Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
Али Акбар Салехи, глава иранской Организации по атомной энергии, сказал во вторник, что ученые Исламской республики смогли разработать усовершенствованные центрифуги для обогащения урана.
Агентство IRNA сообщило, что, по словам Салехи, созданы "центрифуги нового поколения", и в настоящее время проходят испытания каскада из 10 усовершенствованных центрифуг. Глава Организации по атомной энергии утверждает, что эффективность иранской разработки в пять раз превосходит существующие аналоги.
Он добавил, что ученые рассчитывают еще в два раза увеличить эффективность центрифуг.
В апреле президент Ирана Махмуд Ахмадинеджад рассказал, что иранские ученые испытывают два новых вида центрифуг.
По данным Международного агентства по атомной энергии (МАГАТЭ), на заводе в Натанзе установлены не менее 7.000 центрифуг.
Агентство IRNA сообщило, что, по словам Салехи, созданы "центрифуги нового поколения", и в настоящее время проходят испытания каскада из 10 усовершенствованных центрифуг. Глава Организации по атомной энергии утверждает, что эффективность иранской разработки в пять раз превосходит существующие аналоги.
Он добавил, что ученые рассчитывают еще в два раза увеличить эффективность центрифуг.
В апреле президент Ирана Махмуд Ахмадинеджад рассказал, что иранские ученые испытывают два новых вида центрифуг.
По данным Международного агентства по атомной энергии (МАГАТЭ), на заводе в Натанзе установлены не менее 7.000 центрифуг. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216040 Ahmadinejad’s Nuclear Offer
The Iranian president discusses his proposal to buy enriched uranium from the United States, his continued denial of the Holocaust, and Tehran's detention of journalist Maziar Bahari.
By Lally Weymouth | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Sep 23, 2009
In an exclusive wide-ranging hour-and-a-half interview with NEWSWEEK's Lally Weymouth and editors from The Washington Post, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad discussed his upcoming talks with the United States, his opinion of President Obama, and his continued denial of the Holocaust, as well as the U.S.-led effort in Afghanistan, which he views as doomed. In it he previewed his offer to purchase enriched uranium from the United States for medicinal purposes, which proliferation experts say is likely a nonstarter. Excerpts:
As you know, Iran has been holding a NEWSWEEK correspondent for three months, Maziar Bahari. I know you have been very generous this morning saying you would help release the American hikers. On humanitarian grounds, would you consider releasing Maziar?
I would like all prisoners to be released, but I am not the judge. The judge has to decide on this. If I were in charge of this case, I would guarantee that all the prisoners would be released.
But you said that you would try to get the American hikers released. Could you try to do the same for Maziar?
I want all prisoners to be released. Every one. Americans and non-Americans—it really makes no difference.
When Iran is trying to restart relations with the West, why would you once again deny that there was a Holocaust when that is so easily disprovable?
Don't you think that the Holocaust is a very important issue?
Yes, I think it is the greatest crime of the 20th century.
So you do agree that it is an important topic. Do you believe that the Holocaust still carries through to this day in terms of its effects today? Could you explain to me how it affects issues today?
It does not matter what I think. It matters what you think, Mr. President.
I understand, but I would like for us to exchange our views so as to resolve an issue here.
The world wants to know what you think.
Who is the world here?
Iran is trying to improve its relationship with the West, as I understand it. It is clear that there was a Holocaust. Why would you say there was no Holocaust? Do you feel there should be no Jewish state—no Israel?
What I am saying is extremely clear. It is an academic approach to a crucial subject and also one based on humanitarian considerations. What I am saying here is that in past history many events have happened, and in World War II many crimes were committed. Over 60 million people were killed and even more were displaced. So we have several specific questions with regard to the events of World War II, and I believe we cannot find the answers to these questions through the propaganda that is promoted by the media. In the end, the questions need convincing answers. The first question that I have to try and understand is why in the midst of all that happened in World War II, the Holocaust is emphasized more than any other [event]?
Let's say that Stalin's crimes were equally great.
The second question is why do Western politicians focus on this issue so much? The third question is how does that event connect with issues that we see around us in the world today? Was this a historical event that happened in isolation without impacting the present conditions? The next question we should ask ourselves is if the event did take place, where did it happen, who were the perpetrators, what was the role of the Palestinian people? What crime have they committed to deserve what they have received as a result? Why exactly should the Palestinian people be victimized? Are you aware that over 5 million Palestinians have been displaced and have had refugee status? What role did they play in the Holocaust? Why is the Holocaust used as a pretext to occupy the land of other people? Why should the Palestinian people give their lives up for it? You are probably aware that there have been embargoes on the people of Gaza.
And they have been hitting Israel with missiles.
At the end of the day the people in Gaza are sitting in their homes living their lives and staying in their homeland. Who is the occupier here? The United Nations resolutions condemn which occupying regime? What fair-minded person can accept that an event that happened in Europe [results] in having his or her land occupied elsewhere in the world? If a crime happened in Europe, why should the people of Palestine make up for it? It is a really clear-cut question. Unfortunately, Western politicians refuse to answer these questions and divert into other areas. We are primarily opposed to the murder of human beings. Sixty million people were killed back then [in World War II], and it is indeed regrettable. It does not matter what creed or belief they came from—human beings and their lives are to be respected simply because they are human beings. I would like to emphasize that we are not living 60 years ago—we are living today. We see the Holocaust as a pretext to commit genocide against the Palestinian people.
We have heard a lot about the debated election in June. There was a lot of contention as to whether or not you stole the election. Are you planning to put [opponent Mir Hossein] Mousavi on trial? Why is the right-wing press going after [Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi] Rafsanjani?
In Iran, people in different groups are free to determine what kind of political path they would like to pursue. Elections in Iran are carried out within the framework of the law, and they are free. In every election only one person can win. I remember that in my first election run against Mr. Rafsanjani, the very same people who are now opposed to the results of the most recent election were actually running the last election between Mr. Rafsanjani and myself in 2005. The people on his side were the ones who carried out the elections. That is the election in 2005. In the end I think it is all propaganda, and I don't pay it much attention. I don't want to take anyone to court.
Mousavi will not be put on trial?
That depends on the judiciary. It has nothing to do with the government. If there are any violations, the court will handle it. If not, no.
Mr. President, many people in and outside the country are concerned about the way that people who demonstrated against the election have been treated. One of the other presidential candidates allegedly has evidence that people have been tortured and raped, and many people outside the country are concerned about their trials. Are you prepared to discuss these human-rights issues at the upcoming meeting in Geneva?
Do you know the number of prisoners in the United States?
My question is whether you are willing to discuss the situation in Iran.
I understand your question and I want to answer it. Do you know the number of prisoners here in the United States? I will give you an answer; if you please, bear with me. You don't expect me to give you the answer you are expecting. You have 3.6 million prisoners in the United States. Why are they in your prisons? Some of them are electrocuted. Why? Exactly why? There is a law here that deals with such matters. Could we say it is a bad thing? Could we address exactly why 3.6 million people are in prison? If nobody has violated the law, there is no reason for them to go to prison. Once the law is violated, then they could end up in prison. The criminal procedural law in Iran is a very strong one. Each person can go for review before the final verdict is issued. This is very unique by itself. So when a person goes before a court there are five stages—four of which include a review of the case. So within our judiciary system the utmost effort is made to guarantee that the rights of those that appear before the court are upheld. This does not mean that an officer somewhere could not violate the law. Just like the police in New York or elsewhere in the United States who might end up beating up people. That officer is carrying out an offense. But nobody can accuse the United States government of neglect because of that. Our judiciary system will deal with these cases.
The issues that we will discuss at the meeting in Geneva are clear ones: the issue of world security, disarmament, economic problems, and issues confronting international relations. We welcome bringing up human-rights issues, including prisoners who are incarcerated in unknown locations—in Europe, for example; in Guantánamo; including the crimes committed in Afghanistan and in Iraq as well as in Palestine. We will be glad to discuss them all. As well as the violation of the rights of people who are seeking more information in Europe and how it is restricted there. People's access to such information is often so restricted in Europe. We are not even allowed to raise questions about the Holocaust, and you even have scientists and academics imprisoned when they do.
In these talks with the West, you said you will not discuss your nuclear program. Do you stick to that or are you willing to have a give-and-take with the West? Because otherwise there won't be any talks with the West if you are only going to take and not give, Mr. President, which you have done brilliantly so far.
Thank you very much for your optimistic remarks. I believe that if we violate international law and regulations, no one will benefit from it. Everyone must follow international rules. The nuclear issue belongs to the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]. The IAEA has a clear-cut path on how to deal with these issues. We have certain commitments and obligations as well as rights within that framework. We will carry out our obligations and also enjoy our rights.
But you have not carried out your obligations. The U.N. has sanctioned you, and the U.N. supersedes your rights under the IAEA. Are you going to suspend your enrichment program? Are you going to cooperate with the IAEA's additional protocol, which you signed initially? [Iran later dropped out.]
Based on official and repeated reports issued by the agency, Iran has carried out its nuclear activities within the legal framework designed by the agency. We have also voluntarily accepted the new obligations over and beyond the legal framework. But we have not fully taken advantage of our rights. Articles two and four of the statute of the IAEA argue that those who possess nuclear technology must assist other countries in the development of their peaceful nuclear technologies. But neither the agency nor its member states have given Iran any assistance in that regard, whereas we have carried out our obligations.
The IAEA report of last August said that the agency "does not consider that Iran has adequately addressed the substance of the issues . . . The Agency has therefore requested Iran to provide more substantive responses and to provide the Agency with . . . access to persons, information and locations." [IAEA director-general] Mohamed ElBaradei—who has been considered to be your strongest advocate in Washington—has questions about whether or not you are conforming to the IAEA or whether or not you are actually working on a nuclear-weapons program.
This is not exactly the right place to get into the technicalities of the issues. But the report has two clear parts. One portion of the report details the questions related to the agency itself. Two years ago we arrived at an agreement with the agency to provide answers to six remaining questions raised by the agency within that first category. Those questions are clear. We gave answers to all of them. The agency validated the responses it received from us. Interestingly, at the end of this two-year time frame, the United States administration came forward with certain claims and allegations against us, demanding the agency to handle those as well. This was in clear violation of the statutes of the agency and of the agreements between the agency and Iran. Under political pressure by the U.S. administration, the agency accepted the list of allegations given to it by the United States and posted it on the agenda all of a sudden. From the start, we disagreed with that approach because it was based on very clear legal categories and rules that were predefined. I think what you were reading from relates to that second set of developments that transpired. As far as we are concerned, they lack any legal credibility. Our commitments to the agency have clearly been itemized and written. If you pay attention, in the same text, there is no mention of our commitments. These are claims made by the United States against us. Legally, we are not bound to provide answers to them. If we agree to answer these questions, we will never be able to enjoy our full rights, and we will never be able to live in peace and security. We have the largest level of cooperation with the agency.
Mr. President, I wanted to turn to the question of President Obama. He has reportedly written two letters to the Supreme Leader in recent months. I wonder if you could tell us the substance of those letters and also what you make of President Obama. How do you compare him to President Bush? Is he a weak leader? A strong leader? Is this someone you could do business with?
You are asking me to give you information about letters that you know about?
I read about them in the Iranian press.
I don't read the press, so I would not know.
Let's just talk about Obama, then.
We believe that the desire here in America for change is one that is on the right track. It is actually a world desire. Under the current status quo, nothing is viable around the world today. Consecutive U.S. administrations have had a substantial role in shaping many of the issues in the world today. It is only natural to expect the U.S. administration to begin change for itself. We believe that change is inevitable and necessary. At the same time, these changes should be real. Superficial changes will not be able to resolve any of the problems we face—they would only complicate them and delay a final solution. We hope that Mr. Obama is seeking real change. We are of the belief that if he decides to, he will at least be able to change a segment of what he has his mind set on. We are willing to help bring about those changes. In the meeting in Geneva, we are ready to discuss some issues, including our willingness to purchase enriched uranium to the grade of 20 percent for our domestic needs. Iran in return will offer solutions to the changes that are required. If Mr. Bush's policies are to be continued with new language, we will not be able to achieve much because that approach is already outdated. Policies must change. If these policies do not change, no real change will happen.
Can you elaborate on what you just said? You said that in Geneva you will agree to buy enriched nuclear fuel? Is that correct? From the United States?
We have a reactor in Tehran that produces nuclear medicine based on radioactive technologies. It requires enriched material to the grade of 19.75 percent. We are prepared to purchase this material. We are prepared for our nuclear experts to sit down and discuss areas of nuclear cooperation towards the purchase of material that we need with experts from the other side. To engage in nuclear cooperation as well as to discuss our need to purchase these materials. I think it is a very solid proposal which gives a good opportunity for a start.
But you are enriching uranium in Iran as we speak. Is that correct? The IAEA says you have enough enriched uranium—I believe it is 4.5 percent—to build a crude device. By what you just said, are you suggesting that you are willing to suspend enriching uranium?
I want to correct you: our level of enrichment is currently at 3.5 percent—within a range of 3 to 5 percent. The materials go to nuclear-power plants. They are useless for a bomb. A bomb needs enriched uranium to the grade of 99.7 percent. We believe that nuclear bombs are a wrong thing to have. Do you know how many atomic bombs the United States has?
I do not. Would you be willing to commit to never building nuclear weapons?
We believe that the premise that countries should or should not have nuclear weapons is wrong to begin with. To that end, we have proposed to engage in disarmament discussions. According to reports that we have received, there are about 10,000 nuclear warheads here in the United States. Don't you think that it is hilarious to say that it is potentially dangerous for the whole world if Iran were to possess one nuclear warhead but the fact that the United States possesses thousands of them poses no threat whatsoever? Isn't it hilarious to imagine that you can basically withstand the force of 10,000 nuclear warheads with only one nuclear warhead? The atomic bomb belongs to the previous generation. The time has passed for the ability to use these weapons any longer. Honestly, if they were of any use, the Soviet Union would not have collapsed—it would have used them somehow. They would have helped NATO win the war in Afghanistan [using nuclear weapons]. They would have helped the Zionist regime win in Gaza and in Lebanon. The nuclear bomb is the most antihumanitarian device ever produced in the history of mankind. With respect to the nuclear issue, we have given two concrete proposals for the P5 +1 [the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany] for negotiation—the first is disarmament and the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Secondly, we need to pave the way for a collective access to peaceful nuclear technologies through cooperation by all parties. We also believe environmentally, too, that we need to have access to clean energy, secure energy that can be guaranteed. Our position is really clear. We work within the framework of the agency, and we have carried out our obligations so far.
I don't understand how your proposal for purchasing enriched uranium fuel fits in with the overall picture of your nuclear program.
Again, these nuclear materials we are seeking to purchase are for medicinal purposes. The 20 percent material is to produce the drugs we need to cure things. It is a humanitarian issue. They are working on these drugs in Tehran right now. Our reactors are really busy trying to produce these drugs. They have already produced about 20 kinds of different nuclear medicines, but we need to foresee our needs for the next 20 years, and we do need further enriched material. We thought this would be a good start to begin the negotiations.
If you were able to purchase this, what would you give in return?
We would pay money for the material. It is a good start for cooperation and to engage in cooperation. I also said that we would agree to have our nuclear experts sit down and discuss things with nuclear experts from the other side. This would help with confidence and to remove the concerns that are out there on both sides.
Why do you need to have enriched uranium if you don't have a single operating reactor that requires enriched uranium at this moment?
We have a nuclear reactor in Tehran that has been operational for the past 20 or 30 years, I would say—producing medicine. It is still operating. It creates about 20 different kinds of medicine. We have in the past bought the 20 percent enriched uranium from other countries—not from the United States. Now we could buy it from the United States. I think it is a good place to start for cooperating and talking. It is an issue that is humanitarian—it is about medicine.
When you say that nuclear experts from your side will sit down with nuclear experts from the other side to discuss—are you willing to have those discussions cover the outstanding issues of the IAEA?
Why don't we just let them sit and talk and see what capacity they can build?
And this would be part of the Geneva discussions?
That is our proposal, yes. Talks are not one-sided. Is that a problem? I think it is a good thing to happen.
How do you see Afghanistan in the future? Do you see Iranian-U.S. cooperation in Afghanistan or do you see a dominant Iran? I am sure you looked at the McChrystal report, which is very bleak.
Afghanistan is our neighbor. We have deep historical and emotional ties with the place. Several million Afghans live in Iran. Millions of Afghans and Iranians travel between the two places annually. There are many intermarriages that take place. Our relations are very deep. Security in Afghanistan affects Iran the most. I would like to see security restored in Afghanistan as soon as possible. I have said from the start that we are ready to assist, provided that the policies currently pursued change. We believe that the nature of policies in Afghanistan are completely wrong, and there is no need to go about proving it. Many crimes have been committed since the arrival of NATO troops. Obviously the policies are wrong. Even if we were to assist, nothing would be resolved. Afghanistan does not have a military solution to it. Let me ask you something—why is it that the media in the United States does not go in depth analyzing issues? I want to give you reasons here. Has there been anyone around to ask the U.S. government why they entered Afghanistan and engaged at that level?
Did you look at General McChrystal's report? It was very devastating.
Yes, it is true, but after seven years. Before going in, shouldn't these questions have been asked back then? When the warmongering going on under the Bush administration was at its peak?
But 3,000 people did die in New York on September 11.
Sure, but have they managed to reappear and be alive again after the crimes were carried out in Afghanistan? Not only that, but tens of thousands have been killed as the result. You cannot wash blood with blood. Since NATO entered Afghanistan, terrorism has increased tenfold and the production of illicit drugs has increased fivefold. Let me remind you of a historical event—asking American media to remind their managers as well because this is a responsibility of the media—if Mr. Bush was forced to study the past century of the history of Afghanistan, I guarantee you he never would have gone there. Experience has shown that whoever went into that territory with military force left with defeat. About 100 years ago, the British forces entered Afghanistan full on and left with a heavy defeat. Thirty years ago the Soviet Union troops entered Afghanistan and left in defeat. What sort of supernatural force did Mr. Bush envision he possessed that would allow him to win a war that the Soviets and the British could never win? We bring this up as a friendly discussion—we care about what happens. We care when people lose their lives. For every loss of life, the solution gets doubly hard to arrive at. If we did not wish well, we could have stayed silent about it. But we keep saying loud and clear that the policies there are incorrect. The wealth of the European and American people is being used there without any result except defeat. This wealth can be used to build friendships or to reconstruct a place, so it worries us. Everyone knows that NATO is close to a final defeat in Afghanistan. We could just stay silent about it and just be an onlooker because some NATO member states happen to be our enemies. We can be happy because they are getting defeated there. But we are not happy. It saddens us to see what happens. We believe and say that there is a humanitarian solution, and we are really surprised that politicians and NATO have chosen to put earplugs in their ears and not listen to other forms of criticism. We are willing to even assist them in changing their policies there. The precondition is that they have to be willing to listen. The general's report has clearly said that the policies so far have been wrong. So when are they going to change? We believe there are pivotal, fundamental shifts in policy that need to happen. Otherwise changing packages—referring to the nuclear package—without dealing with the substantial part of deeper issues is not going to bring about any results. Policies need to change, and we are willing to assist them.
On the nuclear issue, are you saying that Iran would agree to suspend its production of enriched uranium for medicinal purposes if it's allowed to purchase that enriched uranium? And would that be a first step toward further discussion that could include further suspension in return for further purchases?
We simply don't have the capacity to enrich at 20 percent for medicinal purposes, of the sort that we have in mind, at this stage. It's only at 3.5 percent. We had been buying this material in the past, but not from the U.S. government. We can buy it from the United States. It doesn't really matter who we buy it from, so we are open to it. But this does not affect the fuel cycle. But still, it seems to me a nice opening, a nice window to look through.
In other words, you're saying it doesn't affect the centrifuges you're building and the fact that you could re-spin the low-enriched uranium and make it into high-enriched uranium, as I understand it.
What I am saying is that you're free to make any interpretation of this that you like. We've been very clear about what we're doing. We're simply saying that we need fuel for our power plants, for our reactor. And based on the IAEA rules, we're entitled to this kind of technical assistance. Please do remember when you leave here that one of the main pivotal shifts that must occur is exclusivity on the focus that we give to certain topics but not to others, which leads to double standards. If you do not shift your own position on these [topics], nothing will change.
So, Mr. President, the last question: will you do something for Maziar? Say you'll help him. He works for us. It's a very difficult situation.
I will do my effort. Please advise your colleagues not to break the laws.
Find this article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/216040 _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
TEHRAN (FNA)- The Iranian President rejected western accusations regarding Iran's newly announced nuclear facility, saying the plant is perfectly legal.
Speaking at a press conference at the Intercontinental Hotel in New York, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the country's second nuclear plant is not in breach of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) rules adding that it is open for inspection by the agency.
"According to the IAEA rules, countries must inform the Agency 6 months ahead of the gas injection in their uranium enrichment plants. We have done it 18 months ahead and this should be appreciated not condemned," the president noted.
The Iranian President said Iran does not feel worried because the enrichment facility is operating in line with IAEA regulations adding those who brand an under-construction nuclear enrichment facility as 'secret' will regret the remarks they made, press tv reported.
In line with its guarantee to the IAEA for clarity on its nuclear activities, Iran informed the UN nuclear watchdog on 21 September that it is constructing a second plant for uranium enrichment.
"I can confirm that on 21 September, Iran informed the IAEA in a letter that a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country," agency spokesman Marc Vidricaire said Friday.
According to the spokesman, the letter underlined that the enrichment level in the plant would only be up to 5 percent.
Uranium, the fuel for a nuclear power plant, can be used for military purposes only if enriched to high levels of above 90 percent.
The UN nuclear watchdog in its previous reports had confirmed that Iran -- in its first enrichment facility in Natanz -- only managed to enrich uranium-235 to a level "less than 5 percent."
"(French President Nicolas) Sarkozy and (UK Prime Minister Gordon) Brown are not important for us and what they say does not matter but we think President Obama's accusations are against what he said in his speech at the United Nations," President Ahmadinejad said.
Ahmadinejad also said the news of the existence of the nuclear facility could not affect talks between Iran and the 5+1 group in October.
The newly announced nuclear site is being built near the Iranian city of Qom, some 160 kilometers south of Tehran. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
TEHRAN (FNA)- Head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) Ali Akbar Salehi in a statement on Friday announced construction of another nuclear fuel enrichment plant in the country.
Salehi said that Iran has, in line with the bid to safeguard and enjoy its absolute right for peaceful use of nuclear energy, successfully started building another semi-industrial facility for enrichment of nuclear fuel.
He said the facility will be active within framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulations, the Islamic republic news agency reported.
Issuing a statement on Friday, the IAEA thanked Iran for informing it of construction of the plant and said it was informed of the issue. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
Иран уведомил МАГАТЭ о существовании второго завода по обогащению урана
Власти Ирана сообщили генеральному директору Международного агентства по атомной энергии (МАГАТЭ) Мохаммеду эль-Барадеи о том, что в стране имеется второй завод по обогащению урана.
Как сообщает в пятницу АР со ссылкой на дипломатические источники в европейских странах, один из которых находится в Вене, Тегеран в понедельник направил конфиденциальное письмо главе МАГАТЭ, в котором содержалась информация о втором заводе. О месте нахождения предприятия, а также о количестве установленных на нем центрифуг для обогащения урана не сообщается, передает РИА "Новости".
Как также стало известно в пятницу, США, Великобритания и Франция в ближайшее время выступят с заявлением, обвиняющем Иран в сокрытии факта строительства этого предприятия. Как передает ИТАР-ТАСС, об этом заявил представитель американской администрации.
Напомним, что в минувший вторник иранское агентство IRNA со ссылкой на заявление вице-президента Ирана, главы Организации по атомной энергии страны Али Акбара Салехи сообщило, что Иран создал новое поколение центрифуг для обогащения урана. По словам Салехи, каскад из 10 центрифуг в настоящее время проходит необходимое тестирование. Как стало известно, иранские специалисты в настоящее время увеличивают размеры образцов.
По данным МАГАТЭ, количество центрифуг, установленных на заводе по обогащению урана в городе Натанз в центре Ирана, к настоящему времени превышает 8,3 тысячи. Власти Ирана панируют довести количество центрифуг до 50 тысяч – именно столько нужно, чтобы обеспечивать топливом будущие атомные электростанции.
США и другие страны Запада обвиняют Иран в разработке ядерного оружия под прикрытием программы мирного атома. Совбез ООН принял пять резолюций и наложил на Иран санкции, требуя от него отказаться от обогащения урана. Тегеран все обвинения отвергает. На прошлой неделе сначала президент Ирана Ахмади Нежад, а затем глава Исламской республики аятолла Хаменеи заявили, что Иран отказывается от ядерного оружия и не собирается работать в этом направлении.
В середине сентября сообщалось, что Салехи и эль-Барадеи на переговорах в Вене пришли к соглашению по новому формату сотрудничества Тегерана с международными инспекторами.
В августе Иран удовлетворил неоднократное требование МАГАТЭ предоставить возможность более жесткого контроля над динамично развивающейся ядерной программой Ирана. Наблюдатели МАГАТЭ получили доступ к тяжеловодному ядерному реактору на одном из крупнейших заводов по обогащению урановой руды в Натанзе.
Встреча представителей Ирана и "шестерки" стран-посредников по урегулированию иранской ядерной проблемы намечена на 1 октября. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
США, Великобритания и Франция представили МАГАТЭ подробные доказательства, свидетельствующие о том, что Исламская Республика Иран в течение нескольких лет секретно вела строительство предприятия по обогащению урана вблизи города Кум
Обама потребовал, чтобы Тегеран немедленно предоставил доступ на новый завод инспекторам Международного агентства
До этого Тегеран признавал наличие лишь одного предприятия для обогащения урана - в городе Натанце, расположенном в 250 километрах к югу от Тегерана
На саммите G20 главным возмутителем спокойствия стал Тегеран. Во время саммита стало известно, что на территории Ирана строится новый завод по обогащению урана, сообщает РИА "Новости".
США и ряд других стран Запада обвиняют Иран в разработке ядерного оружия под прикрытием программы мирного атома. Совбез ООН принял пять резолюций и наложил на Иран санкции, требуя от него отказаться от обогащения урана. Тегеран все обвинения отвергает, заявляя, что его ядерная программа направлена исключительно на удовлетворение потребностей страны в электроэнергии.
- Хаменеи: новый завод скоро заработает
- МИД Израиля: "Иран хочет вооружиться ядерной бомбой"
МАГАТЭ потребовало от иранских властей предоставить полную информацию и как можно скорее обеспечить доступ инспекторов на новое предприятие. США, Великобритания и Франция уже осудили Иран за строительство завода без ведома международных организаций. По словам лидеров этих стран, если Иран до декабря не раскроет полную информацию о своей ядерной программе, то его ждут новые санкции. Президент США Барак Обама даже не исключил возможности применения военной силы против Ирана, однако при этом оговорился, что предпочитает дипломатические методы.
"Вчера (в четверг) в Вене США, Великобритания и Франция представили МАГАТЭ подробные доказательства, свидетельствующие о том, что Исламская Республика Иран в течение нескольких лет секретно вела строительство предприятия по обогащению урана вблизи города Кум, - заявил Обама. - Ранее на этой неделе правительство Ирана направило в МАГАТЭ письмо, в котором упоминается новое предприятие по обогащению урана, и сделано это через несколько лет после начала строительства".
Обама потребовал, чтобы Тегеран немедленно предоставил доступ на новый завод инспекторам Международного агентства и добавил, что строительство секретного объекта является прямым вызовом основополагающему принципу глобального режима ядерного нераспространения.
До этого Тегеран признавал наличие лишь одного предприятия для обогащения урана - в городе Натанце, расположенном в 250 километрах к югу от Тегерана. По словам главы иранского агентства по ядерной энергетике Али Акбар Салехи, которые приводит иранское информационное агентство IRNA, завод будет работать в соответствии с требованиями МАГАТЭ. Также иранские власти отмечают, что объект пока не готов к работе и будет использоваться исключительно для мирных целей.
