept of non-proliferation.
"At the same time, these states either possessors of nuclear weapons or rely on them for their security in one form or the other, or are the
exclusive producers of nuclear fuel, or have stood firm on not foregoing this capability under any circumstances.
"The point is, how can a small amount of feed material for enrichment to produce nuclear fuel be a matter of concern whereas a number of these
states, including non-nuclear weapon states amongst them, are sitting on many tons of separated plutonium, which can be directly diverted to nuclear
weapons, at any time of their choosing?
"The conventional reply has been that these states have good standing with the safeguards. What they forget to say is that these states have never
been forcefully denied access to nuclear material, equipment, and technology. Give us a fraction of that access and we will make an example of fullest
possible transparency, and will be in exemplary standing.
"It is evident that the motive is to apply pressure, to the victim of the denials. And the purpose, it is obvious, is to move from denial to
deprivation. A prescription, which is written for Iran but which will be rolled for all other developing states too if Iran bends.
Fortunately, Iran will not bend. Iran will be a nuclear fuel producer and supplier within a decade.
"Iran, like all other developing countries and members of the NPT, has rejected nuclear weapons decisively and firmly. All Iran wants to do is to
enjoy its right under the NPT, the right, which has been denied to it for more than two decades, a denial that has been firm and decisive.
"The agency is founded on the premises of:
"First: Providing and facilitating nuclear material and technology for peaceful purposes.
"Second: Safeguarding material and facilities
"Third: Ensuring safety
"The first obligation of the agency is severely undermined, at the behest of the second. No wonder the Americans call this agency the UN watchdog,
the term that is demeaning and condescending to the integrity of this organization.
"If you go by the book, the agency should be assisting Iran to operate and improve its fuel production capability, including the segment of UCF, just
as it should for all other developing states.
Well, we understand that it has been disabled and prohibited to perform this obligation. But what is absurd is that a decision is passed here, which
betrays even the agency's second, more revered objective. If this body expresses concern over the operation of our facility, which is under
safeguards and which is fully monitored, then what should this body say about so many unsafeguarded facilities spread around in other parts of the
world, and particularly in our region?
"The Americans have for long maintained, demonstrated, and acted upon the conviction that assurances of non-diversion of the agency are not credible.
The same conviction led that country to ignite a war in no less than two years ago. But is this deja vu again? I am sorry, not this time -- Iran is
not Iraq and the United States is not that self-appointed policeman of the world anymore. The decision today is, apres tout, a vote of no-confidence
to the agency and its safeguards system. It signals the beginning of the road to an unwanted and undue confrontation through which, in the words of
the director general, all parties stand to lose.
"We believe in the agency and the safeguards system.
"We will continue to work with the agency.
"We will maintain our activities fully under safeguards.
"The operation at the UCF is Isfahan will remain under full scope monitoring.
"The product will be sealed by agency.
"In one word, we will fully observe our obligations in our program of producing nuclear fuel. So, there is no point for concern whatsoever.
"We will not heed to questioning of the agency's credibility that this resolution stands for.
"This resolution is, in essence, a vote of no-confidence to the credibility of the agency and its safeguards system.
"The appeal by the United Nations secretary general and the director general here to revert to negotiations, we will be prepared, despite this
hoopla, for negotiations, free of preconditions and with manifest goodwill."