Comprehensive Agreement Depends on Lifting of Sanctions
Dr. Jamshid Momtaz, legal advisor to the Iranian Foreign Minister, recently sat down with a number of journalists and responded to questions with regard to the legal aspects of the Geneva Agreement. The following are his statements:
-In response to a question about whether the Geneva Agreement is a political understanding or whether it entails commitments for both sides which are binding from the aspect of international law, he said, “First, we must define the title of this document. This document is a road map. This means that both sides agree on how to resolve the problems caused by the nuclear dossier. The objective is to reach a comprehensive agreement on the nuclear dossier. This issue is explicitly written in the agreement and it was repeated in the statement that was read by Mohammad Javad Zarif and Catherine Ashton last November. The phrase that must be accurately considered is that so long as both sides have not reached an agreement on all issues, they will not reach an agreement on any issue. This means that the nuclear dossier is comprised of different elements upon which both parties must reach an agreement about all the elements during the specified time. Two phases are predicted in this regard. In the first phase, both parties take certain voluntary measures in order to create a desirable atmosphere for negotiations and to build confidence. In the second phase, the arguments will be about the elements upon which agreement is to be reached or the same elements which are supposed to be the subject of negotiation.
-Based on the Joint Plan of Action adopted on November 24th, 2013, the Additional Protocol must be approved by the Islamic Consultative Assembly. This protocol includes cases of inspection from Iran’s nuclear program. Based on the Safeguards Agreement that Iran signed with the IAEA in 1974, we have accepted certain arrangements for our nuclear program but with the acceptance of the Protocol, we will, in fact, accept arrangements beyond the safeguard. Based on this Additional Protocol, we will prepare more possibilities for the IAEA inspectors. It is reiterated in the Joint Plan of Action that the Additional Protocol must be adopted by the parliament but no prediction is made with regard to the adoption of the Comprehensive Agreement by the Islamic Consultative Assembly.
-In 1974, Iran’s commitments to the IAEA were defined and the basis upon which the IAEA inspectors could be assured of the peacefulness of Iran’s nuclear program was also determined. Right now, the West asks Iran to take one step beyond the Safeguards Agreement adopted in 1974. On this ground, they ask Iran to render more authority to the IAEA and this shows that there is a need for the Islamic Consultative Assembly to decide on this issue.
-When both parties talk about the long run and a comprehensive solution, they have certainly considered the issue of sanctions as well. We cannot talk about reaching a comprehensive agreement while sanctions are still imposed. When we use the term “sanctions”, we mean all types of sanctions, whether unilateral, multilateral, or those adopted by the Security Council. In the document of the Joint Plan of Action, the resolutions of the UN Security Council have been referred to three times. In the introduction, temporary arrangements which the other party voluntarily commits itself to are mentioned and, on that basis, the members of the P5+1 are committed to not adopt any new sanctions against Iran in the Security Council and, in the end, it is mentioned that all sanctions must be lifted. The five permanent members of the Security Council will certainly play a significant role in convincing the Security Council to lift Iran’s sanctions. These five countries are voluntarily committed to refrain from adopting any new sanctions against Iran during the period of the Joint Plan of Action.
-In the first phase and within the framework of the Joint Plan of Action, some of the sanctions, including sanctions on airplane and vehicle spare parts, on the export of Iran’s petrochemical products, on the possibility of sending money for Iranian students abroad, … were lifted. In the second phase, both parties must reach an agreement with regard to the complete lifting of all sanctions. Of course, in the first phase, we talk about the suspension of sanctions. Here, I must mention the differences between the sanctions which have been imposed against Iran. The sanctions imposed by the US Congress are adopted on the basis of arrangements with which only the Congress itself could decide on the adoption and lifting of these sanctions. But so long as the US’ unilateral sanctions which have not been adopted by the Congress are not lifted, we will not reach an agreement with regard to any issue because all of these issues are part of a collection of elements and a final agreement must be reached on all of them.
-A resolution must be adopted in the Security Council in order to lift the sanctions imposed by this organization. Unfortunately, it is this aspect of the issue which is intentionally misinterpreted. The Security Council is the political organization of the United Nations which has previously made certain decisions with regard to Iran’s sanctions and at the present time it is only this council which has the ability to review its decisions. This issue is within the authorities of the Security Council to either suspend these sanctions or completely cancel them. Of course I must reiterate that the five members of the Security Council have temporarily given the commitment to us that they will do their utmost to convince the Security Council after reaching a comprehensive agreement. I must once again stress that so long as the sanctions are in place, naturally no comprehensive agreement will be reached. This issue is mentioned both in the November 24th document and in the joint statement made by Zarif and Ashton.
-It is possible that the sanctions would first be suspended and then lifted. Of course, this matter will not bring any commitment for us and we will continue the 5% enrichment and our nuclear activities and we hope that the other party would fulfill its commitments.
-Distinctions should be made between nuclear and non-nuclear sanctions. The issue that must be considered is that the Security Council resolutions are all related to Iran’s nuclear program. Some of the sanctions which were imposed by the US or the European Council are related to non-nuclear issues but the six resolutions which have been adopted in the Security Council are all nuclear-related. Therefore, it is predicted in this road map that at the end of this road we will reach a point where all Security Council resolutions will be lifted and Iran’s nuclear program will be transformed into a normal dossier in the IAEA.
-There are similar weights in the comprehensive agreement between the steps which Iran must take and the steps to be taken by the P5+1.
-In the first step following the comprehensive agreement, the Security Council would recognize this agreement and then a new trend will begin on this basis and, by adopting a new resolution, the previous resolutions will be cancelled.
-The issues about which agreements should be made in the comprehensive agreement are the rights and commitments of the NPT member countries, the lifting of Security Council resolutions and unilateral and multilateral sanctions with regard to Iran’s nuclear program, determining the volume of enriched uranium considering Iran’s practical needs, related arrangements to Arak’s heavy water reactor, adoption of the Additional Protocol in the parliament, and Iran-IAEA cooperation.
-The US cannot receive any guarantee from Iran with regard to the signing of the Additional Protocol which should be approved by the parliament or its timing. If the US decides to set conditions for the lifting of its sanctions, Iran could also use the issue of the Protocol as a threat for the P5+1.
-One of the issues about which agreement should be reached is the rights and commitments of the NPT member countries. There is the possibility that excessive demands could be made in this regard. In many cases, the other party interprets the context of this convention, one of which is the tumultuous issue of enrichment. The US administration states that based on Article 4 of the NPT, no country has the right to enrich uranium. This is while based on the Joint Plan of Action, this right was recognized for Iran.
-When you enter negotiations, the priority is to show your determination in this regard more than thinking about setting the time. It was on this basis that it was stressed in the Zarif-Ashton joint statement that we have strong will to continue negotiations in order to reach a comprehensive and long-term solution. This shows that at that time neither party could predict an exact time for the success of negotiations.
-The expectation that the P5+1 countries could decide about this matter instead of the Security Council is not logical. The Security Council is an independent institution which can adopt resolutions. There are two cases for this matter; either these resolutions would completely be lifted or suspended. In the Joint Plan of Action, the permanent members of the Security Council are committed to not adopt any new resolutions against Iran. This means that if the Security Council decides to impose a new sanction against Iran, those countries which negotiate with Iran would use their veto rights and prevent its adoption. After reaching the comprehensive agreement, these countries will do their utmost to convince the Security Council that they have been assured that there is no deviation in Iran’s nuclear program and the IAEA reports could prove this case.