27 March 2007
Zimbabwe
President Thabo Mbeki, supported by Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad, will
attend meetings convened by the Chairman of the Southern African Development
Community (SADC) Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation in
Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania on Wednesday to Thursday, 28 to 29 March 2007.
The Chairman has convened the following meetings:
Wednesday, 28 March 2007: Meeting of the Double Troika
* SADC Troika (Lesotho, Zambia, Botswana)
* Troika of the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Co-operation (Namibia,
Angola, Tanzania)
South Africa has been invited to attend this meeting
Thursday, 29 March 2007: SADC Summit
We have not been given a final agenda except to be told that the meetings
will deal with developing situation in the region.
As you are aware, Parliament will tomorrow, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 hold a
snap debate on the situation in Zimbabwe. I believe this will an opportunity
for all parties to express their considered views on developments in Zimbabwe.
I hope that the Democratic Alliance (DA) Foreign Affairs spokesperson Douglas
Gibson would stop grandstanding and reference to "pussy footing" and calling on
the South African government to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe.
It should now be clear that those who have imposed "smart sanctions" on
Zimbabwe have been questioning the impact of these sanctions. The European
Union (EU) has categorically stated that they have no economic sanctions
against Zimbabwe with no intention to impose any.
However, more significantly, no Zimbabwean political party, nor the churches
who are playing a major role or any other civil society group, have called for
economic sanctions to be imposed
Indeed, Zimbabwe has a trade surplus with the United Kingdom (UK) and the UK
is one of the three largest donor countries to Zimbabwe and I do hope that the
spokesperson of the DA, Mr Gibson, will get his facts right so he can use
tomorrow's debate to come up with some concrete and intelligent proposals that
can assist us better to deal with the situation in Zimbabwe.
Minister Dlamini Zuma's visit to New York
South African Foreign Minister Dr Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma on Monday 26 March
2007 departed for New York, United States of America, where she will address
the United Nations Security Council (UNSC UNSC) on the relationship between the
United Nations Security Council and the African Union's Peace and Security
Council in conflict resolution on Wednesday, 28 March 2007.
As you are aware, the mandate of the Security Council is to deal with
regional and international peace and security. For many years African conflicts
have been high on the UNSC agenda and Africa has increasingly participated in
peace-keeping operations.
The nature of the conflicts has on many occasions necessitated the African
Union (AU) to act independently, while the long bureaucratic UN processes were
being undertaken. It has become increasingly clear that the UN processes must
be streamlined to act timeously to deal with conflict situations and these
process have to take cognisance of the increasing role of regional
organisations in conflict resolution initiatives.
This is why during South Africa's Presidency of the UNSC in March, we
proposed that the thematic theme should be "The relationship between the UNSC
and regional organisations, ideally, the AU Peace and Security Council, in the
maintenance of International Peace and Security.
We believe this will be a very important thematic discussion that will
enable us to add to the growing debate within the United Nations structures to
see how the UN can transform itself to become more responsive to the challenges
we face on the issue of conflict resolution.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Iran
The United Nations Security Council on Saturday, 24 March 2007 voted
unanimously in favour of Resolution 1747 against Iran.
Resolution 1747 (2007)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 5647th meeting on
24 March 2007
The Security Council,
Recalling the Statement of its President, S/PRST/2006/15, of 29 March 2006,
and its resolution 1696 (2006) of 31 July 2006, and its resolution 1737 (2006)
of 23 December 2006, and reaffirming their provisions,
Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, the need for all States Party to that Treaty to comply fully with all
their obligations, and recalling the right of States Party, in conformity with
Articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination,
Recalling its serious concern over the reports of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General as set out in its resolutions 1696 (2006)
and 1737 (2006),
Recalling the latest report by the IAEA Director General (GOV/2007/8) of 22
February 2007 and deploring that, as indicated therein, Iran has failed to
comply with resolution 1696 (2006) and resolution 1737 (2006),
Emphasising the importance of political and diplomatic efforts to find a
negotiated solution guaranteeing that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively
for peaceful purposes, and noting that such a solution would benefit nuclear
non-proliferation elsewhere, and welcoming the continuing commitment of China,
France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United
States, with the support of the European Union's High Representative to seek a
negotiated solution,
Recalling the resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors (GOV/2006/14), which
states that a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue would contribute to global
non-proliferation efforts and to realising the objective of a Middle East free
of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery,
Determined to give effect to its decisions by adopting appropriate measures
to persuade Iran to comply with resolution 1696 (2006) and resolution 1737
(2006) and with the requirements of the IAEA, and also to constrain Iran's
development of sensitive technologies in support of its nuclear and missile
programmes, until such time as the Security Council determines that the
objectives of these resolutions have been met,
Recalling the requirement on States to join in affording mutual assistance
in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council,
Concerned by the proliferation risks presented by the Iranian nuclear
programme and, in this context, by Iran's continuing failure to meet the
requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors and to comply with the provisions
of Security Council resolutions 1696 (2006) and 1737 (2006), mindful of its
primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the
maintenance of international peace and security,
Acting under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United
Nations,
1. Reaffirms that Iran shall without further delay take the steps required
by the IAEA Board of Governors in its resolution GOV/2006/14, which are
essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its
nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding questions, and, in this context,
affirms its decision that Iran shall without further delay take the steps
required in paragraph 2 of resolution 1737 (2006);
2. Calls upon all States also to exercise vigilance and restraint regarding
the entry into or transit through their territories of individuals who are
engaged in, directly associated with or providing support for Iran's
proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear
weapon delivery systems, and decides in this regard that all States shall
notify the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 18 of resolution 1737
(2006) (herein "the Committee") of the entry into or transit through their
territories of the persons designated in the Annex to resolution 1737 (2006) or
Annex I to this resolution, as well as of additional persons designated by the
Security Council or the Committee as being engaged in, directly associated with
or providing support for Iran's proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or
for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, including through the
involvement in procurement of the prohibited items, goods, equipment, materials
and technology specified by and under the measures in paragraphs 3 and 4 of
resolution 1737 (2006), except where such travel is for activities directly
related to the items in subparagraphs 3 (b) (i) and (ii) of that
resolution;
3. Underlines that nothing in the above paragraph requires a State to refuse
its own nationals entry into its territory, and that all States shall, in the
implementation of the above paragraph, take into account humanitarian
considerations, including religious obligations, as well as the necessity to
meet the objectives of this resolution and resolution 1737 (2006), including
where Article XV of the IAEA Statute is engaged;
4. Decides that the measures specified in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15 of
resolution 1737 (2006) shall apply also to the persons and entities listed in
Annex I to this resolution;
5. Decides that Iran shall not supply, sell or transfer directly or
indirectly from its territory or by its nationals or using its flag vessels or
