Angelika Beer
MdEP

Rede: "The European Approach to the Iran Nuclear Program"

James-Shasha-Institute/Jerusalem, am 02.06.2005

The spoken word applies!

 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

First of all, let me thank you for your kind invitation and for giving me the opportunity of speaking to this highly respected forum.
Unfortunately I was not able to participate in this interesting conference from the very beginning because of my commitments in the European Parliament.

Primarily I will talk to you in my function as a member of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee of the European Parliament.


Introduction
I think that the organizers of the conference have chosen the right moment to discuss the Iranian nuclear program. In my view, the issue is burning hot ñ as the European engagement tries to find a peaceful solution to this problem as we speak.

I look at Iran's nuclear program as a strategic question in terms of regional stability. That's why we should discuss the issue in a regional context - and I'm, to a certain extent, optimistic that there is still a chance for uniting visions of all parties: Iran, Europe, the US, and Israel.

What we need is a peaceful solution for the ìWider Middle Eastî. This will only be possible if the ongoing negotiations take the fact into account that Israel faces a severe challenge to its security with neighbouring nuclear Iran.
Nevertheless, the actual developments in the Middle East peace process are to be valued positively. With Prime Minister Sharon's plans to withdraw the settlements from Gaza and the new Palestinian Government having already considerably reduced the terrorist attacks I see a possible solution.


The State of Play
However, I see at danger what the European Security Strategy (ESS) considers it's most powerful tool in order to cope with serious threats: Effective Multilateralism!

From my point of view, ESS must remain the rational for ongoing negotiations. In concrete terms this means that we will never accept that Iran possesses nuclear weapons, because we have to prevent the region from a nuclear arms race and an aggravation of conflicts.

From an EU perspective, Iran is getting closer and closer to the EU while Turkey will start negotiating its membership on October 3rd. Iran is becoming what the ESS calls "Neighbourhood", this implying that developments in Iran increasingly affect European security interests. The EU cannot accept a neighbour that has the potential to threaten or blackmail member states as well as other partner countries in the region, including especially Israel.

The ìincentive strategyî that is pushed by France, Great Britain and Germany together with ìHigh Representativeî Solana covers a whole set of important issues. It mainly consists of offering Iran different types of ìcarrotsî for a constructive cooperation with IAEA. The aim is to eliminate every element of the nuclear program that has a dual-use character. There must be total transparency! The European Parliament wants the total stop of enrichment activities in order to prevent Iran from becoming a "virtual nuclear power" - similar to Japan that has the option of building the bomb on a very short notice.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like point out that the EU recognizes Iranís right to build up a nuclear program for civilian purposes. The EU is therefore offering technology transfer in order to help Iran building up light water reactors. Moreover, the EU is engaged in negotiations with Iran in a trade and cooperation agreement (TCA). In cooperation with the US, Europe offered to support the negotiations concerning Iran's WTO-membership.

Last week in Geneva, Iranian chief negotiator Rohani declared that his country is willing to suspend the enrichment program for another two months. From the beginning of August, the EU3 will submit concrete proposals for economic cooperation. That means that the only result the EU3 got out of the last negotiation round will be that the issue is not to be confused with the presidential election. But even this is uncertain up to now. This Monday, the Guardian Council adopted a law that forces the government into implementation of a nuclear program, which comprises the enrichment of uranium.
This is to express our determined demand of absolute control over Iran's nuclear program. Thus we need a strong IAEA having one hundred percent control over the nuclear program. With the NPT-Review Conference in New York having failed, we now suffer from a serious setback, as one of the most urgent reform issues for NPT was to make a much clearer distinction between a civilian program and a program that is able to produce nuclear weapons.

But there is also a link between nuclear talks and the human rights issue in Iran. As a member of the European Parliament, I will have to vote on a possible Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) between the EU and Iran. As parliamentarians, we always made clear that we will not accept Iran's bad human rights record. For considerable improvements in this field, Iran needs to invest seriously in the EU-Iran Human Rights Dialogue that now has been suspended for months.


A Nuclear Iran would be a Threat
For Europe and most of the countries in the region, Iran's nuclear program is a severe threat to security. As we all know, Shahap-3 ballistic missiles have a 1300 km range and thus could reach not only Israel and other countries of the region but also South East Europe. Plus we face even a more serious threat: A nuclear arms race in the ìWider Middle Eastî has the potential of completely destabilizing the region.

Let me say a few words on the Iranian perspective.
Conservatives as well as Reformers perceive their country as being surrounded by a hostile neighbourhood. Russia, Pakistan, Israel and the US all possess outstanding military means. After military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, US- troops are now present very close to the Iranian boarder.

I'm deeply concerned about Iran having both, a civilian and a military nuclear program. And both of those motivations objectives can be considered strategically worthwhile, as they focus on a country's independence, regional role, as well as on its international status.

To me, the very existence of the heavy water reactor in Arak, the poor cooperation with IAEA and the ballistic missile program are strong indicators for this. For military purposes, ballistic missiles as Sahab-3 only make sense in combination with nuclear warheads.

And I assume that even, if the regime will change one day, there is quite some likelihood that a successor regime will continue the nuclear program as long as the nation continues facing multiple insecurities in the region and their international status is not improved. I therefore think that the ongoing negotiations must make an attempt to find a long term solution like the one that was achieved with South Africa's nuclear program.


The Way Ahead
Honestly, I donít think that there is an alternative to the approach adopted by the EU, although it lacks one important element to which I will refer later.

But what did the Europeans receive until know? We got more information (environmental sampling at undeclared sites) on some details of the program and a certain time span, in which Iran promised to suspend its enrichment program (Paris Agreement, Geneva talks).

Even if there is uncertainty with regard to the issue of time, we do need time for continuing the negotiations. Certainly, it is wise to suspend negotiations until beginning of August because of the elections. I hope that whoever leads the next Government after the upcoming elections will be pragmatic and courageous enough to stop the program. But we need to take care of the fact that the relevant know-how in order to be able to build the bomb seems to be a question within a relatively short period of time - that means that every month counts. But I'm not in favour of any ultimatum - we need to maintain the process open with a maximum of transparency.

The big problem of the negotiations between the EU and Iran is that we are lacking a convincing incentive. Trade and light water reactors are important, but not sufficient, if one accepts the strategic dimension of the game.

This special carrot can only be provided by the US. This could be attained by some sort of "Grand Bargain" on a bilateral basis but I think that the risks of failure due to misunderstandings and misperceptions will be high. However, it is extremely counterproductive for the authenticity of the ongoing process to - on one hand discuss WTO-membership and on the other hand preventive military strikes in order to change the regime.

I hope that the US will have sufficient courage to contribute more to the "carrot" approach - it deserves a real chance! - while at the same time being wise enough not to constantly insist in a regime change thinking out loud on military strikes. The latter should definitely not be on the agenda at all. If both, Europe and the US pool their incentives, Iran will not be able to continue its actual strategy of drifting a key between the two.

Thank you.

 

 

---