Между тем ООН выражает сильную озабоченность тем, что в Иране строится новый завод по обогащению урана, сообщает в субботу агентство Reuters. Генеральный секретарь ООН Пан Ги Мун на встрече с президентом Иранской Республики Махмудом Ахмади Нежадом в пятницу "выразил серьезную озабоченность относительно его (Ирана) деятельности в области продолжения обогащения урана, которая демонстрируется строительством нового атомного объекта", говорится в заявлении представителей генсека.
Лавров сгладил заявление Медведева по Ирану
В связи с открывшимися подробностями иранской ядерной программы специальное заявление сделал и президент РФ. "Строительство этого нового завода стало неожиданным для всех стран. Это было закрытое строительство, и из этого все и вытекает, и это как раз самое тяжелое в этой ситуации", - сказал Дмитрий Медведев по итогам саммита.
Он подчеркнул, что Иран должен к министерской встрече с "шестеркой" в Женеве, которая пройдет 1 октября, быть готов принять конкретные шаги по восстановлению доверия к своей ядерной программе.
"Мы рассчитываем, что - особенно в свете вскрывшихся сведений о строительстве нового обогатительного завода - Иран предоставит убедительные доказательства своего намерения стремиться к развитию ядерной энергетики сугубо в мирных целях", - заявил президент РФ.
"Мы обязаны создать для Ирана комфортные условия, чтобы он начал сотрудничать, создать систему стимулов, если эти стимулы не работают и кооперация не развивается, тогда вступают в силу другие механизмы", - сказал Медведев.
"Вскрывшиеся сведения о том, что Иран ведет строительство нового обогатительного завода, только усиливают нашу решимость в ближайшее время добиться конкретных и проверяемых результатов", - передает слова Медведева агентство ИТАР-ТАСС. Российский лидер добавил, что информация о новом заводе, который строится без ведома МАГАТЭ, "является источником серьезных обеспокоенностей".
Несколько иное по тону заявление сделал глава МИД России Сергей Лавров. Выступая на ежегодном заседании Американо-российского делового совета, он призвал не забывать, что Иран сам уведомил МАГАТЭ о строительстве нового завода и добавил, что "у России нет сведений, что производство ядерного топлива в Иране сместилось в сторону военных целей". Лавров также предложил не поднимать вопрос о введении дополнительных санкций против Ирана до проведения переговоров в Женеве 1 октября.
"Если мы решили предпринимать коллективные шаги, за ними не должно следовать односторонних импровизаций, - подчеркнул глава МИД. - Давайте не будем вести себя безответственно. Нам предстоят непростые переговоры в Женеве, их результат не гарантирован, но есть возможность добиться успеха".
Ахмади Нежад: Запад пожалеет о своих обвинениях
Лидеры западных стран, обвинившие Иран в тайном строительстве второго завода по обогащению урана, "пожалеют о своих обвинениях", заявил иранский президент Махмуд Ахмади Нежад.
Выступая на пресс-конференции в Нью-Йорке, Ахмади Нежад сообщил, что второе предприятие, расположенное в городе Кум, примерно в 160 км к юго-западу от Тегерана, никогда не было секретным объектом. По его словам, Тегеран сообщил Международному агентству по атомной энергии (МАГАТЭ) о его существовании на год раньше срока.
"У нас нет никаких трудностей с тем, чтобы МАГАТЭ изучило объект. Мы не боимся", - цитирует слова иранского лидера агентство Reuters.
Ахмади Неджад также отметил, что оказывать давление на Иран по поводу нового завода - это большая ошибка. Тегерану нечего скрывать от международных наблюдателей, добавил иранский лидер, и его страна не обязана "информировать администрацию господина Обамы о каждом производстве, которое у нас есть".
Кроме того, глава Ирана отреагировал на ранние заявления со стороны Израиля о том, что эта страна не исключает возможность нападения на иранские ядерные объекты: "Израиль не посмеет напасть на Иран... иранский народ способен себя защитить", сообщает ВВС. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
Marc Vidricaire, le porte-parole de l’AIEA a confirmé vendredi l’envoid’un courrier en date du 21septembre de l’Iran révélant un nouveau projet pilote d’enrichissement d’uranium.
Le porte parole de l’agence onusienne a annoncé à Vienne qu’il confirmait l’information selon laquelle l’Iran avait informé dans une lettre envoyée lundi à Mohammed El-Baradei, le directeur général de l'Agence internationale de l'Energie atomique (AIEA) qu’un nouveau projet pilote d’enrichissement d’uranium est en construction sur son territoire pour un enrichissement n’allant pas au delà des 5%.
Dans un courrier adressé à l'AIEA, le 21 septembre, l'Iran a informé qu'un second centre d'enrichissement d'uranium, en plus de celui de Natanz, était en construction, a déclaré un porte-parole de l'AIEA.
Dans sa lettre, l'Iran indique que le niveau d'enrichissement "ira jusqu'à 5 %". Ce niveau est insuffisant, selon les experts, pour servir dans la fabrication d'armes atomiques.
Ce courrier émanant de la République Islamique d’Iran annonce également que des informations complémentaires seront transmises à l’AIEA en temps utile.
Selon le porte-parole de l’agence, «l’AIEA a compris qu’aucun matériel nucléaire n’a pénétré à l’heure actuelle ce nouveau centre d’enrichissement ».
L'usine, qui serait conçue pour contenir environ 3.000 centrifugeuses, n'est pas encore en service, mais pourrait l'être dès l'année prochaine.
L’AIEA a fait savoir qu’elle souhaitait disposer le plus rapidement possible d’informations précises sur comment accéder à ce site.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a proposé mercredi une rencontre entre des experts nucléaires occidentaux et iraniens, un geste jugé encourageant. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
La République Islamique d’Iran a rejeté jeudi les "allégations totalement fausses" faites à l'ONU, notamment par la France et la Grande-Bretagne, sur son programme nucléaire , dans un communiqué diffusé par sa mission diplomatique aux Nations unies.
"Les allégations proférées par Nicolas Sarkozy contre le programme nucléaire pacifique de l'Iran sont une tentative ridicule de déguiser le non-respect par la France de ses obligations en termes de désarmement nucléaire", dit le communiqué.
"La France devrait remplir totalement et immédiatement ses obligations aux termes de l'article 6 du Traité de non-prolifération nucléaire au lieu de continuer à tisser sa toile de mensonges et d'incitations à la peur", ajoute-t-il.
Le texte a dénoncé également à la Grande-Bretagne, d'avoir ignoré délibérément ses propres obligations découlant du TNP pour éliminer "ses arsenaux nucléaires injustifiables".
Le communiqué iranien se réfère aux propos tenus jeudi lors du sommet du Conseil de sécurité sur le désarmement et la non-prolifération nucléaire. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
5:12p - Here in Pittsburgh, taken several significant steps to secure our recovery. Brought economy back from the brink. Laid groundwork for prosperity.
5:14p - Today, forged new framework for sustainable, balanced growth. Coordinated stimulus plans avoided catastrophe, but need to make sure when growth returns, jobs do, too.
5:15p - We can't grow complacent. New framework allows each of us to oversee each others policies.
5:16p - Bring transparency to derivatives market, strengthen capital standards, tie executive pay to long-term performance. Our financial system will be far more secure.
5:17p - We agreed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. All nations have a responsibility to meet this challenge.
5:17p - We will shift more responsibility to emerging economies and help lift people out of poverty.
5:19p - We have never been more united in demanding Iran to live up to its responsibilities.
5:20p - It's important to see what happened today building on what happened in NY. You had unprecedented show on behalf of world community. Not only did US, France and UK stand before you, but you had China and Russia as well issue statements calling for immediate IAEA investigation. That kind of solidarity is not typical. Anyone could have been doubtful that would happen.
5:21p - Iran on notice that they are going to have to make a choice: path to security and prosperity by giving up nuclear weapons pursuit or continue down path that will lead to confrontation. What has changed is international community has spoken. Now up to Iran. Not going to speculate on course of action.
5:22p - Iran would make a mistake in ignoring call to respond in forthright manner.
5:23p - We do not rule out any options when it comes to security interests of US, but my desire to resolve this diplomatically.
5:24p - We went into Afghanistan not because we were interested in entering that country or positioning ourselves regionally but because Al Qaeda killed 3,000+ Americans and tried to continue killing Americans. My goal: to dismantle Al Qaeda network. Security in Afghanistan and Pakistan are critical in that.
5:25p - Obviously, allegations of fraud in recent Afghan election are of concern to us. Waiting for full report.
5:27p - I asked McChrystal to give me an unvarnished assessment and he's done that. Military component is only one part. Need civilian, diplomatic components.
5:28p - I understand the public's weariness. Every time we get a report of young man or woman who has fallen, it's an extraordinary reminder of the sacrifice. I would expect the public to ask tough questions. We're not going to arrive at perfect answers, but my solemn obligation is to make sure get best answers possible.
5:29p - If you've looked at any of the other summits that have taken place-- in London, there were hundreds of thousands on the streets. Mayor and county executive deserve credit for managing a very tranquil summit. Many protests are addressed generically at capitalism. One of great things about the US is you can speak your mind, but I disagree free market is source of all ills. If they'd paid attention to what was going on inside, they would have heard strong recognition that it's important to make sure the market is working for ordinary people and doesn't cause the kinds of crises we had.
5:33p - With respect to the intelligence we presented to the IAEA, this was product of three intel agencies. These intel agencies checked over this work in a painstaking fashion because we didn't want ambiguity. The response you saw today indicates degree to which this intel is solid. Iran was constructing a facility it had not declared contrary to rules governing the IAEA.
5:34p - By keeping the path to diplomacy open, strengthens world unity. You're starting to see the product of that unfold this week. Saw strong affirmation at the UN of principles of non-proliferation treaty. When we find diplomacy does not work, will be in stronger position to apply sanctions that have bite. I would like nothing more than have Iran choose the [diplomatic] path.
