Islamic Republic of Iran Nuclear Energy: Ambassadorial briefing

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
24 October 2007
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN NUCLEAR ENERGY: AMBASSADORIAL BRIEFING

Acting Chairperson: Dr A Luthuli (ANC)

Documents handed out:
Speech by Ambassador Mohammadali Ghanezadeh

Audio recording of meeting

SUMMARY
Ambassador Ghanezadeh briefed the Committee on Iran’s current status of nuclear energy. He noted that in 1957 Iran had signed agreements with America on the launching of nuclear power reactors. The Islamic Revolution of 1979 put a stop to developments and the Bushehr reactor had never been completed, although it was at 95% completion. Iran had complied with the requirements of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the International Atomic Energy Agency and had signed the Additional Protocol. Iran had opened their sites and the military sites for inspection, and no undeclared cases had been found. In addition the country had suspended its activities for two and a half years so that ambiguities could be settled. Unfortunately none of these efforts had been sufficient and the members of the Security Council on the United Nations were objecting to Iran being in possession of such technology. The Ambassador stressed that Iran was ready to enter into peaceful partnerships with other countries. It had proposed formation of a consortium, and partnership in uranium enrichment in order to build trust. It did not wish to suspend its uranium enrichment programme because it believed it had a right to use the technology for peaceful purposes. Its oil reserves would last only for a further 25 to 30 years, and nuclear energy was a far cleaner and more cost effective source. He pointed out that many of the doubts arose from political reasons, and that Iran was not a threat to the international community. If suspicion was directed to Iran, it should also be directed to other countries, including America.

The Committee had raised issues of trust and aired the many doubts surrounding Iran’s intentions. Particular focus was placed on the comments of Iran about Israel and the remarks recently made by President Putin of Russia. The Ambassador assured the Committee that as a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty it was against the conditions to divert from peaceful purposes of nuclear technology. Furthermore, the Ambassador claimed that since Iran was no longer an ally of the West its attempts at gaining nuclear technology would constantly be hampered.

MINUTES
Ambassador Mohammadali Ghanezadeh gave a brief history of Iran, emphasising the fact that Iran was an Islamic and therefore a peaceful nation. Its nuclear programme had marked its 50^th anniversary this year. In 1957 the existing Iranian government signed a series of agreements with the United States of America, on the launching of nuclear power reactors and Iran gained access to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. In the years that followed more notes were added to the agreements and Canada, France and Germany signed agreements with Iran on nuclear technology. Germany had agreed to construct the Bushehr reactor; at that time no country disputed Iran’s decision.

The Islamic Revolution in 1979 brought all the agreements to a halt. Germany did not complete construction of the Bushehr reactor and Iran then turned to Russia to complete construction. Twenty-eight years later the Bushehr had not been put into operation, although 95% of its construction had been completed and it was in the phase of the injection of the fuel. Iran had embarked on uranium enrichment and heavy water projects. The country had become a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1974 and had been committed to the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The IAEA had asked Iran to suspend its nuclear activities and to sign the Additional Protocol and implement it. Iran responded by suspending activities for two and a half years and voluntarily implemented the Additional Protocol. Iran also allowed the IAEA to inspect its nuclear sites and military sites. These sites were inspected twenty-seven times and no undeclared cases were found. In March 2004 Iran offered its timetable and the Agency took five months to consider it.

Three resolutions were offered. Two of these resolutions were in favour of an economic embargo against Iran. Iran had decided that it was ready to enter into peaceful partnerships with other countries. It had proposed formation of a consortium, and partnership in uranium enrichment in order to build trust. Iran now had 3 000 centrifuges into which UF6 was being injected. The country was in possession of sufficient yellow cake and if more was required, it could produce it. The UCF factory converted yellow cake to UF6 gas and the gas in turn was injected into the centrifuges. Enrichment was done on a 5% scale.

Iran would not suspend its uranium enrichment programme because it saw it as its right to use the technology, but insisted that it would not divert towards using the technology for military purposes. The Ambassador added that Iran was ready to negotiate and remove any concerns.

Discussion
Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) clarified that yellow cake was supplied by South Africa before the advent of democracy. He continued that South Africa had closely monitored the developments of Iran’s Nuclear Energy programme because of South Africa’s voluntary suspension from nuclear activities and South Africa’s insistence of total disarmament. Although it was appreciated that the nuclear programme was for peaceful purposes, a few observers, including South Africa, had doubts about Iran’s intentions. He asked if it was accurate that certain aspects of the nature of the nuclear programme were not disclosed by Iran.

Ambassador Ghanezadeh elucidated that Iran bought yellow cake from South Africa before the Islamic revolution in 1979. After the Revolution, Iran broke ties with the apartheid government. He reiterated that more than 56 military sites had been inspected and none of the inspectors found any undeclared cases. He insisted that the nature of the nuclear activities was peaceful. When Iran became a revolutionary nation in 1979 it had little experience with the requirements of the agency and thus did not declare its activities in time. It had offered partnership to other countries to share nuclear technology. In order to build trust Iran had suspended its nuclear activities for two and half years and gained nothing during that time. It was the decision of the Iranian leader and the military doctrine of the country not to build an atomic bomb. He also pointed out that an atomic bomb would be pointless as it would not be used. Iran was ready to sign an agreement with the West to clarify any ambiguities that still existed.

Ms S Camerer (DA) asked for clarification on the bodies and the countries that were referred to. She also wanted clarification on the negotiations with the West and added that South Africa did not negotiate when activities were suspended.

Ambassador Ghanezadeh replied that when he referred to the ‘West’ he meant the permanent members of the Security Council and Germany. He disputed the fact that South Africa did not have discussions with regard to South Africa’s suspension of nuclear activities. As proof of these discussions there was a letter written by President Mbeki that was published on the ANC website in 2004. This letter stated that America engaged South Africa in discussions to persuade the country to discontinue its nuclear programmes and in return would provide resources for the new South Africa in order to develop other technologically advanced programmes. The promised resources had not been received and this had negatively impacted on the development of Science and Technology in South Africa. He warned that the West, America in particular, would not hold any of their promises. He added that America often accused other countries of using nuclear technology for harmful purposes yet it was the very country that had both threatened to and had used nuclear weapons against other countries, whilst claiming to be a civilised nation. The 50 years experiences of Iran in dealing with the West had made it cautious of these countries.

Dr P Mulder (FFP) questioned whether Iran really needed the use of nuclear energy, as the country had so much oil resources.

Ambassador Ghanezadeh replied that using nuclear energy was economical. If the nuclear reactor generated 7000megawatts of electricity, 200 million barrels of oil could be saved. That meant $20 billion could be saved. Nuclear energy was cleaner and safer than oil. The oil and gas reserves would come to an end, as they were fossil fuel, and the country had to prepare for such an occurrence. During the regime of the Shah, Iran was encouraged to have nuclear technology and now thirty years later, with the Iranian population three times larger, it was being dissuaded from being in possession of the technology.

Dr Mulder commented on the fact that the West was often guilty of double standards; however he had read a statement that said Iran ‘would wipe Israel of the face of the earth’. He asked if a more realistic position, with regard to Israel, was possible. He added that if there was a solution then it would help ease the tension around Iran developing its nuclear technology.

Ambassador Ghanezadeh replied that the statement of “wiping out Israel” was not meant for Israeli people but was a political statement towards the political government. Iran had its own policy regarding Israel. It felt that democratic elections should take place, then it could be seen whether the current political entity would remain. The history of Iran openly admitted that Iran was not discriminatory as Iran had the biggest Jewish population, after Israel, in the Middle East. There could not be a two state solution to the issues in Israel.

Mr B Mnyandu (ANC) understood that Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) membership was voluntary and that Iran had weighed up the merits and demerits of the membership. He asked if Iran had considered terminating membership of the NPT.

Ambassador Ghanezadeh replied that Iran would remain a member of the NPT, as the conditions of the NPT were favourable to Iran. The NPT created the platform to have nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and there was a commitment not to divert from the peaceful purposes. He hoped that in the future it would have the support of other countries that had and wished to have nuclear technology.

Mr M Sibande (ANC) asked, since Iran was committed to the conditions of the NPT and had complied with the required protocol of the UN, what reason there could be for the continued objection to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Ambassador Ghanezadeh replied that the Shah, the leader before the Islamic Revolution, was the ally of America. When Iran became independent those ties were broken. The objection was because Iran was following a policy not adhering to America’s policy. Iran was no longer America’s ally and therefore America did not want Iran to have nuclear technology.

Mr Rambogin remarked that South Africa was committed to a position that aligned with the actions of the Security Council to reinforce the authority of the board and the agency, and therefore by its nature was not intended to be punitive. It was taken into consideration that Iran had a right to have nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. However, there was a fear that Iran had the capacity to convert nuclear energy into nuclear weapons. Iran was no longer an ally of the West, and by asserting its authority and having nuclear capability, Iran was considered a threat to the current hegemony of the West. He asked to what extent Iran considered itself a threat to the international community.

Ambassador Ghanezadeh replied that Iran was not a threat to the international community. There was the Non-Aligned Movement that consisted of 118 countries that had supported Iran, including South Africa. The Islamic Conference, consisting of 57 countries, also supported Iran’s position. The few countries sitting on the Security Council that were attempting to impose their wishes on Iran should not feel threatened. Iran had not invaded any country for the past 250 years, even though it had been invaded by Iraq with the help of America. Iran was an Islamic country that preached peace. Islam was religion of knowledge and was tolerant. If a few countries thought that Iran was a threat, Iran could not stop them from taking that position. Iran was sure about its intention and its programme and he reiterated that it had no intention of diverting its nuclear capability into weapons.

Adv Z Madasa (ANC) commented that Russian President Putin had visited Iran and he had stated that there was no evidence that Iran was diverting from peaceful purposes, but he still had some doubts about its intention. Adv Madasa asked what the Ambassador thought of President Putin’s remarks.

The Chairperson noted that this was an issue of trust and asked how Iran could restore trust.

Ambassador Ghanezadeh replied that after Iran had complied with all the protocols and dictates of the Security Council, and satisfaction had still not been reached, Iran had posed the question of what else it should do. The answer received was that Iran should suspend all activities indefinitely. He added that indefinite suspension could not be the solution to the problem. He noted that if there was suspicion surrounding Iran, there should also be suspicions around Israel ( who were allegedly hiding nuclear missiles), around India (who were also allegedly attaining nuclear technology even though they were not signatories to the NPT) or around America, the only nation that actually had used nuclear weapons against another country twice. He continued that this was double standards. President Putin had made those comments, as he was also a member of the Security Council as well as Iran’s neighbour. Russia would prefer Iran not to have nuclear technology and to be dependent on Russia. Perhaps Russia had a similar stance as the West. Iran however was determined to continue with its programme and was ready to face the consequences.

Adv Madasa questioned the willingness of Iran to negotiate with the West. The country had appointed Mr Ali Larijani as Iran’s current negotiator. He asked for clarification of this appointment.

Ambassador Ghanezadeh replied that Ali Larijani was a Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and was therefore willing to negotiate. The decision of the national security of Iran was the responsibility of the leader of Iran. Iran was willing to negotiate to clear all the ambiguities.

Ms M Njobe (ANC) found the fact that the West had not halted their objection after Iran’s complete compliance puzzling, and suggested that perhaps if the rest of the world was better informed on the way Iran was going to use the nuclear energy, namely for peaceful purposes, they would be more receptive to the idea of Iran being in possession of such technology.

Ms Njobe referred to the partnership that Iran was offering and asked if there were any positive responses.

Ambassador Ghanezadeh replied that there had been no positive reaction to Iran’s offer of partnership. The intention was that Iran should not have this technology. It was suggested to the board and the UN that Iran was ready to have a concession around their nuclear technology. Iran had asked those countries that had ambiguities to give a list and Iran would resolve those issues, as it was doing with the Agency.

The Chairperson asked for an estimate of how long Iran’s oil resources would last.

Ambassador Ghanezadeh replied that with the rate of Iran’s current consumption, its oil resources would last approximately 25 – 30 years. Iran was one of the biggest importers of petrol as the country lacked the production capacity to produce its own petrol. In addition the price of petrol was extremely low, about 8 cents a litre, and there was a population of 70 million that added to high consumption. Therefore Iran was not certain of durability of its oil resources.

The Chairperson thanked the Ambassador for thoroughly informing the Committee on the progress of the situation.

The Ambassador thanked the Committee. He hoped that there would another opportunity to speak to the Committee, as he noted that South Africa imported about 60% of its energy from outside. The amount of money South Africa spent on energy could be saved if the country had nuclear technology for future use.

The Chairperson announced that as the report on the oversight visit had just been received, it should be considered and adopted at the next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.