| UNSecurity Council Resolution 1747 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
.svg) | ||||
| Date | 24 March 2007 | |||
| Meeting no. | 5,647 | |||
| Code | S/RES/1747 (Document) | |||
| Subject | Non-proliferation | |||
Voting summary |
| |||
| Result | Adopted | |||
| Security Council composition | ||||
Permanent members | ||||
Non-permanent members | ||||
| ||||
| Part ofa series on the |
| Nuclear program of Iran |
|---|
 |
| Timeline |
| Facilities |
| Organizations |
| International agreements |
| Domestic laws |
| Individuals |
| Related |
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 was aUnited Nations Security Council resolution, written with reference to someIAEA reports, that tightened thesanctions imposed on Iran in connection with theIranian nuclear program. It was adopted unanimously by theUnited Nations Security Council on 24 March 2007.
In June 2006, thefive permanent Security Council members plus Germany offered a package of economicincentives includingtransfer of technology in the civilian nuclear field, in exchange for Iran to give up permanently its disputeduranium enrichment programme.[1]
Iran maintains it did not accept this offer because it was not attractive enough and because of itsinalienable right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. To justify its position, Iran made reference to previous accords concluded between the lateShah of Iran and theWest regardingEurodif andBushehr. Iran has also referred to similar accords between the West and other countries likeNorth Korea orLibya, where agreements reached and promises made have not been kept. InResolution 1737, adopted by the Security Council in December 2006, an initial series of sanctions against Iran was implemented because it did not suspend its uranium enrichment programme.
In the Resolution 1747, the Council decided to tighten the sanctions imposed on Iran in connection with that nation's nuclear program. It also resolved to impose a ban on arms sales and to step up the freeze on assets already in place. The successive Security Council interventions and positions are summarized hereafter:
Access to nuclear sites:According to theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran had not yet declared the full scope of its programme and has not allowed a full-unrestricted access to all its nuclear sites. The programme is 18 years old, and part of it was outside of the IAEA's purview. This situation worried the IAEA and theinternational community. Iran said that it has allowed the IAEA to access all its nuclear sites, voluntarily and more than any other country by signing additional NPT protocols.
Iran's previous suspension:Iran said that a previous agreement to suspenduranium enrichment for two years in 2004 did not yield any tangible results for any party. Iran expressed an official concern to disclose more information to the IAEA because of the repeated military threats made by the West since 2005.[2] Subsequently, the IAEA declared that it was unable to conclude there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran and has referred the file to the UNSC.[3]
United Nations position:The permanent Security Council members, includingRussia andChina, declared their intentions to prevent Iran from acquiringweapons of mass destruction because of its belligerent rhetoric towards the West and Israel since theIranian Revolution.[4] In principle, the UN Security Council (UNSC) and theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have confirmed Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology in conformity with theNuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).[5]
Iranian stance:Iran said it wanted to build a network of nuclear power plants with a capacity for 20,000MW by 2020.[6] Iran has referred to itsinalienable right to develop nuclear technology for civilian and peaceful purposes under the NPT to justify its position.[7] TheSupreme Leader of Iran has stated in afatwa that possession and use of nuclear weapons is "anti-Islamic".[8] Iranian officials have insisted that they have no intention to developnuclear weapons. This point has been strongly questioned bythe West becauseuranium enrichment is adual-use technology.
Iran said it did not intend to suspend its enrichment programme. Iranian Foreign MinisterManouchehr Mottaki told the Security Council after the vote: "The world must know – and it does – that even the harshest political and economic sanctions or other threats are far too weak to coerce the Iranian nation to retreat from their legal and legitimate demands." He added: "Suspension is neither an option nor a solution".[9]
Non-Aligned Movement's position:Iran reminded the Security Council of theNon-Aligned Movement's support for its civilian nuclear programme and its opposition to any military attack against Iran. This declaration by the Non-Aligned Movement, at the summit level, represented 118 countries.[10]
Iran and weapons of mass destruction:As of 2007, Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction and has signed treaties repudiating their possessions, including theBiological Weapons Convention, theChemical Weapons Convention, and the NuclearNon-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). A number of countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, have accused Iran of a clandestine intention to develop nuclear weapons.[11] By most estimates, Iran is at least two to six years away from being able to produce anatomic bomb, even if it wanted to.[12]
Western hypocrisy:Iran has said it does not accept to be lectured and pressured by theWest and it has accused the West of "hypocrisy and double standard". Iran has condemned the Security Council members for not doing what they preach to others: namely, getting rid of their ownweapons of mass destruction, as it is their duty under the NPT.[13][14] In March 2006, Iran strongly deploredUnited Kingdom's decision to renew itsTrident missile nuclear weapons system. It also feels threatened by theUnited States military deployment inIraq,Afghanistan and in theMiddle East. Iran has pointed to the fact that the United States is the only country who has ever used nuclear weapons inhistory and has not ruled out the possibility to use them again in the future as part of theBush doctrine, and against theUN Charter.