5:36p - This isn't a football game, so I'm not interested in victory. I'm interested in solving the problem. (answering a question about a WH aide calling Iran announcement a "victory")
5:38p - I will not get into details about sanctions but if you have international community making united front, Iran's going to have to pay attention. It's very important in these high-stakes situations to make sure the intelligence is right and we wanted all three agencies to have thoroughly scrubbed this and to make sure that we were absolutely confident about the situation and we are and now it's time for Iran to respond. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
Téhéran reconnaît disposer d'un second centre, gardé secret jusqu'à ce jour. A Pittsburgh, Obama, Sarkozy et Brown ont condamné très fermement cette installation.
Voilà une nouvelle qui pourrait faire voler en éclat la crédibilité de Téhéran. Alors qu'Ahmadinejad jouait l'apaisement sur le dossier nucléaire, le New York Times révèle vendredi que l'Iran dispose d'un second centre d'enrichissement d'uranium, qui était gardé secret. L'existence de l'usine, située dans la ville de Qom, n'a jamais été portée à la connaissance des experts des Nations Unies.
L'Iran a confirmé à l'Agence internationale de l'énergie atomique (AIEA), via un diplomate à Vienne, l'existence de ce centre, alors que les services secrets américains étaient, semble-t-il, sur le point de révéler l'information.
«L'Iran a informé l'AIEA dans un courrier le 21 septembre qu'un nouveau centre d'enrichissement (d'uranium) est en construction sur son territoire», a déclaré ce vendredi un porte-parole de l'AIEA dans un communiqué. Dans sa lettre l'Iran indique que «le niveau d'enrichissement ira jusqu'à 5%». Ce niveau est insuffisant, selon les experts, pour servir dans la fabrication d'armes atomiques.
«L'AIEA croit comprendre également qu'aucun matériau nucléaire n'a été introduit jusqu'ici dans ce nouveau centre» d'enrichissement, selon la même source. Ce complexe souterrain, situé au sud-ouest de Téhéran, pourrait permettre la construction d'armes nucléaires, puisque l'endroit disposerait de quelque 3.000 centrifugeuses. Il n'a toytefois pas encore été mis en service, selon le NYT.
Les Etats-Unis, la France et le Royaume-Uni ont condamné l'attitude de l'Iran, en ouverture du sommet du G20, à Pittsburgh. Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy et Gordon Brown ont demandé solennellement à Téhéran de faire toute la lumière sur ce centre secret, et ouvrir ses portes aux observateurs des Nations Unies. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad : l'ère des empires est bel et bien révolue
Téhéran.Irna. 25 septembre 2009.
"L'ère des empires est bel et bien désormais révolue et aujourd'hui, tout un chacun doit pouvoir participer à la gestion du monde", a affirmé le président de la République Islamique d’Iran lors d'une conférence de presse à New York.
Le site nucléaire iranien nouvellement révélé est "parfaitement légal", a déclaré vendredi le président Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lors de cette conférence de presse.
"Nous avons informé l'Agence internationale de l'énergie atomique ( AIEA) à l'avance. Nous devrions être félicités pour cela qui est parfaitement légal", a-t-il dit.
Le président iranien a rejeté en bloc, vendredi 25 septembre, les accusations portées par les Etats-Unis, la France et le Royaume-Uni. La construction du nouveau site d'enrichissement d'uranium, "très ordinaire", a-t-il affirmé, rentre "parfaitement dans le cadre des règles" de l'AIEA, qui sera invitée à l'inspecter.
"Ils accusent un gouvernement indépendant sans se documenter", a-t-il ajouté."Nous faisons tout dans la transparence", a assuré le président iranien soulignant que cela ne voulait pas dire que l’Iran devrait informer l'administration de Barak Obama au sujet de toutes les installations dont elle dispose".
Lors de sa conférence de presse, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a affirmé que son pays avait réagi avec retenue à ces révélations se déclarant étonné au cours de la conférence de presse dans l'Hôtel Intercontinental de New York. "Je très surpris" d'un tel fracas médiatique » a avoué le président iranien.
Il a affirmé par ailleurs que Téhéran attendait beaucoup des négociations prévues jeudi à Genève avec les représentants des six puissances chargées du dossier nucléaire iranien (Chine, Etats-Unis, France, Grande-Bretagne, Russie et Allemagne).
"Nous sommes pleins d'espoir à propos des discussions de Genève", a-t-il dit.
Le président russe Dmitri Medvedev, également présent à Pittsburgh, a souhaité que l'Iran "coopére pleinement" avec l'AIEA, tout en se déclarant toujours en faveur d'un "dialogue sérieux" avec Téhéran.
Interrogé sur l'argument américain selon lequel la taille des nouvelles installations est incompatible avec un usage civil, le président iranien a répliqué que "le président américain n'est pas un expert nucléaire" et devra laisser à l'agence "suffisamment de temps pour aller vérifier les choses".
"Conformément aux règles de l'Agence, selon lesquelles tout site d'enrichissement doit être déclaré à l'AIEA six mois avant l'injection du gaz, la République Islamique d’Iran a informé l’Agence onusienne 18 mois plutôt", a souligné le président Ahmadinejad, avant de préciser qu'on doit permettre à l'AIEA de préparer ses rapports et de les mettre à la disposition des instances concernées. « Lorsque le rapport de l'Agence sera publié, ils regretteront indubitablement leurs propos, car ce site est un complexe tout à fait ordinaire et n'a rien de compliqué » a déclaré le président iranien.
Le dirigeant iranien a dénoncé ceux qui "croyaient disposer d'un joker". "De quel droit nous dites-vous ce que nous devons faire?", a-t-il lancé, jugeant que M.Obama, dont il a noté qu'il "veut changer l'image des Etats-Unis", avait été "mal informé".
Quant à Nicolas Sarkozy et Gordon Brown, "ils ne sont pas très importants pour nous", a-t-il ajouté, précisant que les dirigeants français et britannique n'étaient "pas très crédibles" et se livraient à un "jeu médiatique".
"Vous souvenez-vous, quand l'Irak a été attaqué, c'était sous le prétexte que le pays possédait des armes nucléaires ou des armes de destruction massive", a-t-il déclaré, assurant que "la patrie iranienne est honnête, cultivée" et n'a "jamais envahi les autres". "Nous avons fait preuve de retenue et décidé de ne pas réagir brusquement, parce que nous espérons vraiment que des changements fondamentaux vont commencer à se produire", a-t-il précisé.
Les armes nucléaires, auxquelles l'Iran est "fondamentalement opposé", sont "criminelles", "inhumaines", et quiconque les possède est "politiquement arriéré", a affirmé le président iranien. Elles sont aussi "inefficaces", a-t-il ajouté, et "n'ont pas sauvé l'Union soviétique" ni "aidé les forces américaines en Irak ou en Afghanistan" ou même "le régime sioniste" à Gaza ou au Liban.
Celles qui existent devraient "toutes être détruites", tandis que "la possibilité de toutes les nations d'avoir accès à une énergie nucléaire propre et écologique" doit être, selon le dirigeant iranien, préservée.
Evoquant Israël, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a affirmé que "certains pays n'ont pas signé le TNP [traité de non-prolifération] mais s'en prennent à d'autres", alors qu'ils ont "eux-mêmes plusieurs milliers de bombes".
Interrogé sur le risque d'une attaque israélienne contre ses installations nucléaires, le président iranien a déclaré : "Nous sommes capables de nous défendre".
Un porte-parole de l'AIEA a indiqué vendredi à Vienne que l'Iran avait informé l'agence onusienne le 21 septembre qu'il construisait un second centre d'enrichissement d'uranium. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
ABC NEWS, THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS INTERVIEW WITH DEFENSE SECRETARY ROBERT GATES AND ARIZONA SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: And we begin with the secretary of Defense, Robert Gates.
Welcome back to "This Week".
National security was front and center all week long. Let's begin with Afghanistan. We saw the leak of General McChrystal's review. And he concluded that the United States has about 12 months to reverse Taliban momentum and that without new troops, the strategy laid out by the president is likely to fail.
And I want to show what the president said back in March when he laid out that strategy. He called it "new and comprehensive."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This marks the conclusion of a careful policy review. My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats. We've consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments with our partners and our NATO allies and with other donors and international organizations. We've also worked closely with members of Congress here at home.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, this was clearly a carefully considered strategy. And now the president is telling us -- he told me last week that he can't approve General McChrystal's request until we get the strategy right.
Why the second thoughts on the strategy?
ROBERT GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: I don't think there are second thoughts so much as when he made his decisions at the end of March, he also announced that he would -- we would be reviewing the policy and the strategy after the elections...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But he said the tool was in the tactics, not the strategy.
GATES: Well, I -- I think that he -- he clearly felt that we would have to reassess where we are after the election. Now, in addition to having a flawed election in Afghanistan, we now have General McChrystal's assessment. When the president made his comments at -- at the end of March, his decisions, obviously, General McChrystal was not in place. We now have his assessment. He has found the situation on the ground in Afghanistan worse than he had -- then he anticipated.
And so I think what the president is now saying is in light of the election, in light of McChrystal's more concerning assessment of the situation on the ground, have we got the strategy right, were the decisions in -- that he made at the end of March, the right ones?
Do we need to make some adjustments in light of what we've found?
And once we've decided whether or not to make adjustments in the strategy, then we will consider the additional resources.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But did -- but didn't General McChrystal take these problems of the election into account?