aircraft any arms or related materiel, and that all States shall prohibit the
procurement of such items from Iran by their nationals, or using their flag
vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in the territory of
Iran;
6. Calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and restraint in the supply,
sale or transfer directly or indirectly from their territories or by their
nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft of any battle tanks, armoured
combat vehicles, large calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack
helicopters, warships, missiles or missile systems as defined for the purpose
of the United Nations Register on Conventional Arms to Iran, and in the
provision to Iran of any technical assistance or training, financial
assistance, investment, brokering or other services, and the transfer of
financial resources or services, related to the supply, sale, transfer,
manufacture or use of such items in order to prevent a destabilising
accumulation of arms;
7. Calls upon all States and international financial institutions not to
enter into new commitments for grants, financial assistance, and concessional
loans, to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, except for
humanitarian and developmental purposes;
8. Calls upon all States to report to the Committee within 60 days of the
adoption of this resolution on the steps they have taken with a view to
implementing effectively paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 above;
9. Expresses the conviction that the suspension set out in paragraph 2 of
resolution 1737 (2006) as well as full, verified Iranian compliance with the
requirements set out by the IAEA Board of Governors would contribute to a
diplomatic, negotiated solution that guarantees Iran's nuclear programme is for
exclusively peaceful purposes, underlines the willingness of the international
community to work positively for such a solution, encourages Iran, in
conforming to the above provisions, to re-engage with the international
community and with the IAEA, and stresses that such engagement will be
beneficial to Iran;
10. Welcomes the continuous affirmation of the commitment of China, France,
Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with
the support of the European Union's High Representative, to a negotiated
solution to this issue and encourages Iran to engage with their June 2006
proposals (S/2006/521), attached in Annex II to this resolution, which were
endorsed by the Security Council in resolution 1696 (2006), and acknowledges
with appreciation that this offer to Iran remains on the table, for a long-term
comprehensive agreement which would allow for the development of relations and
co-operation with Iran based on mutual respect and the establishment of
international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear
programme;
11. Reiterates its determination to reinforce the authority of the IAEA,
strongly supports the role of the IAEA Board of Governors, commends and
encourages the Director General of the IAEA and its secretariat for their
ongoing professional and impartial efforts to resolve all outstanding issues in
Iran within the framework of the IAEA, underlines the necessity of the IAEA,
which is internationally recognised as having authority for verifying
compliance with safeguards agreements, including the non-diversion of nuclear
material for non-peaceful purposes, in accordance with its Statute, to continue
its work to clarify all outstanding issues relating to Iran's nuclear
programme;
12. Requests within 60 days a further report from the Director General of
the IAEA on whether Iran has established full and sustained suspension of all
activities mentioned in resolution 1737 (2006), as well as on the process of
Iranian compliance with all the steps required by the IAEA Board and with the
other provisions of resolution 1737 (2006) and of this resolution, to the IAEA
Board of Governors and in parallel to the Security Council for its
consideration;
13. Affirms that it shall review Iran's actions in light of the report
referred to in paragraph 12 above, to be submitted within 60 days, and:
(a) that it shall suspend the implementation of measures if and for so long
as Iran suspends all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including
research and development, as verified by the IAEA, to allow for negotiations in
good faith in order to reach an early and mutually acceptable outcome;
(b) that it shall terminate the measures specified in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6,
7 and 12 of resolution 1737 (2006) as well as in paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7
above as soon as it determines, following receipt of the report referred to in
paragraph 12 above, that Iran has fully complied with its obligations under the
relevant resolutions of the Security Council and met the requirements of the
IAEA Board of Governors, as confirmed by the IAEA Board;
(c) that it shall, in the event that the report in paragraph 12 above shows
that Iran has not complied with resolution 1737 (2006) and this resolution,
adopt further appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the
Charter of the United Nations to persuade Iran to comply with these resolutions
and the requirements of the IAEA, and underlines that further decisions will be
required should such additional measures be necessary;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Annex I
Entities involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities
1. Ammunition and Metallurgy Industries Group (AMIG) (aka Ammunition
Industries Group) (AMIG controls 7th of Tir, which is designated under
resolution 1737 (2006) for its role in Iran's centrifuge programme. AMIG is in
turn owned and controlled by the Defence Industries Organisation (DIO), which
is designated under resolution 1737 (2006))
2. Esfahan Nuclear Fuel Research and Production Centre (NFRPC) and Esfahan
Nuclear Technology Centre (ENTC) (Parts of the Atomic Energy Organisation of
Iran's (AEOI) Nuclear Fuel Production and Procurement Company, which is
involved in enrichment-related activities. AEOI is designated under resolution
1737 (2006))
3. Kavoshyar Company (Subsidiary company of AEOI, which has sought glass
fibres, vacuum chamber furnaces and laboratory equipment for Iran's nuclear
programme)
4. Parchin Chemical Industries (Branch of DIO, which produces ammunition,
explosives, as well as solid propellants for rockets and missiles)
5. Karaj Nuclear Research Centre (Part of AEOI's research division)
6. Novin Energy Company (aka Pars Novin) (Operates within AEOI and has
transferred funds on behalf of AEOI to entities associated with Iran's nuclear
programme)
7. Cruise Missile Industry Group (aka Naval Defence Missile Industry Group)
(Production and development of cruise missiles. Responsible for naval missiles
including cruise missiles)
8. Bank Sepah and Bank Sepah International (Bank Sepah provides support for
the Aerospace Industries Organisation (AIO) and subordinates, including Shahid
Hemmat Industrial Group (SHIG) and Shahid Bagheri Industrial Group (SBIG), both
of which were designated under resolution 1737 (2006))
9. Sanam Industrial Group (subordinate to AIO, which has purchased equipment
on AIO's behalf for the missile programme)
10. Ya Mahdi Industries Group (subordinate to AIO, which is involved in
international purchases of missile equipment)
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps entities
1. Qods Aeronautics Industries (Produces unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs),
parachutes, para-gliders, para-motors, etc. Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps
(IRGC) has boasted of using these products as part of its asymmetric warfare
doctrine)
2. Pars Aviation Services Company (Maintains various aircraft including
MI-171, used by IRGC Air Force)
3. Sho'a' Aviation (Produces micro-lights which IRGC has claimed it is using
as part of its asymmetric warfare doctrine)
Persons involved in nuclear or ballistic missile activities
1. Fereidoun Abbasi-Davani (Senior Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces
Logistics (MODAFL) scientist with links to the Institute of Applied Physics,
working closely with Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi, designated below)
2. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi (Senior MODAFL scientist and former head of
the Physics Research Centre (PHRC). The IAEA have asked to interview him about
the activities of the PHRC over the period he was head but Iran has
refused)
3. Seyed Jaber Safdari (Manager of the Natanz Enrichment Facilities)
4. Amir Rahimi (Head of Esfahan Nuclear Fuel Research and Production Center,
which is part of the AEOI's Nuclear Fuel Production and Procurement Company,
which is involved in enrichment-related activities)
5. Mohsen Hojati (Head of Fajr Industrial Group, which is designated under
resolution 1737 (2006) for its role in the ballistic missile programme)
6. Mehrdada Akhlaghi Ketabachi (Head of SBIG, which is designated under
resolution 1737 (2006) for its role in the ballistic missile programme)
7. Naser Maleki (Head of SHIG, which is designated under resolution 1737
(2006) for its role in Iran's ballistic missile programme. Naser Maleki is also
a MODAFL official overseeing work on the Shahab-3 ballistic missile programme.
