| |
|
|
 |
|
Parliamentary Debates – House of Lords - Britain |
|
|
|
|
Saturday, 28 May 2005 |
Date: Saturday, May 28 @ 05:00:32 CDT
Topic: Political Support
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
HOUSE OF LORDS
OFFICIAL REPORT
Vol. 672 No. 6 May 2005
Iran: Nuclear Programme
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to reports that the Iranian Government are to resume uranium enrichment which could be weapons-related?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, representatives of the Government of Iran have
made a number of statements indicating a wish to resume the conversion
of uranium at its facility at Esfahan. We have made it clear to Iran
that such action would breach the November 2004 Paris agreement. In
this case, the United Kingdom, along with France and Germany, shall
have no choice but to support referring Iran's nuclear programme to the
UN Security Council. We remain committed to seeking mutually acceptable
long-term arrangements with Iran, but that must be within the context
of the Paris agreement.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that
Iran's continued deceit, deception and defiance mean that it would be
better if the Government ended their present policy of appeasement of
this odious theocracy? Is it not time that the title of "terrorist" was
hung around the mullah's neck rather than around those of people
seeking to restore the democracy and human rights that have been stolen
from them?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, although I understand that sentiment, the
efforts that we are all taking must be to try to ensure that a
nuclear-weapons capability does not develop in Iran. That must be our
first and foremost objective. In that light, I can report to the House
that the Foreign Secretary will meet with the E3 and the Iranian
counterparts in Geneva on 24 May to emphasise that a resumption of
conversion activities would breach the Paris agreement and inevitably
lead to the E3 proposing to the IAEA that it reports Iran to the UN
Security Council. It is essential to give the meeting on 24 May every
chance of success. That must be our priority. However, that does not
dim the need for proper democracy to emerge in that country.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, given that the statement by the Iranian vice
president, Mr Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who is also head of the nuclear
programme, was not only that they would resume the conversion of
yellowcake to uranium tetrafluoride,
23 May 2005 : Column 237
but that they had already produced 37 tonnes of that material. How will
the international community be certain that those 37 tonnes will not be
fed into the enrichment plants at Natanz? Has the Minister observed
that the Council of Guardians has whittled down the number of
candidates for the presidency to six—two of whom are mullahs, and four
are former commanders of the Revolutionary Guard—and that the lead
candidate is Mr Rafsanjani, who was the original architect of the
nuclear programme in the mid-1980s? Given those circumstances, will
Britain and the international community declare that the forthcoming
elections have no democratic legitimacy?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I had of course noticed the news this morning
about the number of candidates being reduced to six. However, in trying
to deal with the fundamental questions raised in this Starred Question,
perhaps I may suggest that noble Lords should reflect on the priorities
of the day. The first priority must be to ensure that the fuel cycle
arguments are either verified or not verified. That requires detailed
work in the meeting that is to come and in other meetings. The E3 group
meets regularly on this. That must be the first and fundamental point.
It is always possible that those who are involved will reflect on the
discussions and conclude that there is duplicity. They may make better
progress, as we must all hope for. As I said, if they conclude that
there is duplicity, the resort is to the UN Security Council on the
grounds of a clear breach of the Paris agreement.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister recollect from his reading
of the crucial Smyth report on the manufacture of nuclear weapons,
Atomic Energy for Military Purposes, published by the United States
Government in August 1945, that the enrichment of uranium is but a
small step in the manufacture of a nuclear weapon that will detonate at
the right time in the right place? Therefore, regrettable and
suspicious though the enrichment programme in Iran may be, it is
important that we do not allow that issue to dominate our very
important development of relations with Iran.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, there is a lot of sense in that point, and
that is why I used the words "fuel cycle" in the response that I gave a
few moments ago. One of the activities involved in all
non-proliferation work is to make an assessment of whether the fuel
cycle is being used to branch out in the direction of weapons of mass
destruction and in particular the manufacture of nuclear weapons. That
is the discussion that has to take place around Iran, and 24 May is a
staging post in that.
If the Iranians are convincing that they are trying to generate power
of a peaceful kind rather than power of a disastrous kind, no doubt the
international community will be mightily relieved. Otherwise the
international community will have to face the responsibilities that
fall upon it.
23 May 2005 : Column 238
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the word
"appeasement" is not the proper one to use regarding the process which
the EU three—Britain, France and Germany—are using in seeking to ensure
that the rule of law under the treaty on WMD is strictly observed by
Iran? Unless we want to go down the road of another Iraq, and a more
serious one if I may say so, we have to stick with the attempts being
made in the present negotiations and seek an outcome that does not lead
to a Security Council escalation in the tradition of Iraq.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. That is why I
put it to noble Lords on all sides of the House to answer the question
of what methodology they would prefer. I prefer, and this has been
indicated in one or two of the questions, a methodology that involves
detailed discussion, proper inspection, the involvement of the
international community in that inspection, the resolution of what the
processed uranium is intended to be used for and to try to resolve the
matter by agreement. Were everyone to stick to the Paris agreement,
that could certainly be achieved. We must make sure that they do.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we
have reached an extraordinarily dangerous moment and that we need to
keep closely in touch not only with our European colleagues, but also
with Washington about the next step? Does he also agree that whatever
the Paris agreement may say about uranium enrichment and yellowcake
conversion, the awful truth is that under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty signed by Iran, uranium enrichment for civil purposes is
permitted. Does that not lead to the conclusion that we should be
looking at some of the legal and constitutional holes in the present
non-proliferation treaty structure and aiming reforms at that in order
to make the whole process more legal and transparent?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I accept the point made by the noble Lord
about the dangers of this particular moment. However, I am glad to say
that in facing up to those dangers the European Union three and the
United States share exactly the same objectives. The US has made it
clear that we have a common purpose. We both want to see the diplomatic
process succeed and we want Iran to honour its obligations. I also take
the point that the treaty is not entirely watertight on these matters.
But I think we share the view that the critical task for the
international community, through its institutions, is to make a
judgment on whether the enrichment process is intended to end in the
building of nuclear weapons or whether it has a genuine, legitimate and
proven intention to be the source of an electrical power supply.
Strengthening the treaty would not be of imminent help to us because it
will not be strengthened imminently, but the argument for reviewing it
is sound.
|
 Go To Top
|
|
Pagina principale 
English
Francais
Deutsch
Italiano
العربيّة