He didn't even deliver his report until August 30th, which was after the elections. Dennis Blair, the head of National Intelligence, said back in February or March that we could foresee that there would be problems with this election.
GATES: Well, I think -- I think that the potential magnitude of the problems in the election really didn't become apparent until the vote count began in early September. So -- so I think it was really after he submitted his -- his assessment.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So now we have a real dilemma.
Does that mean that the United States is re-thinking whether it can even -- whether it can bolster President Karzai's government or whether we have to give up on it?
GATES: Well, I -- you know, the Afghan people have gone to the polls and we have the two election commissions, one internal and one international, that could still come to conclusions, even if they throw out some fraudulent ballots or a number of fraudulent ballots, that there was a clear winner.
The key is whether the Afghans believe that their government has legitimacy. And everything that I've seen in the intelligence and elsewhere indicates that remains the case.
STEPHANOPOULOS: It does seem though you're caught in a dilemma right now. You've got your commanding general on the ground who's given you this report. He's said the troops -- more troops are necessary or you risk failure. That report has been endorsed by the head of Central Command, David Petraeus. Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went to Congress and said we probably need more troops.
Yet the president is saying that we need to think about the strategy right now. And it really creates the impression of a rift between the civilian leadership, you, as secretary of Defense, the president and the uniformed military.
GATES: I don't think that's the case at all. I talked with -- I had an extensive conversation on the telephone with both General McChrystal and General Petraeus on -- on Wednesday. General McChrystal was very explicit in saying that he thinks this assessment, this review that's going on right now is exactly the right thing to do. He obviously doesn't want it to be open-ended or be a protracted kind of thing...
STEPHANOPOULOS: How long will it take?
GATES: Well, I -- you know, I -- it's not going to take -- I think it -- it's a matter of a few weeks. And people should remember that the debate within the Bush administration on the surge lasted three months, from October to December, 2006.
So I think it's important to make sure we're confident that we have the right strategy in place and then we can make the decisions on additional forces.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But the clock really does seem to be ticking again, to go back to General McChrystal's report. He says that if we don't turn the tide in the next 12 months, we risk failure. So every week that goes by puts the soldiers who are on the ground at risk, doesn't it?
GATES: But having the -- having the wrong strategy would put even more soldiers at risk. So I think it's important to get the strategy right and then we can make the resources decision. Because, as I say, I don't expect this to be protracted process. The reality is that even if the president did decide to approve additional combat forces going into Afghanistan, the first forces couldn't arrive until January.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So what are the options right now?
You have said in the past that you didn't believe what some people are recommending -- stepping up drone attacks, stepping up missile attacks, using Special Forces.
You don't believe -- or haven't believed in the past that that's sufficient to contain the Taliban.
GATES: I think that most people who -- the people that I've talked to in the Pentagon who are the experts on counter-terrorism essentially say that counter-terrorism is only possible if you have the kind of intelligence that allows you to target the terrorists. And the only way you get that intelligence is by being on the ground -- getting information from people like the Afghans or, in the case of Iraq, the Iraqis.
And so you can't do this from -- from a distance or remotely, in the view of virtually all of the experts that I've talked to.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So if that -- if that's not going to work, then -- and then you have General McChrystal, who said in his report that you need a full blown counter-insurgency campaign, counter-insurgency is the answer. That certainly seems to be endorsed by General Petraeus.
Is there a middle ground between those two poles?
GATES: Well, I think -- I think people are -- are, frankly, so focused on -- on the comment that -- in General McChrystal's report about additional resources that they're neglecting to look at the rest of what's in his report. And that -- and where he talks very explicitly about the fact that -- that a preoccupation with the resources or with additional forces, if you don't have the strategy right, is a mistake.
And -- and he, as I say, he understands this process that's underway.
But -- but what he talks about in most of that assessment is not resources, but a different way of using U.S. forces and coalition forces in Afghanistan. It talks about accelerating the growth of the Afghan national security forces. It spends a lot of time talking about how we stay on side with the Afghan people.
This is mostly what McChrystal's assessment is about.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it's a resource-intensive strategy, isn't it?
He says that the troops have to probably be more lightly armed and engage more with the population. And it's hard to ignore that stark conclusion. Success is not ensured by additional forces alone, as you point out, but continued under resourcing will likely cause failure -- failure.
GATES: Well, that's what we're discussing and how do we avoid that?
STEPHANOPOULOS: And, as you said, you hope to have this done in a few weeks and you want to avoid failure, as well. But the president has not made any -- any decision at all on resources?
Has he -- has he ruled it out?
GATES: No, I haven't even given him General McChrystal's request for resources. I have the -- I -- I'm receiving the -- the report. I'm going to sit on it until I think -- or the president thinks -- it's appropriate to bring that into the discussion of the national security principles.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's what -- General McChrystal says we have to have more troops to avoid failure. Where we've had a lack of clarity on what success means in Afghanistan, you pointed out at the beginning of this year what it was. And he said we're not - we shouldn't expect a Valhalla in Afghanistan.
The president's special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, was asked for his definition of success last month and here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMB. RICHARD HOLBROOKE, SPECIAL ENVOY, PAKISTAN & AFGHANISTAN: I would say this about defining success in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the simplest sense, the Supreme Court test for another issue, we'll know it when we see it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is that good enough?
GATES: Well, I think -- I think we know it when we see it and we see it in Iraq. I think that success in Afghanistan looks a great deal like success in Iraq, in this respect, that the Afghan national security forces increasingly take the lead in protecting their own territory and going after the insurgents and protecting their own people.
We withdraw to an over watch situation and then we withdraw altogether.
STEPHANOPOULOS: This first required a surge in Iraq.
GATES: It did require a surge. And that's the issue that we will be looking at over the next several weeks -- the next couple of weeks or so, is do we have the right strategy?
And that includes the question of -- of is the -- is McChrystal's approach, in the view of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Central Command commander, the right approach?
And if so, then what -- what would be the additional resources involved?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn to Iran. The president has put Iran on notice that they're going to have to allow inspectors into this secret site which U.S. intelligence discovered for enriching uranium. President Ahmadinejad says that President Obama is mistaken and the United States owes Iran an apology.
Is Iran going to get one?
GATES: Not a chance.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So what happens next?
The president has said that this site is not configured for peaceful purposes. Now, the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded -- of the U.S. government -- concluded that Iran had stopped its active nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Does the president's conclusion, that this site is not configured for peaceful purposes, mean that that intelligence estimate is no longer operative?
GATES: No, not necessarily. But what it does mean is that they had a covert site. They did not declare it. They didn't -- if -- if this were a peaceful nuclear program, why didn't they announce this site when they began to construct it?
Why didn't they allow IAEA inspectors in from the very beginning?
This -- this is part of a pattern of deception and lies on the part of the Iranians from the very beginning with respect to their nuclear program. So it's no wonder that world leaders think that they have ulterior motives, that they have a plan to go forward with nuclear weapons.
Otherwise, why would they do all this in such a deceptive manner?
STEPHANOPOULOS: U.S. intelligence had been tracking this site for quite some time before President Obama made it public.
Is this the only secret site that we know of?
GATES: Well, I'm not going to -- I'm not going to get into that. I would just say that we're watching very closely.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Does the United States government believe that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program?
GATES: I think that -- my personal opinion is that the Iranians have the intention of having nuclear weapons. I think the question of whether they have made a formal decision to -- to move toward the development of nuclear weapons is -- is in doubt. STEPHANOPOULOS: The U.S. ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency said a couple of weeks ago that Iran is closer to what he called break out capacity on developing a nuclear weapon.
What does that mean exactly?
And how much time -- if they do, indeed, have the intent, how much time do we have before Iran has a nuclear weapons capacity?
GATES: Well, I think breakout in the -- in the ambassador's terms means they have enriched enough uranium to a relatively low level that if they have another facility where they could enrich it more highly, that they have a -- they have enriched enough at a low level that they could, in essence, throw out all the IAEA inspectors, change the configuration of the -- of the cascades and the enrichment capability and enrich it to a level where they could use it -- where they could make it into weapons grade uranium.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And you say you personally have no doubt that they want weapons.
Can that weapons program be stopped with sanctions?
GATES: I think that what is critical is persuading the Iranians that -- or leading them to the conclusion that their security will be diminished by trying to get nuclear weapons rather than enhanced. And I think that because of the election, we see fissures in Iran that we have not seen before in the 30 years since the revolution. And I think that severe sanctions, if the Iranian -- first of all, we -- we have created a problem for the Iranians with this disclosure.
And so the first step is the meeting on October 1st with the P5 plus one, with the Iranians, to see if they will begin to change their policy in a way that is satisfactory to -- to the great powers.
And then, if that doesn't work, then I think you begin to move in the direction of severe sanctions. And their economic problems are difficult enough that -- that I think that severe sanctions would have the potential of -- of bringing them change their -- their policies.
I think -- you asked me how long do I think we have? I would somewhere between one to three years.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn, finally, to Guantanamo. We have just a couple of minutes left. A major story in "The Washington Post" suggesting that the president's deadline of January 22nd for closing Guantanamo will not be met. And White House officials tell me that at least some prisoners will still be in Guantanamo on January 22nd and beyond.
How big a setback is that and how long will it take to finally close Guantanamo?
GATES: When the president elect met with his new national security team in Chicago on December 7th...
STEPHANOPOULOS: 2009.
GATES: ...last year, this issue was discussed, about closing Guantanamo and executive orders to do that and so on.
And the question was, should we set a deadline? Should we pin ourselves down?
