Efforts by the United States to impose stricter sanctions on Iran faltered as members of the Security Council insisted that the Permanent Five were not necessarily the perfect five. Khaled Dawoud reports from the United Nations After the five permanent members of the Security Council concluded their negotiations last week on a new draft resolution imposing stricter sanctions on Iran for its failure to halt enrichment of uranium, observers expected that it would be a cake walk, that the new draft would be immediately adopted by the remaining 10 non- permanent members. After all, that was the case in late December when the council adopted Resolution 1737 after a lengthier round of negotiations that lasted for four months among the veto-yielding powers (the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China). Resolution 1737, adopted by all 15 Security Council members, decided that world countries should not provide Iran with any material that would help it in developing what the United States and Europe believe is a clandestine nuclear weapons programme, mainly through enriching uranium used as fuel for a nuclear bomb. It also froze the assets of several key Iranian institutions and individuals believed to be linked to its nuclear programme. It gave Iran 60 days to comply with the resolution and threatened further sanctions if it did not. Iran refused to halt uranium enrichment, insisting it was its right as a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and claimed it was doing so for only peaceful purposes to produce energy. After a new round of talks that lasted merely three weeks, the five permanent members agreed on a draft resolution that added to the list of institutions and individuals which would be subjected to an assets freeze and which would impose a ban on Iranian weapons exports, and called upon world nations not to sell Iran heavy weaponry, such as tanks, combat aircraft and missiles. South Africa, which joined the Security Council in January together with Indonesia at the beginning of this year, and which chairs the Security Council for this month of March, openly expressed annoyance at the way the United States and other permanents run the Security Council, dealing, it said, with other non- permanent members as a "rubber stamp". However, the situation radically changed after South Africa and Indonesia backed the Iranian camp. "Why do you assume that whatever the Permanent Five produce is written by God or represents God's wisdom," lashed out Dumisani Kumalo, South Africa's permanent representative at the United Nations. South Africa turned the US and European-led draft resolution upside down, proposing instead a package of sweeping amendments that were immediately rejected. Russia and China, which have traditionally taken a harder line in approving the sanctions demanded by the US due to their commercial ties with Iran, could not have been more pleased. South Africa, backed by Security Council members Indonesia and Qatar, raised questions over the wisdom of imposing wide-ranging sanctions not directly related to Iran's alleged weapons programme, which, it said, would only make Tehran adopt a more hard-line position instead of opening the door for negotiations. A three-page proposal presented by South Africa suggested a 90-day time-out that would suspend all sanctions imposed on Iran, both in the new resolution and in 1737. It also opposed adding a longer list of names and institutions annexed to the resolution, including the Iranian bank Sepah and key leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, which the US accuses of backing what it describes as radical groups like Lebanon's Hizbullah and financing operations against US troops in Iraq. Hsan Kleib, Indonesia's deputy permanent representative at the UN, told reporters after an informal round of talks among the Security Council's 15 members on Tuesday that his country not only discussed Iran but the situation in the Middle East in general, and how to create a nuclear-free zone there. That was of course an indirect reference to Israel which has refused to join the NPT though it is now public knowledge that it possess a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons. The surprising opposition led by South Africa, Indonesia and Qatar led the Permanent Five to declare they were ready to accept some amendments to their draft, but nothing close to the proposed South African 90-day time out. In the new draft, which diplomats now expect to be put to a vote either on Saturday or early next week, the United States and European nations warned that new sanctions would be imposed in 60 days if Iran did not comply. The French ambassador representative at the UN, Jean-Marc de la Sablière, told reporters that the South African proposals were "not consistent with our approach to the resolution which is to impose incremental sanctions in order to pressure Iran to comply with the Security Council resolutions." Sablière also pointed out that the new draft clearly states that if Iran suspended enrichment of uranium, the Security Council would also suspend its sanctions. The French representative indicated if no agreement could be reached with South Africa and Indonesia, the new draft would still be put to a vote, and the US and its allies would still be satisfied with a resolution adopted by only 12 or 13 countries. Any resolution needs at least nine votes at the Security Council to be effective. However, the United States has always pushed for consensus in order to show that anti-Iran resolutions were backed by the international community, not only Western countries. The disagreements among the Security Council members added to the excitement that followed the announcement by Iranian President Mahmoud that he would take part in the Security Council session in which voting is expected to take place. The United States announced it would grant and a large entourage visas and that it hoped he would announce in front of the Security Council his compliance with its demands and give up enrichment of uranium. The reaction of an Iranian diplomat in New York: "Wishful thinking."
