|
| Repeal of Parts of Resolution 1929 & Total Repeal of UNSC Resolution 1737 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 28 2013, 12:22 PM (236 Views) | |
| Viper | Feb 28 2013, 12:22 PM Post #1 |
|
![]() Vitaly Churkin Russian Ambassador to the United Nations With the conclusion of talks in Vienna and the withdrawal of the Iranian delegation understandably after an attack on their nuclear energy program it is the intention of the Russian Federation to see a partial lifting of sanctions included as part of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 which was passed on June 9, 2010 actively against the Islamic Republic of Iran and a total repeal of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737 which froze all finances relating to Iran's nuclear energy program in 2006. By lifting the financial freeze this body will demonstrate good faith to the Islamic Republic of Iran despite the regrettable and totally condemnable attacks on the Iranian nuclear program, to return to the table and work to ensure their nuclear program is working towards peaceful energy purposes for the good of the region and intenrational stability and peace. This assurance is critical to moving discussions forward and moreover can just as easily be reinstated should our efforts of good faith fall short. Therefore, we call for: 1. Partial repeal of travel bans and financial freezes in UNSC Resolution 1929 2. Total repeal of UNSC Resolution 1737 on the condition that Iran must return to the table of negotiations within six months. These two items will push our talks forwards and ensure fruitfulness as we move to find a lasting solution to regional peace and security as it applies to the Islamic Republic of Iran, |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Viper | Mar 3 2013, 09:26 AM Post #21 |
|
Sergei Lavrov Foreign Minister Russian Federation Yes we understand you made a generalization but you have yet to make a specific counter proposal outlining specific sanctions that you would be in favor of repealing. Specificity is important rather than vagueness when it comes to a topic as important as this one. Instead we have heard nothing but insults and misguided statements from Luxembourg which continue even to this very moment, let's try to stay focused on the topic at hand even though that might be a difficult task for some present here. |
![]() |
|
| Jos1311 | Mar 3 2013, 10:32 AM Post #22 |
![]()
Head Admin
|
___ Mr. Lavrov if you want to keep these talks on the topic, perhaps it would be wise to refrain from ridiculing other representatives yourself as well. Those who play at bowls, must look out for rubs, is all I can state to that. With that said I believe it would be wiser to assess whether other parties are even willing to approve any plan for partial ending of the sanctions, than to create plans and waste a lot of effort and time in an attempt that was bound to lead to nothing. I suggest we await the reaction of the other representatives and hear if they are willing to support a partial lifting of the bans, rather than rush to a proposal that is doomed to fail. |
![]() |
|
| Circo | Mar 3 2013, 10:52 AM Post #23 |
![]()
|
Ambassador to the United Nations Washington is of the opinion that we need to bring Iran back to the table sooner rather than later and if that means lifting of sanctions as a "sign of goodwill", then so be it. It was agonizing how close the P5+1 talks were to being able to start making the initial steps towards bring Iran's nuclear program into a comfortable area for all of us and beginning to rebuild diplomatic relations with Iran's government. Unless there are other suggestions or ideas that we can all work upon, the US would support a partial lifting of the bans. |
![]() |
|
| winisle | Mar 3 2013, 12:38 PM Post #24 |
![]()
|
Gerard Araud Ambassador, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations Ambassador Rice, France will not support such a move, something that we have made abundantly clear. We understand the position that the representative from Luxembourg is comming from, and we will present what we believe to be a way forward soon. |
![]() |
|
| Circo | Mar 3 2013, 12:43 PM Post #25 |
![]()
|
Ambassador to the United Nations That is all we ask for, Ambassador Araud, and I hope that we will all be open-minded to your proposal. |
![]() |
|
| winisle | Mar 6 2013, 03:57 AM Post #26 |
![]()
|
Gerard Araud Ambassador, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations While the Republic of France can not agree to the repeal, or partial repeal of UNSC Resolutions 1737 and 1929 as suggested, we do understand the need for talks on the situation visavi Iran and its nuclear program. France understands the desire for peaceful nuclear energy, but we feel that assurances is needed to ensure that Iran does not turn nuclear energy into nuclear weapons. That is the heart of the matter, and has been so for years, and the Iranian refusal to give assurances, and open up their research for IAEA is the reason behind the Resolutions. The situation has not changed, despite the tragic and unfortunate death of the Iranian nuclear scientist, a death that Iran used as an excuse to storm out of the latest round of talks. France suggest the following: - That the P5+1 Advisory Board is established, consisting of one member each from: US, UK, France, PRC, Russia, Germany and the UN Secretary Generals Office (to be chairperson). - A temporary suspension of the following parts of UNSC Resolutions 1929 and 1737, to take effect once Iran rejoins the P5+1 talks, and to remain in place as long as Iran participates in said talks in an open, constructive and positive manner; --- The persons listed under the Nuclear Program in Resolution 1737 will be given access to their frozen funds, for humanitarian reasons only. Humanitarian reason will be determined by the P5+1 Advisory Board. --- The travel ban on individuals in Resolution 1929 will be lifted for humanitarian reasons only. Humanitarian reason will be determined by the P5+1 Advisory Board. - The P5+1 Advisory Board will monitor the P5+1 talks with Iran, and determine if Iran foolows the stipulations for the temporary suspension. |
![]() |
|
| Viper | Mar 6 2013, 05:35 AM Post #27 |
|
Sergei Lavrov Foreign Minister Russian Federation While the French proposal has some merit to it, the proposal by the French neglects to put forward a serious and consistent show of good faith to the Islamic Republic of Iran. By merely temporarily suspending sanctions we send a message of half seriousness further this P5+1 advisory board is not well explained by the French. Will this advisory board have the same veto powers as the regular UNSC or will final decisions be made by the Chair? These are important questions that must be answered and if we cannot give a solid serious stance towards sanctions as a measure of good faith then there is no point for us to do it to begin with. As it stands in its current state as proposed by the French Government, the Russian Federation cannot support this measure. |
![]() |
|
| Circo | Mar 7 2013, 09:25 AM Post #28 |
![]()
|
Ambassador to the United Nations It must be said that Iran hasn't made any effort to seek a return to the diplomatic table and I must agree with Ambassador Araud that a full repelling of sanctions is not the way to go. A temporary lifting of sanctions during talks should suffice to present Iran with an incentive to continue talks where plans were already agreed or being further discussed for complete lifting of sanctions. I doubt Iran can cast doubts on the seriousness that we have with regards to their nuclear program, considering the history that has occurred as a result of Iran's actions. With regards to the advisory board, I would suggest that final decisions be made by the Chair. A neutral party leading the board will be able to make decisions without the political stances or viewpoints of the P5+1 nations and as such, would be able to increase the likelihood of success in resolving this current state of matters. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Round 1 · Next Topic » |











6:11 AM Jul 11