The Shahab-3 is Iran's long range ballistic missile currently in service)
8. Ahmad Derakhshandeh (Chairman and Managing Director of Bank Sepah, which
provides support for the AIO and subordinates, including SHIG and SBIG, both of
which were designated under resolution 1737 (2006))
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps key persons
1. Brigadier General Morteza Rezaie (Deputy Commander of IRGC)
2. Vice Admiral Ali Akbar Ahmadian (Chief of IRGC Joint Staff)
3. Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi (Commander of IRGC Ground
Forces)
4. Rear Admiral Morteza Safari (Commander of IRGC Navy)
5. Brigadier General Mohammad Hejazi (Commander of Bassij resistance
force)
6. Brigadier General Qasem Soleimani (Commander of Qods force)
7. General Zolqadr (IRGC officer, Deputy Interior Minister for Security
Affairs)
Annex II
Elements of a long-term agreement
Our goal is to develop relations and co-operation with Iran, based on mutual
respect and the establishment of international confidence in the exclusively
peaceful nature of the nuclear programme of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We
propose a fresh start in the negotiation of a comprehensive agreement with
Iran. Such an agreement would be deposited with the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) and endorsed in a Security Council resolution.
To create the right conditions for negotiations,
We will:
* Reaffirm Iran's right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in
conformity with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (hereinafter, NPT), and in this context reaffirm our support
for the development by Iran of a civil nuclear energy programme.
* Commit to support actively the building of new light water reactors in
Iran through international joint projects, in accordance with the IAEA statute
and NPT.
* Agree to suspend discussion of Iran's nuclear programme in the Security
Council upon the resumption of negotiations.
Iran will:
* Commit to addressing all of the outstanding concerns of IAEA through full
co-operation with IAEA.
* Suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities to be verified
by IAEA, as requested by the IAEA Board of Governors and the Security Council,
and commit to continue this during these negotiations.
* Resume the implementation of the Additional Protocol.
Areas of future co-operation to be covered in negotiations on a long-term
agreement
1. Nuclear
We will take the following steps:
Iran's rights to nuclear energy
* Reaffirm Iran's inalienable right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes
without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of NPT, and
co-operate with Iran in the development by Iran of a civil nuclear power
programme.
* Negotiate and implement a Euratom/Iran nuclear co-operation agreement.
Light water reactors
* Actively support the building of new light water power reactors in Iran
through international joint projects, in accordance with the IAEA statute and
NPT, using state-of-the-art technology, including by authorising the transfer
of necessary goods and the provision of advanced technology to make its power
reactors safe against earthquakes.
* Provide co-operation with the management of spent nuclear fuel and
radioactive waste through appropriate arrangements.
Research and development in nuclear energy
* Provide a substantive package of research and development co-operation,
including possible provision of light water research reactors, notably in the
fields of radioisotope production, basic research and nuclear applications in
medicine and agriculture.
Fuel guarantees
* Give legally binding, multi-layered fuel assurances to Iran, based on:
* Participation as a partner in an international facility in Russia to
provide enrichment services for a reliable supply of fuel to Iran's nuclear
reactors. Subject to negotiations, such a facility could enrich all uranium
hexaflouride (UF6) produced in Iran.
* Establishment on commercial terms of a buffer stock to hold a reserve of
up to five years' supply of nuclear fuel dedicated to Iran, with the
participation and under supervision of IAEA.
* Development with IAEA of a standing multilateral mechanism for reliable
access to nuclear fuel, based on ideas to be considered at the next meeting of
the Board of Governors.
Review of moratorium
The long-term agreement would, with regard to common efforts to build
international confidence, contain a clause for review of the agreement in all
its aspects, to follow:
* confirmation by IAEA that all outstanding issues and concerns reported by
it, including those activities which could have a military nuclear dimension,
have been resolved
* confirmation that there are no undeclared nuclear activities or materials
in Iran and that international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of
Iran's civil nuclear programme has been restored.
2. Political and economic
Regional security co-operation
Support for a new conference to promote dialogue and co-operation on
regional security issues
International trade and investment
* improving Iran's access to the international economy, markets and capital,
through practical support for full integration into international structures,
including the World Trade Organisation and to create the framework for
increased direct investment in Iran and trade with Iran (including a trade and
economic co-operation agreement with the European Union). Steps would be taken
to improve access to key goods and technology.
Civil aviation
* civil aviation co-operation, including the possible removal of
restrictions on United States and European manufacturers in regard to the
export of civil aircraft to Iran, thereby widening the prospect of Iran
renewing its fleet of civil airliners.
Energy partnership
* establishment of a long-term energy partnership between Iran and the
European Union and other willing partners, with concrete and practical
applications.
Telecommunications infrastructure
* eupport for the modernisation of Iran's telecommunication infrastructure
and advanced Internet provision, including by possible removal of relevant
United States and other export restrictions.
High technology co-operation
* co-operation in fields of high technology and other areas to be agreed
upon.
Agriculture
* support for agricultural development in Iran, including possible access to
United States and European agricultural products, technology and farm
equipment.
Of South African government
Let me again say, when South Africa as a non-permanent member of the
Security Council received a copy of the resolution drafted by the P5+Germany,
we, like many other countries, proposed some amendments while arguing that we
required explanations regarding the conclusions arrived at by the
P5+Germany.
We did this within the context of believing that Iran's right, like South
Africa's, to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes cannot be challenged, but
because of the past experiences, there is an area of distrust so there are two
fundamental issues that must be tackled:
1. Iran's right to have nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and
2. the international community's concern that international safeguards must
be put in place before they can be convinced that there is no intention,
despite what is being said by the Iranians, to diversify its programme from a
peaceful programme to a weapons programme.
It is in this context that we have called on the Iranians, within the IAEA,
the Security Council and bilaterally to conclude their negotiations with the
IAEA so that the IAEA can conclude that Iran has no intentions of diversifying
its programme. We believe this is fundamental to dealing with the mistrust
between Iran and many members of the international community.
The South African government and others proposed amendments to the
resolution crafted by the P5+Germany after secret negotiations. The reaction of
the South African media was inexplicably hostile. The media suggested we were
trying to be difficult and trying to scupper the resolution.
We cannot understand why, South Africa, as a member of the Security Council,
when given a draft document we had not previously seen, do not have the right
to propose amendments and seek explanations. We will never allow ourselves to
becoming rubber stamps within the UN or any other multilateral grouping.
We made our views known through negotiations and based on this we voted in
support of the resolution on Saturday, 24 March 2007. Following our
consultations with NAM and other non-permanent members of the Security Council
we voted in the best interests of finding a solution and not further escalating
a very dangerous situation. I hope that people are convinced that the threat of
another arena of conflict in the region is becoming a very real possibility and
this will threaten international peace and security. We made it clear that when
we proposed our amendments and began negotiations, we did not do so with
positions cast in stone. We were prepared to adjust and compromise our
positions based on the negotiations and discussions.
I must emphasise that we had not seen the draft resolution. The South
African government will not merely accept a document without discussions and
explanations and if necessary submit amendments.
We would not be worthy of membership of any multilateral grouping if it has
to be that we must simply accept any document that is put before us.
As members of the IAEA we have always insisted that the IAEA, with the
correct scientific expertise, is the body best placed to deal with nuclear
non-proliferation issues. The IAEA remains seized with the matter and the
matter must be resolved in the IAEA.
It is in this context that South Africa's permanent representative to the UN
supported the resolution.
You will see his statement is in line with many of our positions already
articulated.
I do hope that you will now have a better understanding of the positions of
the South African government. Many of the suggested amendments of the South
African government and others were accepted. Not all were accepted but we do
believe that that few days of negotiations enabled us to make our positions
known and on that basis come to a collective outcome.
Statement in explanation of the vote by Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo of South
Africa
South Africa will vote for the resolution before the Security Council today.
This resolution, although far from ideal, is a consequence of concern about the
need to build international confidence in Iran's nuclear programme.
South Africa approached this resolution on its merits and with a perspective
of a country that is not a party to any dispute or conflict.
The Council is well aware that South Africa is fully committed to the
elimination of all weapons of mass destruction, and is therefore a strong
advocate against both the horizontal and vertical proliferation of nuclear
weapons. Inevitably, we are against the development of nuclear weapons by Iran,
or any other country. Our position is informed by our own national experience
as the only country to have voluntarily dismantled its nuclear weapons and
related programmes.
In this regard South Africa acts on the basis of principle and in full
support of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), where it is active as a Member of its Board of
Governors and works consistently to promote consensus.
Whilst South Africa recognises that Security Council may be called upon to
impose coercive measures such as sanctions, we believe these measures should be
utilised with great caution, and only to support the resumption of political
dialogue and negotiations to achieve a peaceful solution.
South Africa's interventions in the Security Council have therefore focused
on trying to de-escalate tensions, promote dialogue to establish confidence in
the nuclear programme of Iran, ensure that the IAEA inspectors remain on the
ground in Iran and that Iran remains part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.
South Africa has always been very clear as a matter of principle that the UN
Security Council must remain within its mandate of addressing threats to
international peace and security. If the co-sponsors of this resolution were
convinced that the Iranian programme was a threat to international peace, then
the Security Council should have been asked to take a decision on a draft that
would have concentrated on that, and not act as if the Iranian Government
itself posed a threat to international peace and security.
South Africa proposed a number of constructive amendments to the draft
resolution. Our purpose was to assist the Security Council to find language for
a new resolution that matched the stated objectives of the co-sponsors that the
resolution would be "proportionate, incremental and reversible".
While we remain disappointed that not all our proposals were accommodated,
the resolution does, however, correctly acknowledge that there is a need to
respect the right of all countries, including Iran, to exploit the peaceful
uses of nuclear technology, subject to appropriate safeguards. We are
particularly pleased with the fact that the resolution now reaffirms the need
of all State Parties to the NPT to comply fully with all their obligations,
which corresponds to our view that the twin obligations to nuclear disarmament
and nuclear non-proliferation require our equal attention. After all, there is
no basis for arguing that weapons of mass destruction are safe in some hands
and not in others.
We note that the IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared
nuclear material in Iran. However, we share the concern of the IAEA Director
General that the Agency continues to be unable "to reconstruct fully the
history of Iran's nuclear programme and some of its components" because the
necessary level of transparency and co-operation have not been provided by
Iran.
Like other Members of this Council, South Africa sought to engage in the
negotiation process in its national capacity, mindful of the duty bestowed on
all Council members to contribute towards a peaceful and negotiated solution to
the Iranian nuclear standoff, which is an issue that affects the entire
international community, indeed humanity as a whole.
The fifteen Member States of the Security Council will take a difficult
decision and, after today's vote, a great deal of work still lies ahead if the
international community hopes to prevent heightened tensions from spiralling
out of control, to the detriment of all. A path needs to be urgently found back
to negotiations, restraint and compromise on all sides. South Africa therefore
hopes that the latest offer by Iran to resume negotiations will lead to
concrete results.
South Africa urges Iran to provide the necessary assistance and co-operation
to the Agency in its efforts to resolve the outstanding issues as soon as
possible since this will make a substantial contribution to building confidence
in Iran's nuclear programme. It is imperative that confidence is established in
Iran's nuclear programme for peaceful purposes.
Every effort must be made to resume dialogue and enter into meaningful
negotiations to find a sustainable long-term solution to this matter since no
one will win through a process of confrontation that can lead to disastrous
consequences in a highly volatile region.
We hope the support of this resolution would not be perceived as an obstacle
for future negotiations. It is in that spirit that we vote in favour of this
resolution.
Statement by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
The Secretary-General notes with satisfaction the Security Council's
unanimity in adopting resolution 1747 of 24 March 2007. He calls on the Islamic
Republic of Iran to fully implement the resolution's provisions and to urgently
take the necessary steps to restore the international community's trust that
its nuclear programme is peaceful in nature.
The Secretary-General believes that a negotiated solution would strengthen
the international non-proliferation regime and hopes that dialogue will resume
on this issue of paramount importance.
Statement by Foreign Ministers of P5 + Germany
The following is a statement by the Foreign Ministers of China, France,
Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, with the
Support of the High Representative of the European Union:
The unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 1747 reflects the
international community's profound concerns over Iran's nuclear programme. We
deplore Iran's failure to comply with the earlier resolutions of the Security
Council and the IAEA, and we call upon Iran once again to comply fully with all
its international obligations.
We are committed to seeking a negotiated solution that would address the
international community's concerns. The purpose of negotiations would be to
reach a comprehensive agreement with Iran, based on mutual respect, that would
re-establish international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of
Iran's nuclear programme and open the way to improving relations and developing
wider co-operation between Iran and all our countries
We recognise Iran's rights under the NPT to develop research, production and
use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in conformity with its NPT
obligations. In this respect, future arrangements, modalities and timing will
be dealt with in negotiations.
Full transparency and co-operation by Iran with the IAEA is essential in
order to address outstanding concerns. We reiterate our full support for the
IAEA and its staff.
We stand by our "suspension for suspension" proposal. That means that for
the duration of negotiations, which would take place within an agreed
timeframe, extendable by mutual agreement, Iran would maintain an IAEA verified
suspension as required by Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747, and
Security Council discussion of Iran's nuclear programme would also be
suspended, as would the implementation of the measures adopted under the
relevant Security Council Resolutions.
We reconfirm the proposals we presented to Iran in June 2006. They include
co-operation with Iran on civil nuclear energy, legally-binding guarantees on
the supply of nuclear fuel, and wider political security and economic
co-operation. These proposals remain on the table.
We urge Iran to take this opportunity to engage with us all and to find a
negotiated way forward. Our proposals would bring far-reaching benefits to Iran
and to the region, and they provide a means to address the international
community's concerns while taking account of Iran's legitimate interests. In a
region that has known too much instability and violence, let us find an agreed
way forward that builds confidence and promotes peace and mutual respect. In
this spirit, we propose further talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran to see
if a mutually acceptable way can be found to open negotiations.
Remarks by Iranian President
Iranian president said Sunday, 25 March 2007, that Iran will definitely
continue its peaceful and legal nuclear activities regardless of a UN Security
Council resolution issued Saturday in this regard.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the adoption of this resolution is a
fresh act along other spiteful and vicious movements of certain powers since
the victory of the great Islamic revolution.
Speaking at the first session of the cabinet in the new Iranian year, the
president remarked that the recent illegal resolution is nothing new to the
Iranian people. He added that some powers who have made up certain mechanisms
like the Security Council after the second World War, are trying to consolidate
their dominance worldwide and are against the prosperity and independence of
the Iranian nation.
He also said that the enemies have once again perpetrated a mistake about
the great Iranian nation who are united and determined in pursuing their lofty
aspirations.