I actually was one of those who said we should because I know enough from being around this town that if you don't put a deadline on something, you'll never move the bureaucracy. But I also said and then if we find we can't get it done by that time but we have a good plan, then you're in a position to say it's going to take us a little longer but we are moving in the direction of implementing the policy that the president set.
And I think that's the position that --
STEPHANOPOULOS: That's where we are. So the deadline of January 22nd will not be met?
GATES: It's going to be tough.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And -- and how many prisoners will be there on January 22nd, do you know?
GATES: I don't know the answer to that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is it -- but, as you said, it's going to be tough and likely will not be met.
GATES: We'll see.
STEPHANOPOULOS: One -- one other deadline question. When you were working for President Bush, you used to keep a countdown clock on your desk, counting down the number of days you had left to serve.
Is that clock still there?
GATES: No. I threw the clock out. It was obviously useless.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're in it for the long haul?
GATES: We'll see. The president elect and I, when we first discussed this, agreed to leave it open.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Secretary Gates, thank you very much for your time today.
GATES: Thanks a lot.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And with that, let me bring in Senator John McCain.
Welcome back, sir.
MCCAIN: Thank you, George.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So Secretary Gates is sticking around for a while?
MCCAIN: I hope he's there for a long time.
STEPHANOPOULOS: We have a lot to talk about this morning. Let's begin where he left off on Guantanamo. During the campaign, you had a very strong position that Guantanamo should be closed, but you've also been very critical of the way President Obama has handled it. Do you still believe that Guantanamo should be closed?
MCCAIN: Oh, yes. But the mistake was -- and I'd respectfully disagree with Secretary Gates -- was that they didn't have a policy as to how to address these very difficult and complex issues. They are more complex than about any that I've ever -- the legal side of this, as well as trying to get cooperation from countries to take these people.
So the policy should have been formulated and put into effect, and then the announcement. Again, I just disagree with Secretary Gates. The policy should have been formulated and then implemented, and then you would have had a timeframe that you wouldn't have to say, "Hey, we can't keep one of our first commitments."
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you think it's good news that this deadline is slipping?
MCCAIN: Well, I don't -- I think it's -- I think it's bad news in that we would have liked to have achieved it, but I never thought it was a realistic goal, because they still haven't gotten the fine- tuned parts of the -- of the policy. In an issue like this, the details are really very important.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you fully expect there will be prisoners in Guantanamo after the deadline? MCCAIN: All I know is, frankly, what I briefed on, and apparently they're certainly not going to make that deadline. But we should continue to work towards the closure of Guantanamo Bay because of the image that it has in the world of brutality and harms our image very badly.
STEPHANOPOULOS: OK. Let's talk about Afghanistan. You heard Secretary Gates there. I mean, you've been -- you've said that it puts American troops at risk to delay this decision, but you heard Secretary Gates. He says, number one, General McChrystal found the situation much worse than he anticipated, and the election was even more corrupt than they anticipated, which is why it's responsible to have a review.
MCCAIN: Well, first of all, I trust General McChrystal and General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen and their military assessment. I understand the president has other factors that he has to take into consideration.
But I would remind you that, when we decided to do the surge in Iraq, the Maliki government was in worse shape than -- than the present government in -- in Afghanistan.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But there was more of a tradition of centralized control in Iraq.
MCCAIN: But there was no control. The country was in flames in sectarian violence. The Maliki government didn't have any authority outside the gates of his residence. It was far, far worse.
But then we implemented a strategy where we went in and provided an environment of security so that the political and economic process -- two steps forward, one step back -- and we -- and we succeeded. And it's because we gave people an environment where they could start living some semblance of normal daily lives. That's a counterinsurgency strategy.
MCCAIN: What the opponents are talking about is a counterterrorism strategy. You can't just sit off on the sidelines and kill people, as Secretary Gates said. You've got to have the intelligence. You've got to be there with the people. And you have to make a -- a real commitment.
Our allies in the region -- while we're waiting, our friends in the region are getting very nervous, as well as our European allies.
STEPHANOPOULOS: One of those opponents is the former commandant of the Marine Corps, Chuck Krulak, who wrote George Will just a few weeks ago laying out his ideas. And he seemed to echo something that we hear that General Casey -- General George Casey, the chief of the staff of the Army -- also talks about, and that is there is simply too much stress on our forces now for a big surge.
Listen to Commandant Krulak: "Not only are our troops being run ragged, but equally important and totally off most people's radar screens, our equipment is being run ragged. At some point in time, the bill for that equipment will come due and it will be a very large bill."
It's a valid concern, isn't it?
MCCAIN: I think it's a very legitimate concern. The fact is, recruiting and retention, they're at all-time highs. The fact is, this has been an enormous strain on these men and women and their families, incredible strain. But nothing helps morale more than victory, and nothing hurts morale more than defeat.
It took our military more than a decade to recover from the loss in Vietnam, and yet now that we've succeeded in Iraq -- and we've got a long ways to go -- then I am confident that our military will do what's necessary and they'll do it because they know the mission that they're carrying out is one of vital importance to our national security.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it's going to take more than a decade to succeed, isn't it?
MCCAIN: I think you will see signs of success in a year to 18 months, if we implement the strategy right away.
By the way, I sympathize with the president. The base of his party, the left base of his party, is opposed. This is -- American people are weary of this conflict. And I -- I do have sympathy for the president in making this decision. It's the toughest decision a president has to make, to send people into harm's way, but I'd remind you throughout history, whether it be Harry Truman or Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln, leaders have had to make tough choices, and history has judged them very kindly.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Have you spoken directly to the president about your concerns?
MCCAIN: Yesterday.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And what did -- what did you say to him?
MCCAIN: We had a good conversation, as we always do. And I pointed out what -- the point you made earlier, that, in Iraq, the Maliki government was certainly failing. And this -- this election in Afghanistan, it was corrupt. There is corruption from the -- the cop on the beat to -- to the -- to the president's brother, Karzai's brother, and that issue has to be addressed if we're going to succeed.
But we're not going to have a chance to succeed if we withdraw. And by the way, we've really got the status quo, which Admiral Mullen and General McChrystal say is not succeeding, or we can implement this new strategy, which is really an old strategy called counterinsurgency, or we'd better get out.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You and the president...
MCCAIN: A half-measure -- a half-measure does not do justice. And time is important, because there's 68,000 Americans already there. And casualties will go up.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you concerned that the president is going to choose a half-measure? Or do you see the possibility for a meeting of the minds between you and the president on this?
MCCAIN: I'm very hopeful that the president will make the right decision, which is to -- to commit the necessary troops. And, again, as much as I respect Secretary Gates, I'm not sure how you make an informed decision if you don't take into consideration the resources that are necessary to exercise one of those options.
And, by the way, I think it's the worst -- one of the many worst- kept secrets in Washington. It's 30,000 to 40,000 troops.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And -- and he says that decision will come in a few weeks. So what's your betting on what the president's going to do?
MCCAIN: I -- I can't bet, but I know what the president said during the campaign about the war in Afghanistan, that we couldn't muddle through. I know the president, as short a time ago as March, said we could not allow the Taliban to achieve -- allow Al Qaida back again in Afghanistan to serve as a base for attacks on the United States and our allies.
And -- and, by the way, the Taliban are not -- are not popular with the people of Afghanistan. They don't want to go back to that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So one final question. Does the president get your argument?
MCCAIN: I think the president -- as I said, I think he has a very difficult decision. The base of his party, Americans are weary. understandably they're weary. And it's a very difficult decision for him. But I -- I believe he'll make the right decision.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator McCain, thanks very much for your time this morning.
MCCAIN: Thanks for having me on.
STEPHANOPOULOS: When we come back, it's all-star day on the roundtable. George Will is joined by the reporter who broke the McChrystal report, Bob Woodward, plus Pulitzer Prize-winner Tom Friedman of the New York Times and our own Martha Raddatz. We'll also have the Sunday funnies later. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
...STEPHANOPOULOS: Does the United States government believe that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program?
GATES: I think that -- my personal opinion is that the Iranians have the intention of having nuclear weapons. I think the question of whether they have made a formal decision to -- to move toward the development of nuclear weapons is -- is in doubt...
Как хитро всё завёрнуто, однако!
Стефанопулос хитро провоцирует Гейтса ответить за всё американское правительство.
Но Гейтс тоже хитёр, его такими убогими финтами не проймёшь, он типа выражает своё "личное мнение".
И одновременно работает под дурака, всем известно что он министр обороны, и все понимают что его пригласили выступить публично.
Соответственно, его заявление будет восприниматься как официальное мнение, как позиция министерства обороны...
Юлит Гейтс, ходит вокруг да около, то с одного бока зайдёт, то с другого...
Вроде бы есть у Ирана намерение иметь ядерное оружие.....с одной стороны. А с другой стороны, я, типа, сомневаюсь, принял ли Иран формальное решение разрабатывать ядерную бомбу или нет....
Во как! _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
Добавлено: Четверг, 1 Октябрь 2009, 22:46:05 Заголовок сообщения:
The following are excerpts from an interview with Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian foreign minister, that was conducted Tuesday at the Iranian Mission to the United Nations by Neil MacFarquhar. Mr. Mottaki spoke in Persian, and his remarks were translated by an official interpreter.
Q. Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, told a news conference on Tuesday that the new uranium enrichment plant that Iran revealed last week was illegal because Security Council resolutions say that Iran is supposed to report any nuclear facility when construction starts. What is your reaction to that?
A. The secretary general is in a position where he should talk in accordance with the laws and regulations.... According to international law, which has also been approved by our country, all member states have the commitment to inform the International Atomic Energy Agency six months before the injection of uranium into the centrifuges.
