Press TV reports:
Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) has issued a declaration in response to a recent UN Security Council resolution against the country.
The following is the full text of the declaration:
In the name of God, the most Gracious and the Merciful
The Islamic Republic of Iran's Declaration in Response to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929
The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1929 on 9 June 2010. Contrary to the expectation of the international community that the new UNSC resolution would condemn Israel's attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla less than ten days before the adoption of the Resolution, the international community saw once again the United States defending the Zionist regime and thus preventing the Security Council from taking any action against the atrocities The Resolution also ignored the final declaration of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference that was adopted just 15 days earlier by 189 countries. This declaration required the Zionist regime to abide by the NPT. But the international community had not seen a single UNSC resolution condemning the nuclear activities of the Zionist regime. Nor has the Council shown any intention of finding out who has provided nuclear weapons to the Zionist regime.
The reason is clear. Some of the permanent members of the Security Council are principal suspects of this proliferation. The subject of Resolution 1929 is not about the concern over production, manufacturing, proliferation or testing of a new generation of nuclear weapons by permanent members of the Security Council. Also there is no reference to 11 proposals by the Islamic Republic of Iran during the NPT Review Conference concerning disarmament and non-proliferation; the same proposals that received a warm response by the international community. The subject of the Resolution, contrary to all expectations, is the peaceful nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which have been demonized on the basis of false accusation that accusations that have not been proven. On the contrary, the last report by the Director General of the IAEA, published only a day before the Resolution, reiterated for the 22nd time that our activities have not diverted from their peaceful objectives.
Those behind the adoption of this Resolution are exposing themselves to the judgment of the international community under circumstances that the world witnessed adoption of Tehran declaration. This was a declaration that openly and clearly called for peaceful nuclear cooperation without any confrontation with regards to the rights of sovereign nations. The United States encouraged Brazil and Turkey to interact with Iran. This is while one month after the adoption of the Tehran declaration, it was welcomed by the 120 members of the Non-Aligned Movement.
The adoption of Resolution 1929 irrespective of the Tehran declaration and the attack on Gaza Freedom Flotilla has proven the righteousness of the viewpoints of the Islamic Republic of Iran:
1. It proves that the Security Council is not a proper forum to uphold the maintenance of international peace and security and a body to secure the rights of nations. It proves that as long as the United States formally regards itself committed to the security of the Zionist regime and continues to support its atrocities, the Security Council is not able to adopt any resolution condemning the many crimes committed by the Zionist regime.
2. It proves that the United States is becoming more and more discredited and distrusted in the world and that not even the slogan of "change" could restore the US administrations long-lost credibility. The international community clearly witnessed the US Presidents willingness to take the credit of other countries under false pretense. This can be judged by the statements made by President of Brazil and the Prime Minister of Turkey, which are now available to the international community.
3. It has proven the United States is the principal offender in using, proliferating, and testing nuclear weapons, and thus poses the greatest threat to the international community and mostly its own people. How can a regime that is not able to contain an oil well be trusted by the world to contain its arsenal of nuclear weapons that jeopardizes global security?
4. It has been proven that the United Stated tries to distract and redirect world public opinion from the real threats by concocting made-up and fictitious threats. The real threats are the direct results of flawed policies by the American regime in stockpiling nuclear weapons and supporting state terrorism.
5. It has been proven that certain monopolist governments are determined to deprive other nations of peaceful nuclear technology and having access to fuel cycle which are clear examples of the "right to development," "right to natural resources" and the "right to self-determination."
Using the opportunity to demonstrate to the public opinion of the world the above-mentioned viewpoints, the Islamic Republic of Iran declares:
1. Entry of the Security Council into the subject relating to peaceful activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran is illegal, unwarranted and contrary to Article 39 of the Charter. It also fully contravenes the organizational and safeguard requirements of the IAEA. The Council needs to take prompt action in redressing and putting right its past mistakes.
2. The Islamic Republic of Iran openly and clearly declares that any action against the lawful and legitimate rights of people of Iran will be responded by reciprocal lawful actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
3. Disappointment of the US administration in receiving the unanimous vote of the members of the Security Council, despite all the unconventional pressure exerted and contacts established by the president, and the fact the international community in the declaration of the Non-Aligned Movement chose not to go along with the will of certain big powers clearly demonstrate the beginning of a new era of international relations to ensure the rights of nations based on justice and respect.