Referring to the resolution, Ahmadinejad said such acts would only bring
international bodies into disrepute and removes the nations' trust in them.
Remarks by Iranian Government spokesman
Government spokesman Gholamhossein Elham announced on Sunday, 25 March 2007
that the government had decided to reconsider co-operation with the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
Calling Saturday's UN Security Council Resolution (1747) against Iran
"illegal", Elham noted, "The Council of Ministers met Sunday evening under
chairmanship of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to discuss a recent law passed by
the Majlis (27.12.06) obliging the government to review its co-operation with
IAEA. The cabinet meeting decided that Iran Atomic Energy Organisation should
halt part of its co-operation with IAEA until Iran's case returns to IAEA from
the Security Council and the situation gets back to normal."
He added that IAEA had agreed in line with safeguards agreement with IAEA to
increase co-operation with the agency "but this co-operation will stop until
Iran's case returns to IAEA from the Security Council and the situation gets
back to normal."
The safeguards agreement, he added, obliged Iran to inform the IAEA of all
details of any plans and decision-making for creation of any facilities and
execution of programs related to its nuclear issue. This is while, according to
NPT, the member states are duty bound to inform the IAEA of their nuclear
programs just six months before.
Comments by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki
Speaking to journalists in New York, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki
said that "a few select countries do not have the right to abuse the Security
Council."
"The Security Council has to be aware of its own position and status.
Actions that are illegal, unwarranted and unjustified...reduce the credibility
of the Security Council."
He said Iran has repeatedly sought negotiations with the powers that drafted
the resolution against the Islamic regime: the five permanent council members â
the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China â and Germany. But he accused those
countries of lacking the political will to reach a diplomatic solution.
"If this political will existed, the other side wouldn't have imposed
preconditions on the talks," Mottaki said, referring to demands by the US and
its allies that Iran first halt enrichment before engaging in negotiations on
its nuclear programme.
He said the Iranian government will examine the resolution and issue a
response in the next few days. He added the world has two options to proceed on
the nuclear issue: continued negotiations or confrontation.
"Choosing the path of the resolution...will be the wrong choice. Of course,
it will have its own consequences," he said without elaborating.
Minister Mottaki's interview with Spiegel:
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in an interview with Spiegel
recalled the United Nations Security Council Resolution 50 years ago in which
the world body termed nationalisation of Iranian oil industry as "detrimental
to international peace and security".
He compared the UN action 50 years ago to the resolution 1747 both aiming to
deprive Iran of legitimate rights.
He said that every country is obligated to respect the decisions of the UN
but the Security Council should not jeopardise its legitimate powers through
illegal behavior and pressures from individual member states.
"There is a historical precedent. Iran was in the process of completing the
nationalisation of its oil industry. The beginning of this nationalisation
process was the subject of debate in the Security Council 50 years ago. It too
was seen as a threat to peace and stability at the time, which of course was
absurd. In the nuclear conflict, the question that now arises is for which
offence we are actually being punished? Uranium enrichment is one of the
fundamental rights of every country.
"We cannot invest billions of dollars in our nuclear power plants and then
rely on the help of other nations to produce and supply the fuel.
He said that if the Security Council sends back Iran's nuclear case to the
IAEA once again, the Iranian parliament will ratify the Additional Protocol to
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
"We are the ones who must tolerate sanctions today, and that's why we are
opposed to boycotts to achieve political interests. But of course we too must
be granted the right to a full energy supply."
Other International Reactions to Resolution 1747
Comments by Russian and Chinese Presidents
The standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions should be resolved exclusively
through peaceful means, Russian and Chinese leaders said in a resolution signed
in Moscow on Monday, 26 March 2007.
"Russia and China stress that the Iranian nuclear problem should be solved
exclusively though peaceful means and negotiations," Chinese President Hu
Jintao and Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a joint declaration signed
during Hu's visit to the Russian capital.
"Russia and China also urge Iran to undertake all necessary and constructive
steps to carry out the appropriate resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council and the IAEA," said the declaration.
"(We) believe that Iran...has the right to explore peaceful nuclear energy
while adhering to all its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty."
EU seeks co-operation with Iran
The EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he hopes to resume
negotiations with Iran following the UN decision to impose new sanctions aimed
at forcing Tehran to curb its nuclear programme and that he was seeking
immediate talks with Iran's leading negotiator, Ali Larijani.
"We want to get in touch with Dr Larijani, this morning (25 March 2007) if
we can, to try to find a route that would allow us to go into the
negotiations," Solana told reporters on the sidelines of a European Union
summit.
"The door is open for negotiations, let's see if together we can go
through."
Solana said talks with Larijani would seek to "prepare a route that leads to
a negotiated solution to this conflict".
Solana issued a statement on Saturday night, immediately after the UN
resolution was passed in New York, that confirmed the continued "twin track"
approach by the Europeans, US and other world powers.
That involves gradually imposing tougher sanctions if Iran fails to halt
uranium enrichment but offering negotiations on economic and political
advantages for Iran if it falls into line.
"We want to be as generous as possible," Solana said.
Comments by Belgian Foreign Minister Karel de Gucht
"Belgium supports all the efforts that lead to a negotiated solution and
calls on Iran to accept the offer of the top EU Representative Solana to
examine how the negotiations can resume again," Belgian Foreign Minister Karel
de Gucht said in a statement.
De Gucht said the new sanctions on Iran are more proportional, more gradual,
and reversible.
"They can be widened, if Iran does not conform with the various resolutions,
or they can be suspended, if Iran decides to co-operate with the international
community in accordance with the conditions determined by the Security
Council," he said.
"As president of the sanctions committee of the Security Council on Iran, it
falls back on Belgium to oversee the correct observation of this resolution. I
call upon all the Member States of the United Nations to scrupulously implement
the resolutions," he said.
Comments by Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal
Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal on Monday 26 March 2007
called for resolving Iran's nuclear dispute through negotiations.
Speaking at the inaugural ceremony of the 19th General Conference of Arab
Countries' Foreign Ministers, he noted that Saudi Arabia calls for the Middle
East free from weapons of mass destruction (WMD) without any exemption.
Al-Faisal also added that all world countries including the Middle East
states are entitled to use nuclear energy.
Elsewhere in his remarks, he referred to the 2002 Accord of Arab head of
states in Beirut, saying that it was the best and most reasonable agreement to
settle disputes between Israel and the Arab states.
According to the agreement, establishing peaceful relations between the two
sides depends on Israeli withdrawal from all territories of Palestine it
occupied in 1967.
Another section of the agreement refers to the formation of an independent
Palestinian government as well as the return of all Palestinian refugees to
their homeland.
Pointing to the Mecca Agreement, he noted that the accord between Hamas and
Fatah is considered a proper opportunity for the Arab world to preserve the
Arab peace diplomacy.
The minister said that the study of political and security situation in Iraq
and the Lebanese crisis was the other major issues of the current
conference.
Comments by Syrian President Bashar Assad
Syrian President Bashar Assad on Monday, 26 March 2007 underlined that all
countries have the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Assad made the remarks in a meeting with a Britain parliamentary
delegation.
Comments by Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz
Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on Monday, 26 March 2007 opposed the
policy of sanctions and use of force to deal with Iran's nuclear case.