But we have informed the I.A.E.A. before the installation of the centrifuges or before the injection of the fuel. We did it 18 months before.
Q. But the secretary general was saying that the Security Council resolutions trump the I.A.E.A. guidelines, so Iran is supposed to follow the resolutions, which say Iran is supposed to announce any nuclear project right away.
A. In relation to that principle we have also violated nothing, because nothing has been done with regard to nuclear energy in that facility. We had a plan for the site; we had a plot of land where the plant was being built and a building that was constructed on the site. We have already informed the agency....
Q. I want to go back to the timing of the nuclear announcement. There is some curiosity about why Iran chose last week to announce the plant.
A. It is always the same, some people will ask why you have announced so late, and some others will ask why you have announced so early.... Q. American officials say that Iran discovered that the United States was about to unveil the enrichment plant, so the Islamic republic wanted to pre-empt the announcement, they wanted to take away the surprise.
A. That is not going to cover the mistake committed a few days ago in Pittsburgh. We think President Obama was misled in that episode. It is not good for a person like the president of the United States to say something about which he has no information. It was a trap for President Obama through misleading information. Some terrorist organizations provided the source of this wrong information.
The wrong analysis has also been provided as usual, as it happened during the Bush administration, by the United Kingdom. At least they could have asked the I.A.E.A. about this matter. When we informed the I.A.E.A., the agency gave an official response to Iran, expressing its appreciation for our move in informing them. Now they are making the arrangements for the agency inspection.
In our opinion we think that the statement in Pittsburgh was a scandal. Of course we don’t have many expectations of President [Nicolas] Sarkozy [of France] because he defended up to the last moment the policies of the radicals in the White House. After their failure or defeat in the United States, he has been constantly confused. Some of his actions emanate from this confusion.
Q. The general sense is that every year Iran says “We have told you everything, this is it,” and then another piece of the nuclear program emerges. So over all the politicians in the West, like the secretary general, are saying that there is a lack of credibility. They hope when Iran goes to the talks on Thursday it will be more transparent. How do you react to the demands that Iran be more transparent, more credible?
A. The secretary general of the United Nations should not talk with complicated philosophical language. He must speak based on solid evidence and in compliance with the laws and regulations. I think our positions have already been accepted and supported by many countries of the world. Many countries that are seeking to gain access to peaceful nuclear energy say to us that your resistance has also encouraged us to seek our legitimate rights. We think a new world is going to be born. In this new world nothing can be monopolized and you cannot impose your will on other nations.
There was a time when some world powers or countries did whatever they wanted. But they must know that the world has changed. The people in the United States must know that the former U.S. administration in the past eight years has jeopardized their reputation in the entire world. They created heavy failures and defeats for the United States in various parts of the world. We think the secretary general of the United Nations should not repeat the rhetoric of the leaders of an old defeated system.
Q. The five permanent members of the Security Council—Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States—plus Germany, who will participate in the talks on Thursday, are saying that they want Iran to be transparent and to convince them that it is credible. How does Iran approach the talks on Thursday with those demands?
A. The upcoming talks on Thursday will be considered a two-way street. By offering a new package to the five plus one, we have already shown our determination and seriousness for constructive cooperation. We think that this proposed package from our side could be regarded as a suitable framework for our upcoming talks. Iran’s policies are completely transparent.... I think we should also witness from the other side a strong political will for serious dialogue and constructive cooperation....
On paper they claim to recognize Iran’s right for a peaceful nuclear program. That is not enough to say that on paper. That must be realized. So I think we should talk and negotiate in those things and issues we have raised in the proposed package with seriousness and earnestness. It covers different parts—political and security matters, international issues, economic issues too, social and cultural matters.
Q. What do you expect from the talks?
A. The important thing is that during the meeting the two sides should reach a common decision for having a dialogue on the proposed topics. If they reach such a conclusion, then they will have a long agenda for our talks.... There are various dimensions in the proposed package dealing with the nuclear issue including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the I.A.E.A., the inspection system, disarmament, strengthening the position of the I.A.E.A.... Q. Speaking about the I.A.E.A., the question comes up repeatedly as to why Iran does not accept the additional protocol in the I.A.E.A. safeguards agreement that allows for more intrusive inspections for nuclear sites. If Iran does not want to develop a nuclear weapon, why doesn’t it just accept the additional protocol and that will provide the transparency and credibility that the United States and some other countries are demanding?
A. Do you think that acceptance of the additional protocol is mandatory? We followed and we implemented the additional protocol for over two years at a time when the parliament had not approved the protocol. But it did not create any confidence. We have indicated our good will.
Q. But given the lack of confidence and the revelations about new facilities, scientists and others are saying Iran should accept the additional protocol now because it would create confidence.
A. That is called the two-way street, as I told you. You cannot ask for everything from one side. The parliament has voted that the government is not allowed to implement the additional protocol. With regard to the fact that the Security Council has intervened in the work of the agency, and transferred the issue from the I.A.E.A. to the Security Council, after that the parliament made the decision that the government stop implementing the additional protocol. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Зарегистрирован: 06.03.2005 Сообщения: 12000 Откуда: Обер-группен-доцент, ст. руководитель группы скоростных свингеров, он же Забашлевич Оцаат Поэлевич
Добавлено: Четверг, 1 Октябрь 2009, 23:03:22 Заголовок сообщения:
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Before I comment on today’s meeting in Geneva, I want to say a few words about the recent tragic events in the Pacific.
On behalf of the American people, I want to once again extend my deepest condolences to the people of American Samoa and Samoa for the terrible loss of life and the devastation that took place after the recent earthquake and tsunami. I’ve spoken to the governor and delegate from American Samoa, and we continue to provide the full support of the federal government for relief efforts there. I have also directed the State Department to provide the assistance necessary to help Samoa recover as well.
We’re also deeply moved by the suffering and loss of life that’s been caused by the recent earthquake in West Sumatra. And my administration has been in touch with the government of Indonesia to make it clear that the United States stands ready to help in this time of need, and I’ve ordered my administration to coordinate with the ongoing relief and recovery efforts there.
Indonesia is an extraordinary country that’s known extraordinary hardship from natural disasters. I know firsthand that the Indonesian people are strong and resilient and have the spirit to overcome this enormous challenge. And as they do, they need to know that America will be their friend and partner.
Today, in Geneva, the United States –- along with our fellow permanent members of the UN Security Council -– namely, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom, as well as Germany -– held talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
These meetings came after several months of intense diplomatic effort. Upon taking office, I made it clear that the United States was prepared to join our P5-plus-1 partners as a full participant in talks with Iran. I extended the offer of meaningful engagement to the Iranian government. I committed the United States to a comprehensive effort to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear power –- provided that they live up to their international obligations.
And we have engaged in intensive bilateral and multilateral diplomacy with our P5-plus-1 partners -- and with nations around the world –- to reinforce this point, including an historic U.N. Security Council resolution that was passed unanimously last week.
The result is clear: The P5-plus-1 is united, and we have an international community that has reaffirmed its commitment to non-proliferation and disarmament. That’s why the Iranian government heard a clear and unified message from the international community in Geneva: Iran must demonstrate through concrete steps that it will live up to its responsibilities with regard to its nuclear program.
In pursuit of that goal, today’s meeting was a constructive beginning, but it must be followed by constructive action by the Iranian government.
First, Iran must demonstrate its commitment to transparency. Earlier this month, we presented clear evidence that Iran has been building a covert nuclear facility in Qom. Since Iran has now agreed to cooperate fully and immediately with the International Atomic Energy Agency, it must grant unfettered access to IAEA inspectors within two weeks. I’ve been in close touch with the head of the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei, who will be traveling to Tehran in the days ahead. He has my full support, and the Iranian government must grant the IAEA full access to the site in Qom.
Second, Iran must take concrete steps to build confidence that its nuclear program will serve peaceful purposes -- steps that meet Iran’s obligations under multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions. The IAEA proposal that was agreed to in principle today with regard to the Tehran research reactor is a confidence-building step that is consistent with that objective -– provided that it transfers Iran’s low enriched uranium to a third country for fuel fabrication. As I’ve said before, we support Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear power. Taking the step of transferring its low enriched uranium to a third country would be a step towards building confidence that Iran’s program is in fact peaceful.
Going forward, we expect to see swift action. We’re committed to serious and meaningful engagement. But we’re not interested in talking for the sake of talking. If Iran does not take steps in the near future to live up to its obligations, then the United States will not continue to negotiate indefinitely, and we are prepared to move towards increased pressure. If Iran takes concrete steps and lives up to its obligations, there is a path towards a better relationship with the United States, increased integration with the international community, and a better future for all Iranians.
So let me reiterate: This is a constructive beginning, but hard work lies ahead. We’ve entered a phase of intensive international negotiations. And talk is no substitute for action. Pledges of cooperation must be fulfilled. We have made it clear that we will do our part to engage the Iranian government on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect, but our patience is not unlimited.
This is not about singling out Iran. This is not about creating double standards. This is about the global non-proliferation regime, and Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy, just as all nations have it -- but with that right, comes responsibilities.
The burden of meeting these responsibilities lies with the Iranian government, and they are now the ones that need to make that choice.
Thank you very much. _________________ A la guerre comme a la guerre или вторая редакция Забугорнова
Вы не можете начинать темы Вы не можете отвечать на сообщения Вы не можете редактировать свои сообщения Вы не можете удалять свои сообщения Вы не можете голосовать в опросах
FAQ
Поиск
Пользователи
Группы
Регистрация
Профиль
Войти и проверить личные сообщения
Вход
