In his speech, President Ahmadinejad suggested ways for reforming the NPT and adopting transparent and binding mechanisms to monitor major nuclear weapons states such as the United States`.
Q: What did you think about the statement made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the NPT Review Conference?
A: From my point of view, the speech by President Ahmadinejad today was a turning point in the meetings held so far at the NPT Review Conference.
First of all the participation by the Iranian delegation at the most senior level and also the fact that President Ahmadinejad was the most senior official to take part in the meeting are among the noteworthy points to be considered. The views expressed by president Ahmadinejad in the meeting have been unique and his speech marked a turning point having adopted two approaches to dealing with the major shortcomings inherent in the NPT.
Firstly, we managed to restore vigor to the NPT; we played a leading role in this regard, aimed at creating balance. On the one hand, we paid attention to article VI of the treaty that focuses on disarmament and also article IV and such a balance can, in fact, prevent the NPT from taking a discriminatory stance. This is a treaty that has the most important role with respect to global peace and security.
The second point was that president Ahmadinejad actually reviewed the consequences of such an imbalance and discrimination in the international system by actually focusing on the harm caused by this. At the same time countries that were the major violators of the treaty are today trying to show that they want to contribute to global peace, it's a paradox. This is a paradoxical move. President Ahmadinejad offered some solutions in order to eliminate such a paradoxical approach and at the same time take a practical step toward strengthening the international system and the NPT.
Q: The United States, France and Britain walked out when president Ahmadinejad referred to Israel during his speech. What is your reaction to that?
A: Well, this conference is a forum in order to hear views by experts. In fact, this is not a forum to just see some people dictate their views and at the same time others just listen to what they say and obey their orders. It was just an exchange of views among experts. This shows that the counties that you mentioned have not come to the conference with such an approach.
This shows the lack of the required patience and logic that experts should have. What president Ahmadinejad said was that the subject experts just focus upon and this is useful for dealing with the issue of the NPT. The attitude and the performance by those countries who claim to be advocates of democracy and consider their behavior to be based on scientific logic proves that they do not follow such logic.
Q: President Ahmadinejad echoed the demand of NAM envoys when he said that the US and its allies are trying to deprive developing nations of nuclear technology and at the same time turning a blind eye toward Israel's nuclear capability. Could you explain that for us?
A: I think one of the outcomes of president Ahmadinejad's participation in the meeting and the statement he made is that president Ahmadinejad not only defends Iran's right but he also represented over one hundred countries that are members of the Non-Aligned Movement, countries that, due to different pressures and a variety of reasons, did not have the might to express their views so courageously and transparently and call for their rights.
The viewpoint mentioned by President Ahmadinejad was shared by Non-Aligned members. Those countries will at some time go through and tread the very path that Iran is now going through. Countries such as Brazil, Algeria and Indonesia, these are the countries that are treading the same path and, in fact, they are concerned with restoring their nuclear rights so as to contribute to their country's economic and social development.
So, if Iran is deprived of its nuclear rights then those countries will probably also be deprived of their rights when the time comes, however, Iran's success will be the success by the Non-Aligned countries and they can go on with the same path as Iran. This was one of the major features of President Ahmadinejad's speech.
Q: Iran has proposed a fact-finding committee be established by the IAEA to investigate and monitor Israel's nuclear activities. What can be done to make that a reality?
A: This issue can be considered from two perspectives. The IAEA must actually perform its duties in the best way possible. If we just take a look back at what has happened with respect to Iran's nuclear dossier you will realize that the IAEA has not actually been able to fulfill its duties very well. The IAEA chief has announced that no diversion has been observed in Iran's nuclear program and that IAEA monitoring indicates a lack of diversion but at the same time you see two days after the last report by ElBaradei, Iran's dossier was sent to the UNSC and a resolution is issued against Iran.
Today we should force the usurper regime of Israel to join the NPT. Those members of the NPT who will also be members of the IAEA have to take into account the IAEA protocols and safeguards. They must comply with those safeguards. That will later bring about IAEA inspections, and then they will ask Israel how it has managed to gain access to nuclear weapons and that it should move in line with objectives for creating a nuclear free Middle East.
The New York conference is a conference attended by experts. In fact, experts' views must be quite rightly taken into account. You see that certain countries leave the conference hall {during Iran's speech}; so where is the common ground of logic in that? Iran has offered proposals, and of course the proposals have been made by experts, the other parties must also have their own form of logic. Yet you see that they did not show that common logic in their actions.
Q: So how likely is it that the NPT can even come out with a declaration in this NPT review conference?
A: Whenever NPT conferences have been held in the past, efforts have been made in order to create a balance with respect to provisions of the NPT in order to come out an instrument. But due to the lack of expertise, the previous NPT conferences have failed and if the conference does not manage to lead to consensus on the issuance of the instrument ', I think no instrument will be issued. In 1995 when this treaty became permanent, there was a global consensus at that time. It is a treaty on the basis of global consensus which should be present among all the parties involved with the NPT. There is a one month timetable to be adhered to, but with respect to the ongoing condition, I think no document will be issued.
Q: There is speculation that when it comes to declarations involving the US, Israel or Iran, political motives are usually involved. The ultimate goal here is, for the greater good of mankind, the reduction of nuclear arsenals that threaten human existence. How much politicization do you think will be behind the outcome of the conference?
A: As an expert who has been working in the field of disarmament, I think that through a political approach, efforts have been made to eliminate and prevent any transparency. This is an important point and you see that right now. Certain countries are technically known as countries in position of nuclear weapons.
The international system has become a hierarchical system and you see that these countries consider themselves to be superior to others due to their possession of a nuclear arsenal. In order to maintain such a hierarchy in the international global system, only scenarios with the desired out come and political gains are considered.
One of the important issues with respect to disarmament is preventing the circulation of news concerning the nuclear issue. There is little knowledge about disarmament related subjects in the international system. What was raised by President Ahmadinejad was just a new topic but some countries did not even dare to think about it let alone raising it in such conferences because raising such topics would actually disturb and eliminate the existing status quo.
President Ahmadinejad said that if Mr Obama is honest and wants to make changes as an international player the existing equation must change, the approach must undergo a change regarding this nuclear issue and we should move toward real disarmament.
Today, the US, a clear violator of the NPT and can be considered a criminal because it has contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and even threatens other countries under the pretext of nuclear terrorism. It is unprecedented to see a country threatening NPT members and this is a blunder perpetrated by Mr Obama.
Q: The START II Treaty was signed by the US but the Senate has not ratified it as we see there are still budgets that have been approved to maintain its nuclear stockpiles. What is the US looking for in this regard?
A: The START II Treaty was nothing more than the START I Treaty. In the START I Treaty, the aim was to reduce the arsenals of the US and Russia to 1,770 but we see that the US has more than 9,000 warheads and Russia has more than 13,000. And in START II it was predicted to reduce those to 2,552 and you see that they want to just set aside 225 warheads just because their life span has been expired and they can lead to security dangers and threats. For this reason, they just want to destroy these warheads and at the same time they are after just renewing and renovating the weapons.
This shows that they never want to make a change to the nuclear stockpiles. It is difficult today to speak of the changes created in the international system and the application of nuclear weapons. The US claims that it is moving from 'deterrent aggression' to 'deterrent defense' but you detect that in the new NPR (the Nuclear Posture Review) the US is threatening Iran with nuclear weapons and this is in contrast to what Americans are claiming and which the NPT does not allow.
Q: In continuation of what you just stated, UN Chief Ban Ki-moon tells Iran to comply, but in essence, he is showing bias in favor of the United States because it is the one that has directly threatened Iran with nuclear weapons.
A: Mr. Ban Ki-moon till today has not really acted as the UN chief and he, as the main host of the meeting, said something at the session and the Iranian president had to respond to him. And there was some propaganda claiming that Iran is making a bomb and you see that the Iranian president announced that we are always ready for a swap and that we had already voiced preparedness for the swap process. And in fact the propaganda is aimed at deceiving public opinion.
Unfortunately, the current US government does not pay attention to the interests of the American people. Even American officials adopt approaches contrary to the American people's interests. And the American people's interests have been victimized to protect those of Israel.
Q: Is there going to be a move towards formulating a kind of strategy that makes it possible for developing countries to enjoy the benefits of this technology?
A: This is my personal view. I believe that if we manage to implement article VI of the NPT so that major powers would just destroy their weapons. Then we have to strengthen article IV under which members of the NPT must take steps in line with acquiring peaceful nuclear energy.
Developing states must receive assistance to acquire peaceful nuclear know-how. Peaceful nuclear energy will reduce environmental pollution and, the second point is tha,t the cost related to acquiring energy will be reduced fourfold.
In fact, we are bringing the international community into a global contribution in order to increase productivity and also contribute to sustainable security in the international system. Nuclear weapons have no place in the world since no one can use nuclear weapons and all powers owning A- bombs have to destroy their warheads.
As proposed by President Ahmadinejad these powers cannot oversee the reduction or elimination of nuclear arsenals themselves. Other countries must create a mechanism for monitoring to force major powers to take practical steps in line with disarmament.
In article VI, negotiations have been envisaged but no practical step has been taken and START II Treaty was an example. In this regard, the two former superpowers held talks and within a few hours Mr Medvedev adopted a stance and that stance somehow undermined the agreement reached between Russia and the US.
source : abna.ir