"The Iranian nuclear issue should be solved through only dialogue and it
should not be addressed through any other means," Prime Minister Aziz told a
news conference.
He said each country has the right to acquire nuclear technology for
peaceful use and it should be in the parameters of the IAEA.
He said Iran has already signed the NPT and it will fulfil its
responsibilities
It is clear that the resolution has now been passed, it was deemed necessary
since it was believed that the Iranian government had not made sufficient
progress in responding to the demands of the Security Council since the passing
of resolution 1737 in December 2006.
A time frame has now been given to Iran to negotiate to see whether a
solution can be found to the concerns of the international community to Iran's
nuclear programme.
We do seriously hope that negotiations will intensify within the IAEA and
outside of this forum. We will continue to co-operate with all governments who
are playing a major role to ensure we do not create the conditions for the
further exacerbation of tension within that part of the world.
Middle East
Prime Minister Ismail Haniya announced after talks with President Mahmoud
Abbas, on Wednesday, 14 March 2007, that Fatah and Hamas, the rival Palestinian
factions, have agreed on the composition of a Palestinian unity government. We
believe this a very representative Cabinet and the first time in the history of
the Palestinian people is there such a Cabinet.
Let me emphasise that it is the view of the South African government that
the agenda of the Unity Government does in many ways address the concerns of
the international community and particularly the Quartet.
It is our view that this programme makes it quite clear that it accepts that
the Palestinian Unity Government will, in terms of the document concerning
negotiations with Israel that empowered the Palistinian Liberation Organisation
(PLO) as the designated authority to hold negotiations with Israel and the PLO
Chairman, is a clear indication that there has been fundamental movement within
the Palestinian Authority and that there is now an acceptance that we must work
towards implementing the two-state solution based on 1967 borders.
We do believe that the Palestinian Unity Government has committed itself to
dealing with the matter of the abducted Israeli soldier and indeed with the
issue of political prisoners.
They have committed themselves to working with the international community
and will uphold all decisions of previous negotiations and agreements with
Israel and will allow the Palestinian President to continue to carry out
negotiations to find a solution.
They have committed themselves to improving their relations with some of the
members of the international community and have called on the United States of
America to review its relations with the government of national unity.
Agenda of the Unity Government
The government confirms that ending the Israeli occupation is the key for
achieving peace in the Palestinian territories, recognising the Palestinian
peoples right of self-determination, the government will co-operate with the
international community for ending the Israeli occupation, and the restoration
of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people which will enable us to
construct a solid ground for peace, security and prosperity in the region.
The government abides by protecting and saving the higher interests and
rights of the Palestinian people, preserving their achievements and developing
it, implementing their national goals, according to national councils, basic
law articles, the national reconciliation document and the Arab summits'
resolutions, up on this basis the government will respect the resolutions of
the international legitimacy and the accords which were signed by the
Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO).
The government confirms that resistance is a legitimate right for the
Palestinian people that is approved by all norms and international documents,
our people have the right to defend themselves against any Israeli occupation,
the government believes that stopping resistance is related to ending the
Israeli occupation.
However, through national reconciliation, the government will do its best to
stabilise the ceasefire accord and will continue expanding it to achieve an
overall mutual ceasefire accord in exchange for ending the Israeli occupation,
assassinations, raids, needs, demolishing houses, Jerusalem excavations,
lifting check points, roadblocks, re-opening crossings, lifting restrictions on
frequent movement and releasing prisoners.
The government abides by what was stated in the national reconciliation
document concerning negotiations with Israel, where the PLO is designated to
hold negotiations with Israel and the Palestinian Authority Chairman on the
basis of adhering to the Palestinian national goals and implementing it,
however any fateful agreement will be presented for a vote of confidence in the
Palestinian Legislative Council first, or will be subjected to a public
referendum inside and outside Palestine.
The government will support all efforts done regarding releasing the
abducted Israeli soldier Saleet and achieving an honourable prisoner swap
deal.
The government stresses on its Arabic and Islamic depth, it will establish
correct, strong relations and ties with different countries in the world as
well as with the international associations including the UN and the Security
Council, and regional international organisations, this will help in
strengthening peace and world stability. The EU has offered a lot of aid to our
Palestinian people and its supported its right for independence and freedom,
the EU had serious policies in criticising the Israeli policy towards
Palestinians, that is why we are concerned about building strong and solid
relations with the EU, we still expect a bigger role from the EU to push Israel
to respect the human rights which were stated by international documents and
its withdrawal from all the Palestinian territories, stopping all continuous
aggression towards our people.
The government will also develop its relations with the permanent members of
the Security Council (Russia, China, Japan, African states and Asian states)
thus ensuring the rights of our Palestinian people. In the meantime the
government will call on the United States to reconsider its unfair stance on
the Palestinian case and it will call on the US administration to respect the
Palestinian people's choice represented in the formation of the unity
government.
Based on this agenda, it is our view and I want to repeat it, at last all
Palestinian leaders have put the interests of the Palestinian people at the top
of their agenda.
United in action, the Palestinians can now, decisively, continue to struggle
for a Palestinian state living side by side with an Israeli state.
It is still unclear how the Quartet, EU and US are responding to this
development in Palestine.
The UN Secretary-General has welcomed this development and hope this will
allow for a really creative approach to begin negotiations to end the violence
that has been going on in that part of the world for so long.
We will continue to call on Israel to release the Palestinian funds,
amounting to millions, that it has blocked since the Palestinian elections in
January 2006.
We will continue to call on the Palestinian Authority to stop all rocket
attacks against Israel. This has only resulted in massive Israeli military and
other repressive actions and has undermined the just Palestinian cause
internationally.
We will continue to call for the release of all political prisoners.
Without resolving the Palestinian-Israeli issue, no other major challenges
in the region, including terrorism, can be solved.
We therefore watch very keenly the Arab League Summit that will be held on
Wednesday, 28 March 2007 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
It is now clear from all emerging reports that there is a united Arab
position to push for the 2002 Arab Plan as a solution for the Middle East. As
you know, the Arab Plan is not a difficult plan to implement. It calls for the
return of all Palestinian land based on the 1967 borders and on the basis of a
genuine attempt to establish a Palestinian state living side-by-side with
Israel the Arabs are committing themselves to normalise relations with Israel
and therefore create the conditions for a solution in the region.
We believe this will be one of the most important Arab Summits in a long
time. It is the first time that the Arab community is being collectively
decisive about determining the approach they want to emerge from the
Summit.
We hope this will open up the possibilities for consultations with the
Israeli government for a long-term solution.
There has been some talk of the Israelis seeking some amendments to the Arab
Plan but the Arab League Secretary-General Amre Moussa has made it clear that
the 2002 Arab peace initiative is a basis for peace negotiations, and insisted
that Arab leaders meeting in Saudi Arabia later this week will not alter the
proposal's land-for-peace offer.
Mr Moussa rejected what some Arab leaders have seen as a hint from US
officials, including US Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice, that Arab
countries should normalise relations with Israel as a start for the resumption
of peace talks.
"We see nothing but (calls for) normalisation....It cannot materialise
unless there are reciprocal moves," Moussa said.
"If Israel accepts the basis of the initiative, there will be negotiations
and a peace process," Moussa said. "Otherwise, the initiative will not be
amended."