Double standard:Iran has said that thedouble standard applied toIsrael is unjust and disturbing given its possession ofnuclear weapons, its non-adherence to the NPT, and its treatment of thePalestinians over many years. Israel has unofficially stated it needs to have nuclear weapons to assure itssurvival in a predominantlyhostileMiddle East environment, since its independence in 1948 and following theHolocaust. Iran has responded that the Middle East should not bear responsibility forcrimes against humanity and atrocities committed by theNazis duringWorld War II against theJews inEurope.[15]
Nuclear fuel:In 1995, Russia signed a contract to supply alight water reactor for the plant (the contract is believed to be valued between $700,000,000 and US$1,200,000,000).[16] Although the agreement calls for the spentfuel rods to be sent back to Russia for reprocessing, the US has expressed concern that Iran would reprocess the rods itself, in order to obtainplutonium foratomic bombs. In March 2007, following Iran's refusal to halt enrichment, Russia announced it will withhold the delivery ofnuclear fuel, pretexting overdue payments vis-à-vis theBushehr reactor even though Iran has denied any late payment. Consequently, Bushehr should be commissioned by early 2009, after five delays of two years each.[17]
Air defense system: Russia has declared repeatedly its opposition to any military attack against Iran's civilian nuclear facilities. In January 2007, Russia announced the sale of 29 units of itsTor Missile System to Iran as part of a one billion dollar deal to protect its installations.[18][19]
Economic reasons:Iran has stated that its programme is motivated by economic needs and scientific progress only. Iran has said its largepetroleum reserves will inevitably extinguish, given its increasing domestic energy consumption and because of its oilexports. Iran has referred toU.S. government reports from the time of theShah and independent U.S. estimates as recent as 2006 to justify its position.[20] Iran has also referred to Russia's recent decision to withhold fuel delivery for itsnuclear power plant as an additional reason why it cannot rely on other countries for itsnuclear fuel needs.[21]
Financial investment:Iran has said it has spent too much money - over ten billion U.S. dollars in the past 30 years - on its civilian nuclear programme to give it up now.[16][22] Furthermore, it has argued that suspension is a way for the West to undermine Iran'sindependence and progress. If its rights are not respected by the Security Council, Iran has threatened to withdraw from theNon-Proliferation Treaty. Iran has justified its uranium enrichment programme because it has plans to construct morenuclear power plants in the future.[23]
National pride and independence:In March 2007, it was announced that Iran would issue a 50,000rial banknote with the subject being the Iraniannuclear energy programme, which has become an object ofnational pride and thesymbol ofindependence for manyIranians.[24]
Iranian concerns:Other subjects interfere with Iran's international file at the Security Council, including:
Propaganda:Both parties have resorted topropaganda,psychological war,ideology anddefamation through themedia to galvanize their troops and win the public opinion.[26][27] Iran has labeled the United States the "Great Satan" and chants "Death to America." Meanwhile, U.S. President George W. Bush declared Iran part of the "axis of evil." Iran and the United States accuse each other of not working for the benefit of their own people but for a small group holding to power, even if both parties claim a broad democratic support for their endeavor. ABBC poll conducted in June 2006 found that the worldpublic opinion considered the United States, along with Iran, to be the greatest threats toworld peace.[28]
Proxy wars:The United States has accused Iran of underminingpeace in the Middle East by supporting economically and militarily warring parties beyond its borders, especially:
Iran accuses the United States to be an "occupier" in Iraq. Nevertheless, Iran has denied any military involvement in Iraq, even though American forces have said they have proof of it. On 25 December 2006, US armed forces arrested and later released four senior Iranian military officials inBaghdad. In January 2007, US controlled forces kidnapped and allegedlytortured five Iranians inIrbil, Iraq, which have not been released yet. In April 2007, those same prisoners were allowed visits byICRC delegates for the first time.[30] Iran has accused the United States of supporting armed opposition groups against its Government inside and outside of Iran, and conductingUAV reconnaissance flights over Iran since 2005.[31]
Iranian Oil Bourse:According to some experts, Iran is seeking to weaken U.S. global influence by creating anIranian oil bourse that will trade inIranian rial and major currencies instead ofUnited States dollars, as well as agas cartel with Russia, which both have the greatest proven gas reserves in the world. Iran has denied this and has justified both projects based on their sole economic merits.
Iranian threats:Iran has denied it wants to see "Israel wiped off the map" as reported by the foreign media. Iran's foreign minister has affirmed that Iran's stated policy on Israel is to urge aone-state solution through a countrywidereferendum in which a government would be elected that allPalestinians and allIsraelis would jointly vote for. This would normally be an end to the "Zionist state", similarly to the end of theSoviet Union.[32][33][34][35]
Israeli threats:Iran has referred toIsrael's Defense Forces surprise attack in 1981 against theOsirak nuclear reactor inIraq and its recent threats againstTehran as additional reasons why it cannot disclose more information about its programme to the IAEA. Israel has stated that "a nuclear armed Iran is not acceptable for Israel" and that it will take military action if the international community fails to curbIran's nuclear programme.[36][37] If attacked, Iran has vowed its readiness to retaliate inasymmetric warfare and by using its vast arsenal ofmissile forces to reachTel Aviv.[38]
Comprehensive negotiations:Iran has agreed to hold further talks, without theprecondition to halt itsuranium enrichment programme. The United States has opposed this, even though it has agreed to hold direct talks relating to other subjects like thewar in Iraq.[39] In 2003, Iran was known to have made a similar confidential proposal to the United States through the Swiss Embassy inTehran.Switzerland is the USprotecting power in Iran since theIranian Revolution in 1979. The United States is said to have rejected those discussions, at that time.[40]
International consortium:Iran is ready to consider the creation of an internationalconsortium for uranium enrichment based in Iran as a solution to the current standoff at the Security Council.[41] In April 2007, Iran declared it had reached the early stage in industrial nuclear fuel production following the installation of more than a thousand centrifuges at theNatanz underground facility. Iran has declared it was planning to install 50,000 more centrifuges in the future.[42] In 2005, Iran inaugurated a uranium conversion facility inIsfahan, and aheavy water production plant inArak in 2006. All declared Iranian installations are under the strict supervision of the IAEA.
The provisions of Resolution 1747 were terminated byUnited Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 effective on Implementation Day of theJoint Comprehensive Plan of Action, 16 January 2016.
Works related toUnited Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 at Wikisource