4. We are pleased to see that "Peaceful Nuclear Energy for All, Nuclear Weapons for None" as a human goal, has turned into an opportunity to forge greater cooperation among independent governments and consider it an auspicious phenomenon for defending the fundamental rights of nations. Therefore, we believe that the insistence of the US administration on continuing on the same flawed path is costly, useless and will only result in uncovering the unjust and faulty mask of the Security Council at their own cost and will strengthen the resolve of nations to have fair international relations.
5. The Islamic Republic of Iran emphasizes again the importance of the Tehran declaration as a good foundation for greater solidarity of independent nations in countering the excessive demands by big powers and forging stronger relations for peace, justice and happiness for humankind.
Showing posts with label nuclear proliferation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear proliferation. Show all posts
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons
Chris McGreal reports for The Guardian:
Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state's possession of nuclear weapons.
The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.
The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.
The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa's post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky's request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week's nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.
They will also undermine Israel's attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a "responsible" power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted.
A spokeswoman for Peres today said the report was baseless and there were "never any negotiations" between the two countries. She did not comment on the authenticity of the documents.
South African documents show that the apartheid-era military wanted the missiles as a deterrent and for potential strikes against neighbouring states.
The documents show both sides met on 31 March 1975. Polakow-Suransky writes in his book published in the US this week, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials "formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal".
Among those attending the meeting was the South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong. He immediately drew up a memo in which he laid out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Jericho missiles but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.
The memo, marked "top secret" and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israelis, has previously been revealed but its context was not fully understood because it was not known to be directly linked to the Israeli offer on the same day and that it was the basis for a direct request to Israel. In it, Armstrong writes: "In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: a) That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere."
But South Africa was years from being able to build atomic weapons. A little more than two months later, on 4 June, Peres and Botha met in Zurich. By then the Jericho project had the codename Chalet.
The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: "Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available." The document then records: "Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice." The "three sizes" are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.
The use of a euphemism, the "correct payload", reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons. It can also only have meant nuclear warheads as Armstrong's memorandum makes clear South Africa was interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.
In addition, the only payload the South Africans would have needed to obtain from Israel was nuclear. The South Africans were capable of putting together other warheads.
Botha did not go ahead with the deal in part because of the cost. In addition, any deal would have to have had final approval by Israel's prime minister and it is uncertain it would have been forthcoming.
South Africa eventually built its own nuclear bombs, albeit possibly with Israeli assistance. But the collaboration on military technology only grew over the following years. South Africa also provided much of the yellowcake uranium that Israel required to develop its weapons.
The documents confirm accounts by a former South African naval commander, Dieter Gerhardt – jailed in 1983 for spying for the Soviet Union. After his release with the collapse of apartheid, Gerhardt said there was an agreement between Israel and South Africa called Chalet which involved an offer by the Jewish state to arm eight Jericho missiles with "special warheads". Gerhardt said these were atomic bombs. But until now there has been no documentary evidence of the offer.
Some weeks before Peres made his offer of nuclear warheads to Botha, the two defence ministers signed a covert agreement governing the military alliance known as Secment. It was so secret that it included a denial of its own existence: "It is hereby expressly agreed that the very existence of this agreement... shall be secret and shall not be disclosed by either party".
The agreement also said that neither party could unilaterally renounce it.
The existence of Israel's nuclear weapons programme was revealed by Mordechai Vanunu to the Sunday Times in 1986. He provided photographs taken inside the Dimona nuclear site and gave detailed descriptions of the processes involved in producing part of the nuclear material but provided no written documentation.
Documents seized by Iranian students from the US embassy in Tehran after the 1979 revolution revealed the Shah expressed an interest to Israel in developing nuclear arms. But the South African documents offer confirmation Israel was in a position to arm Jericho missiles with nuclear warheads.
Israel pressured the present South African government not to declassify documents obtained by Polakow-Suransky. "The Israeli defence ministry tried to block my access to the Secment agreement on the grounds it was sensitive material, especially the signature and the date," he said. "The South Africans didn't seem to care; they blacked out a few lines and handed it over to me. The ANC government is not so worried about protecting the dirty laundry of the apartheid regime's old allies."
Original documents in PDF format:
• Declassified memo from General RF Armstrong
• Minutes of third ISSA meeting, 30/6/1975
• Minutes from further ISSA meeting
• Israel-South Africa agreement
• Letter from Shimon Peres, 11/11/1974
Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state's possession of nuclear weapons.
The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.
The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.
The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa's post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky's request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week's nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.
They will also undermine Israel's attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a "responsible" power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted.
A spokeswoman for Peres today said the report was baseless and there were "never any negotiations" between the two countries. She did not comment on the authenticity of the documents.
South African documents show that the apartheid-era military wanted the missiles as a deterrent and for potential strikes against neighbouring states.
The documents show both sides met on 31 March 1975. Polakow-Suransky writes in his book published in the US this week, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials "formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal".
Among those attending the meeting was the South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong. He immediately drew up a memo in which he laid out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Jericho missiles but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.
The memo, marked "top secret" and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israelis, has previously been revealed but its context was not fully understood because it was not known to be directly linked to the Israeli offer on the same day and that it was the basis for a direct request to Israel. In it, Armstrong writes: "In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: a) That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere."
But South Africa was years from being able to build atomic weapons. A little more than two months later, on 4 June, Peres and Botha met in Zurich. By then the Jericho project had the codename Chalet.
The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: "Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available." The document then records: "Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice." The "three sizes" are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.
The use of a euphemism, the "correct payload", reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons. It can also only have meant nuclear warheads as Armstrong's memorandum makes clear South Africa was interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.
In addition, the only payload the South Africans would have needed to obtain from Israel was nuclear. The South Africans were capable of putting together other warheads.
Botha did not go ahead with the deal in part because of the cost. In addition, any deal would have to have had final approval by Israel's prime minister and it is uncertain it would have been forthcoming.
South Africa eventually built its own nuclear bombs, albeit possibly with Israeli assistance. But the collaboration on military technology only grew over the following years. South Africa also provided much of the yellowcake uranium that Israel required to develop its weapons.
The documents confirm accounts by a former South African naval commander, Dieter Gerhardt – jailed in 1983 for spying for the Soviet Union. After his release with the collapse of apartheid, Gerhardt said there was an agreement between Israel and South Africa called Chalet which involved an offer by the Jewish state to arm eight Jericho missiles with "special warheads". Gerhardt said these were atomic bombs. But until now there has been no documentary evidence of the offer.
Some weeks before Peres made his offer of nuclear warheads to Botha, the two defence ministers signed a covert agreement governing the military alliance known as Secment. It was so secret that it included a denial of its own existence: "It is hereby expressly agreed that the very existence of this agreement... shall be secret and shall not be disclosed by either party".
The agreement also said that neither party could unilaterally renounce it.
The existence of Israel's nuclear weapons programme was revealed by Mordechai Vanunu to the Sunday Times in 1986. He provided photographs taken inside the Dimona nuclear site and gave detailed descriptions of the processes involved in producing part of the nuclear material but provided no written documentation.
Documents seized by Iranian students from the US embassy in Tehran after the 1979 revolution revealed the Shah expressed an interest to Israel in developing nuclear arms. But the South African documents offer confirmation Israel was in a position to arm Jericho missiles with nuclear warheads.
Israel pressured the present South African government not to declassify documents obtained by Polakow-Suransky. "The Israeli defence ministry tried to block my access to the Secment agreement on the grounds it was sensitive material, especially the signature and the date," he said. "The South Africans didn't seem to care; they blacked out a few lines and handed it over to me. The ANC government is not so worried about protecting the dirty laundry of the apartheid regime's old allies."
Original documents in PDF format:
• Declassified memo from General RF Armstrong
• Minutes of third ISSA meeting, 30/6/1975
• Minutes from further ISSA meeting
• Israel-South Africa agreement
• Letter from Shimon Peres, 11/11/1974
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