Egyptian and Saudi leaders have said they want the offer to stand as is, and
Syrian Vice President Farouk al Sharaa has been touring Arab countries urging
no changes.
We will watch the Summit very keenly and we are convinced that the
conditions are correct for a real breakthrough in the region.
President Abbas is ready for Middle East peace, Ban Ki-moon says in
Ramallah
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in Ramallah on Sunday, 25 March
2007 offered full support for plans by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for
achieving Statehood, and stressed that the current critical juncture opens a
window of opportunity for peace in the region.
"President Abbas, you have shown an unwavering commitment to achieving the
self-determination and an independent State for the Palestinian people," Mr Ban
said at a joint press conference given by the two men.
"Today, you have explained to me your plans for advancing this goal: unity
among Palestinians; negotiations with Israel; a two-State solution; a permanent
settlement of all of the issues, including Jerusalem, refugees, borders, and
settlements; an end to the conflict with Israel; comprehensive peace between
Israel and all Arab countries."
Mr Ban told reporters that he had offered President Abbas support for these
endeavours. "His vision of peace is consistent with the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council. I welcomed President Abbas' commitment to the
Road Map, and his desire to advance its implementation," the Secretary-General
said, referring to an outline peace plan put forward by the diplomatic Quartet
â the UN, Russian Federation, United States and European Union â for achieving
a two-State solution with Israel and Palestine living side by side in
peace.
"I encourage this new Government, and I very much hope that its actions will
show a genuine commitment to the basic principles not only of the Quartet, but
of peace," Mr Ban said. "Its immediate priorities should be to stabilise the
situation in Gaza through releasing the captured Israeli soldier, consolidating
the ceasefire, and bringing law and order back to the streets. Such steps would
address vital Palestinian interests, and would be strongly welcomed by the
international community."
The Secretary-General said he and President Abbas "also discussed the
importance of the Israeli government taking steps to transfer withheld revenue,
ease the closure and checkpoints, freeze all settlement activity, remove
outposts, and cease construction of the barrier in occupied Palestinian
territory."
He added that he would be encouraging Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on those
issues during their scheduled talks tomorrow, "as well as hearing his concerns
and plans."
"Above all, President Abbas and I agreed on the importance of this moment,"
the Secretary-General said, citing a unity government that supports President
Abbas negotiating with Israel; renewed dynamism in the Arab world based on the
Arab Peace Initiative; and the efforts of US Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice to advance dialogue.
The Secretary-General acknowledged the difficulties while voicing cautious
optimism. "Progress will be very hard. The obstacles are enormous. Achieving
peace will require all parties to go further than they have before. But it can
and must be done. And my message to Israel and to the world from here in
Ramallah is that I am convinced that President Abbas is ready."
Addressing himself to the Palestinian people, Mr Ban pledged the UN's
continued support. "I have seen for myself the challenges that the Palestinian
people face every day, and I have been moved by what I have seen this morning,"
he said.
"My determination to ensure that we continue our support to the Palestinian
people has been fortified. So has my conviction that we must find a political
solution to this painful conflict. As Secretary-General of the United Nations,
I will work tirelessly in that cause."
Visit to region by US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice
US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is currently on a visit to the Middle
East. She has thus far held discussions with Palestinian President Mahmoud
Abbas, Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit.
There is some talk of a new plan that is being proposed but we have not been
briefed of this but we welcome any efforts to solve the Palestinian-Israeli
situation based on a two-state solution on the 1967 borders.
Questions and answers
Question: Deputy Minister, can you give us more information regarding the
talks between Deputy President Mlambo-Ngcuka and Zimbabwean counterpart?
Answer: The Vice President of Zimbabwe was in South Africa on a very private
visit. Both the Vice President and Deputy President Mlambo-Ngcuka met at a
meeting not organised by themselves and the discussions that ensued had nothing
to do with the internal dynamics Zimbabwe.
As you would have seen from some reports: there was a delegation of
Secretary-Generals of two factions of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC)
who held discussions with South African officials on that same day.
It was also announced by some faction of the MDC that they had met with the
ANC, Cosatu and the South African Communist Party (SACP).
I do not believe there was any pre-plan or anything more that can be read
into the visit of the Zimbabwean Vice President to South Africa. It was a
private visit on which she held discussions with a non-governmental
organisation (NGO). It had nothing to do with discussing the broader Zimbabwean
situation.
Question: Deputy Minister Pahad, what do you expect the outcomes of the SADC
meetings in Tanzania to mean for Zimbabwe?
Answer: When we went to the Lesotho meeting last week, there was a meeting
of the double Troika to look at regional dynamics including Lesotho and the
report of the Tanzanian Foreign Minister on the visit of President Kikwete to
Zimbabwe the previous week. The Tanzanian Foreign Minister did inform the
meeting that President Kikwete was consulting with other Heads of State to call
a meeting in Tanzania to, broadly speaking, consider the regional dynamics.
To me, it will be very difficult as a Deputy Minister to speculate on the
outcomes of the meeting. We will go to Tanzania tomorrow with President
Mbeki.
It will be an opportunity for all parties to put forward their positions and
all countries in the region have indicated their participation. We will emerge
from there with a communiqué that will lead us forward.
As you know, there is a very important meeting of the Zanu-PF Central
Committee in Zimbabwe on Friday.
We will obviously hope to receive full briefings from everybody including
President Kikwete and the Zimbabwean delegation, based on which the region can
determine what actions need to be taken.
Question: Deputy Minister Pahad, is the South African government
participating in the meetings with an idea of an initiative to be proposed?
Answer: I cannot pre-empt the thinking of the President.
I will brief you fully on the meetings when we return.
Question: Deputy Minister Pahad, can you brief us on the situation in the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)?
Answer: We remain very concerned about the recent escalation of violence in
the DRC. It is conservatively estimated that more than 120 people have been
killed.
The former Presidential Candidate Jean Pierre Bemba who is also the leader
of the MLC is still at the South African High Embassy.
The United Nations Mission in the Congo (MONUC) is trying to see how it can
negotiate a solution.
The MLC has just put out a statement calling for a truce and discussions to
resolve the problem.
The Attorney-General has now officially put out a warrant of arrest for Mr
Bemba on charges of high treason and Prime Minister of the DRC has apologised
for the damage to foreign property.
It is a very volatile and fluid situation. We continue to be seized with the
matter since Mr Bemba is on South African property.
We are in touch with the UN and the DRC government, to see what are the
possible options to resolve the standoff and normalise the situation.
Many countries are expressing deep concern that recent developments could
erode all successes and advances that has been achieved thus far. We are
calling on all sides to act with restraint to see how we can find a solution
based on the MONUC facilitation.
Question: (inaudible)
Answer: It is clear that since Mr Bemba has had interviews with
international media that he has access to some communication. I suspect he is
using his own communication channels.
There is a lot of speculation re: asylum or no asylum. Mr Bemba himself has
not clearly indicated what his own thinking is. He is awaiting the outcomes of
the MONUC negotiations, on the basis of which he will decide what he wants to
do.
He has taken asylum in terms of international conventions.
We need to give him all the protection he requires until he deems it fit for
him to leave the Embassy.
Question: Deputy Minister Pahad, when the Deputy President crossed paths
with the Zimbabwean Vice President, did the matter of Zimbabwe come up?
Answer: I was not in the vicinity and therefore suggest you ask the Deputy
President whether this matter was discussed. As far we are concerned, we have
been assured that that matter of Zimbabwe was not discussed.
I have indicated that there are other channels of communication between the
South Africans and Zimbabweans, including the meeting of the two MDC
Secretary's-General who held discussions with COSATU, SACP, ANC and are
reported to have met with representatives of government.
Discussions were going on. There was no need for any back-door
discussions.
I have been assured that there were no discussions regarding Zimbabwe â
these were left to the correct channels.
Question: Deputy Minister Pahad, did President Mbeki receive a call from
Prime Minister Blair who announced this in the British House of Commons
yesterday? What are your views on the comments by the Zambian President
regarding Zimbabwe? There has been speculation regarding a shift on the matter
of Zimbabwe â is this so?
Answer: There have been long discussions in the British House of
Commons.
The Foreign Secretary has indicated that Prime Minister Blair has spoken to
President Kikwete and written to President Mbeki. I am not sure whether Prime
Minister Blair has talked to President Mbeki telephonically. In any event,
President Mbeki should by now be in receipt of the letter. I expect President
Mbeki will share it with us at the appropriate time.
The Zambian President was reflecting his concerns. The Zambian authorities
have made it quite clear that they are committed to working within a collective
framework to create the necessary conditions to assist the Zimbabweans to move
forward. This remains the perspective of the Zambian government and is nothing
new.
The President was referring to what he saw as a growing problem. We have
been raising this issue and I said last week that the Reserve Bank Governor Mr
Gono, a month ago, presented a detailed report of the crisis in the Zimbabwean
economy.
You have seen reports suggesting that within months the inflation rate will
have reached 5 000%.
The Reserve Bank Governor has indicated that there is a serious economic
crisis unfolding and called on the internal forces to begin an internal
dialogue across party-political lines bringing in civil society to see how they
can dialogue on this matter.
Commissioner Konare, on behalf of the AU, has also indicated his concerns.
The South African government has issued a statement as has the ANC.
President Kufour, speaking in London, expressed his concerns as Chairman of
the African Union.
There is no shift in positions. It is clear that the economic situation is
reaching dire proportions and people are saying it is impacting on the
region.
We need to work together, and this remains our position, how do we
collectively work together within SADC and the AU to help the Zimbabweans find
a solution to their challenges.
Question: Deputy Minister Pahad, you speak of an economic crisis in
Zimbabwe. Is there a humanitarian or political crisis in Zimbabwe? Do you have
any insight into the conversation between President Mbeki and President
Mugabe?
Answer: On the conversation between Presidents Mbeki and Mugabe â I am not
privy to conversations between Heads of State â these are not channelled
through my office. They must obviously have exchanged views on the current
situation in Zimbabwe. I cannot see that they would call each other to discuss
the Zimbabwean cricket teams performance in the World Cup.
We have consistently said that there is a socio-economic and political
crisis in Zimbabwe that has been developing over many years. We have also
consistently said that we must see what we can do to help the Zimbabweans out
of this quagmire.
I have previously said that the violence that broke out a few weeks ago is a
symptom of what is the broader political and socio-economic crisis in Zimbabwe
and this must be handled.
We will continue to work as we have been working â this term "quiet
diplomacy" is a misnomer â it is "constructive diplomacy".
If you have been following the debates in the British House of Commons as
well as the EU discussions, the British are saying they cannot do anything
alone. They have to work with the EU and the AU to effectively address this
situation. Everybody is saying this and it is accepted as a given.
Yet, when the South African government say the same thing â i.e. South
Africa cannot independently bring about a solution in Zimbabwe or anywhere else
â unless we work collectively within SADC if it is within the region or the AU
if it beyond the region, there is nothing we can achieve in isolation of a
collective solution, everybody says the same thing, yet we are taken to task
over this position.
I do believe we cannot act independently of the SADC region. In the end we
can only implement a collective SADC position.
Everyone talks of a crisis yet I cannot understand what crisis is being
faced by countries abroad. We have a crisis in the region with an undocumented
two million illegal immigrants rapidly rising to a figure of three million. It
is clear that we are facing a dire situation and it cannot be otherwise since
the economies of South Africa and Zimbabwe are very interlinked. In the
pre-apartheid days and in the days of Ian Smith, there was a lot of interaction
between the private sectors of Zimbabwe and South Africa. South Africa will
therefore suffer the most if we are unable to find a solution to the crisis in
Zimbabwe.
We have a historic and real responsibility in our own interests to help find
a solution. It is no longer, and never was, an academic situation for South
Africa.
If there are governments suggesting we do more, it would be helpful if we
were told what more to do. It is not helpful to sit far away and make militant
statements.
I am looking forward to tomorrow's parliamentary debate and hope the
opposition can formulate some constructive suggestions on how to address the
Zimbabwean challenges.
I want to repeat that we will never make militant statements for the sake of
self-gratification or to satisfy foreign governments.
Our objective is to help normalise the situation and to protect ourselves
from any further serious impact from the Zimbabwean crisis.
We continually ask those who have criticised us for following an approach of
"quite diplomacy" what has succeeded? It is now becoming apparent that the
route pursued by the US and EU has also not worked. I did say last week that if
we had worked together to find a common approach to the Zimbabwean situation
then we would not find ourselves confronted with the crisis we do so today.
I want to remind you that President Mbeki was quite forthright that you
could not debate the matter of land reform. But he was quite critical that the
way in which the programme was implemented was flawed. He has been critical
since the Victoria Falls meeting in 2000 on how elements of the programme we
being implemented.
I think we have selective amnesia. When we do constructively raise our
concerns about the situation such things are forgotten. All that happens is
that we are criticised regarding our policy of "quiet diplomacy". I would
encourage you to go back to your notes, from the time that the we commented on
the land reform programme, our discussions with the British government to raise
funds for the land programme, you will see a consistent approach on how we
tried to resolve the problem.
I really believe the time has come for us to sit down together to evaluate
constructively and critically what has succeeded, what has not and what we can
do to resolve the dire predicament in which the people of Zimbabwe find
themselves.
Question: Deputy Minister Pahad, is the ANC involved in negotiations with
the Zimbabwean government and what is the nature thereof? You have said that
other approaches by other governments have not worked. Would you say that the
approach of the South African government has worked?
Answer: The ANC is in constant touch with Zimbabweans at various levels. The
ANC meets with Zanu-PF on a bilateral basis but also within the context of
meetings of former liberation movements.
Only history will tell whether we have succeeded. This is work in
progress.
Question: Deputy Minister Pahad, will President Mugabe be attending these
meetings? Have you noticed flexibility on the part of the Zimbabwean government
regarding 2008 elections?
Answer: We know that the Zimbabwean government will attend the meeting but I
am not sure at what level.
see it reported in the media about President Mugabe talking to the Youth and
Women's League indicating that he is working towards 2008 elections. The nature
of these elections have not been revealed in the media reports.
South African media reports are speculating together with the British
newspapers that moves are underway in Zimbabwe for consultations between
'factions' in Zanu-PF and Morgan Tsvangarai. We are not privy to any of this. I
hope we will be briefed on this in the meetings in Tanzania.
Issued by: Department of Foreign Affairs
27 March 2007
