Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-01-30-Speech-3-028"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080130.14.3-028"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I do not want to interfere in the debate which is taking place, but I take the floor at your invitation. Let me start by thanking you for the invitation today. It is the first time that I have spoken before Parliament in the year 2008. We are all sure that 2008 is going to be very exciting, to say the least. I want to continue with a deeper cooperation with Parliament, with yourself and with the distinguished Members of this Chamber.
All these activities make Iran, from our point of view, a troublesome and difficult actor in the Middle East. But it remains one that we need to understand and engage with better. There have been periods of cooperation with Iran, for example in Afghanistan, that have been fruitful, and I believe we should continue to seek such opportunities.
But, as you know, one of the most important subjects of concern is the Iranian nuclear programme. Were Iran to develop a weapon, this could be a cause of radical instability and danger in the Middle East. It would also be very damaging to the whole non-proliferation system. Even the suspicion that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon can destabilise the Middle East.
Our objective is to remove those suspicions. In the end this can be done only through a negotiated solution.
We welcome the fact that Iran is working with the International Atomic Energy Agency to deal with some of the so-called ‘Outstanding Issues’. In the current phase with Dr ElBaradei, as you know, Iran has to answer questions about important issues like weaponisation, and especially other issues related to contamination, which are very important.
But even if these questions about the past are answered, this does not provide the transparency we are asking for concerning Iran’s present activities or its future intentions. Present transparency requires Iran to ratify and implement, as we have said many times, the Additional Protocol.
Confidence about Iran’s future intentions is more difficult. Supposing Iran had a weaponisation programme in the past, how can we be sure today that the present enrichment activity is exclusively civil? It is especially difficult when we see no signs, at this moment, of Iran signing a contract to build a nuclear power plant apart from what they have done with the Russians in Bushehr, for which the Russians have supplied the fuel. All we hear about is enrichment. When I ask – and you asked the other day – representatives of the Iranian Government what they plan to do with enriched uranium, I never get an answer. You had the proof of that a few days ago.
The fact is that Iran can develop a civil programme only with the assistance of the countries belonging to the group of six countries which are negotiating with them – or trying to negotiate with them – with the exception of Japan. No other country in the world can supply a country that wants to deploy or to develop a civil nuclear programme without the cooperation of countries, or companies that belong to those countries, that are in the group of six countries plus Japan. None of us have a problem with an Iranian civil programme; indeed, we are offering to help. But none of us will do so unless we are certain that Iran’s intentions are exclusively peaceful.
This is why we are trying continually to achieve a negotiated solution. So far, unfortunately – as you know – we have not been successful. Also, unfortunately, it is impossible to do nothing while Iran continues to ignore the Agency resolutions or Security Council resolutions. Work is, therefore, going on in New York on a further resolution. The objective of these resolutions is not to punish Iran but to persuade it to come to the negotiating table: as far as I am concerned, the sooner the better. The European Union and the permanent members of the Security Council are fully united in this. We had an important meeting last Thursday.
Perhaps I could add one further comment that goes beyond Iran itself on this matter. In a world where there is an increasing interest in nuclear power, we need to find ways of assuring countries that they can obtain nuclear fuel without having to do their own enrichment – which is expensive for them and gives rise to proliferation concerns. I myself strongly support the idea of the creation of international fuel supply assurances, perhaps in the form of a fuel bank. This idea has been played around with by many of our partners and many important figures in the international community. There are many good ideas in this area. I believe the time has come to turn these ideas into action, into reality.
As I said at the beginning, Iran is a key country. I have been engaged for years now in normalising relations between us. We will all gain from this – Iranians and Europeans. I believe in this, and I will continue relentlessly to work towards this objective, which I think will benefit the people of Iran and the European Union.
Today we have a very important debate – a debate on an issue that is one of the most important issues on the agenda of the international community. I would like to make a short statement about it and spend the time necessary to see whether we can together understand – and not only understand but make some progress on the solution of – this very complicated issue that is at the top of the international agenda today.
Let me start by making a few remarks. Iran is a key country in the Middle East. It is important in strategic terms, and is also important as a regional actor. We would like, therefore, to have a constructive relationship with Iran; but, as you know, there are many difficulties with this.
Iran is a very vibrant society, full of talented people. It has an exceptionally high proportion of women graduates. Persian is one of the major languages on the internet, especially for blogs, as young people seek a means of self-expression.
The political scene in Iran – as you well know – is of great interest these days. There are elements of democracy there which are not present in other countries of the Middle East, though the election process still leaves much to be desired. For the Majles elections in March, to give you an example, 30% of candidates were disqualified, with those having reformist tendencies suffering the most. Some will have the opportunity to appeal but others will not. Nevertheless, an imperfect democracy is better than none, and it is right that we should engage with Iranian parliamentarians. I am very grateful to the European Parliament for sending a delegation there to meet with their colleagues in the Iranian Parliament.
Members of this Parliament are also right to be concerned about the rule of law and human rights in Iran. Iran is almost at the bottom of the world press freedom index. It has increased the number of executions. There are, unfortunately, numerous reports of torture. Such things are unacceptable and only damage Iran’s image as a civilised country.
All those who campaign for human rights in Iran, for example in the one-million-signature campaign for women’s rights, deserve our support and admiration. This morning I had the happy opportunity to comment on that with Mrs Souhayr Belhassen, who is, as you know, one of the most important figures in the International Federation of Human Rights. With greater freedom, greater accountability and more even-handed justice, Iran could be one of the most creative and most dynamic societies in the Middle East. The European Union had, in the past, a human rights dialogue with Iran, but since 2004 the Iranians have been unwilling to participate.
However, we have many areas of common interest with Iran that are not yet fully exploited, the most obvious of these in the energy sector – but there is also more that we could do together on drug trafficking and against terrorism.
It would be good if we were able to work better with Iran in the region. But for the moment, as you know, this is difficult because it is difficult to see Iran as a constructive partner. In almost every area we seem to find ourselves pursuing different, sometimes contradictory, policies. We want a two-state solution in Palestine. We want the Annapolis Conference to succeed. Iran is still the only country in the Middle East that does not accept the idea of a two-state solution. It is a key supplier of arms to Hamas. President Ahmadinejad’s remarks concerning Israel and his support for Holocaust denial are entirely unacceptable for all of us. Iran, as you know, is a destabilising factor in Lebanon. It is the most important supplier of weapons to Hezbollah. It has also worked with groups pursuing violence in Iraq."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples