|
Disarmament DocumentationBack to Disarmament Documentation 'I then made it absolutely clear that I could envisage no circumstances in which military action would be justified', UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw MP on Iran, November 9, 2004International Atomic Energy Agency 9 Nov 2004 : Column 685 2. Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): What recent discussions he has had with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The United Kingdom is actively involved in the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I meet its director, Dr. el-Baradei, from time to time. Currently, the agency's main 9 Nov 2004 : Column 686 focus is Iran. Over the weekend, senior officials from the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the European Union met Iranian officials in Paris. They negotiated a draft text designed to give us confidence that Iran is not developing its most sensitive nuclear technologies while we seek to agree long-term arrangements for Iran's nuclear power programmes. I very much hope that the Government of Iran accept the draft, including the need for a full suspension of uranium enrichment and reprocessing and all related activities. Mr. Heath: I welcome the terms of the Paris agreement. What is the status of the agreement, and does the Foreign Secretary expect all parties to accept it at Head of Government level before the 25 November meeting of the IAEA? Will the message that the Prime Minister will take to President Bush be that of Li Zhaoxing, the Chinese Foreign Minister-namely that reference of Iran to the United Nations at this stage would only complicate matters? Most important, will the Foreign Secretary confirm his statement that he could foresee no circumstances in which the United Kingdom could support military action against Iran by the United States? Mr. Straw: I am happy to confirm what I said. I preceded it with the statement that I knew of no suggestions emanating from the United States of any idea of military action, but I then made it absolutely clear that I could envisage no circumstances in which military action would be justified, and that it formed no part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The text of the agreement is a draft text ad referendum to capitals. The three Governments-France, Germany and the United Kingdom-have agreed the text, and we now look to the Government of Iran to agree it as well. It provides a way through for all sides. On the issue of reference to the UN Security Council, in October 2003 an agreement was reached in Tehran whereby we provided a process for Iran to rectify its previous failure to comply with its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. In return, we agreed not to refer the matter to the Security Council-provided that Iran suspended all uranium enrichment, reprocessing and related activities. We have repeatedly made it clear to the Iranian Government that the E3-the three European Governments-and the European Union reserve the right to refer the matter to the Security Council if that requirement is not met. Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) (Lab): In the context of the discussions with the IAEA, can my right hon. Friend say a little more about press reports suggesting that the UK is to support the construction of a light water reactor in Iran in return for their abandoning their weapons programme? Is that part of a programme to create a nuclear-free zone in the middle east? If that is to be the way forward, how will he go about giving the Israelis an incentive to come on board? Mr. Straw: All non-nuclear weapons states that are signatories to the non-proliferation treaty have a right under article IV of the NPT to develop, research 9 Nov 2004 : Column 687 and produce nuclear power. A light water reactor is obviously one important way of doing that, and there have indeed been informal discussions with the Iranians about the provision of technology in that regard. One reason why we believe it very important that this agreement be reached is so that there can be complete confidence that the Iranians' nuclear research and technology programme is directed only to the peaceful production of nuclear energy, and that any possibility that they are using it to develop a nuclear weapons programme is eliminated. On Israel, yes, it is our policy for there to be a nuclear weapons-free middle east, and we look to Israel-as we look to India and Pakistan-to sign up to the non-proliferation treaty. Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): The Ayatollah Khamenei in particular made great play of the fact that Iran is an emerging democracy with presumably peaceful intent, but those assurances are not worth much until the Iranians give full account of their nuclear invoices to the IAEA. Surely they cannot have it both ways. Mr. Straw: We made it clear to Iran that the whole international community, who have agreed successive resolutions by consensus through the IAEA board of governors, expects it to enable them to have full confidence about the nature of its intentions. The Iranians say that they have no intentions or programme leading to the development and use of nuclear weapons; what we have to have is proof. Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): While I accept that Israel is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, and taking into account what the Secretary of State has just said, does he believe that it would be good if IAEA inspectors visited Israel to examine, and report back on, the full extent and truth of its nuclear programme? Mr. Straw: Israel, like India and Pakistan, is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, but as I have already made clear to the House, we believe that it should be, and that it should then be subject to the normal safeguards and agreements laid down by the NPT itself. Source: House of Commons, Official Report, http://www.parliament.uk. © 2003 The Acronym Institute. |