Talks Focus on 20 Percent Enrichment, Its Purpose
November 2nd, 2013 - by Sara Massoumi
The second round of negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 in the 11th administration led by Hassan Rohani and with the presence of Mohammad Javad Zarif as Foreign Minister is going to be held on the 9th and 10th of November in Geneva. Under conditions where Iran’s nuclear negotiations have been taken out of the hands of the National Security Council and handed over to the Foreign Ministry, it seems that a considerably positive atmosphere has created hopes for both sides to agree within a specific timetable. In the first round of negotiations which took place on October 15th and 16th, the two sides issued a joint statement for the first time and, of course, reiterated that the context of these negotiations will remain confidential. In this regard, Iranian Diplomacy has spoken with Jack Straw, Britain’s former Foreign Secretary and one of the members present in the first period of negotiations between Tehran and the West between 2003 and 2005. Jack Straw, who is a member of the Labor Party in the British Parliament and somewhat belongs to the opposition of the new administration, has, since the first days of Hassan Rohani’s victory in the presidential election, reiterated the need for the West’s assurance to Iran’s new administration and the efficiency of the new team in nuclear negotiations. Between 1997 and 2010, Jack Straw was continuously present in the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and always emphasized that due to Iran’s cultural background, the West must treat this country with respect.
Back in 2003, you initiated the negotiation with Iran over its nuclear program along with France and Germany. Now after 10 years since the beginning of the negotiations, we see more groups showing up at the P5+1 talks. Don't you think that with the new players in the nuclear negotiations, it would be more difficult to reach an agreement?
I think it is sensible for the main negotiations to be handled by the P5 and Germany. The E3 started the negotiations, but because the Americans were crucial to secure some of the concessions we wanted to make, we all had to negotiate behind ourselves as well. So I think it's sensible to have the Americans in the room and, for example, if there is to be a lifting of the UN sanctions, the Security Council sanctions, America has to be involved.
Do you think Iran's policy and the Supreme Leader's fatwa on nuclear weapons is efficient and impressive enough to put an end to the West's concerns?
The declaration by the Supreme Leader and the fatwa and the continuing denial by the president of Iran that they have nuclear ambitions are important but they're not going to be sufficient in and of themselves to resolve the problems between Iran and the international community. That's because of two things. One is that Iran has, I'm afraid, a history of not being completely open with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and that's really the basis for some of the sanctions. The second is that because Iran insisted on enriching to 20 percent uranium that raises various questions about the reason why Iran needs uranium at a level of enrichment that I don't think has many uses in civil nuclear application. So that's the difficulty. Certainly the fact that Iran at the highest level has eschewed nuclear weapons is helpful.
When we look back at Iran-Europe negotiations, Iran once temporarily suspended enrichment as a confidence-building measure. But the problem is that Europe pressures Iran to put an end to its nuclear program. Today Iran has passed that stage and now is capable of enriching 20 percent uranium while holding 18000 centrifuges. At this point how can you balance the West's old demands and Iran's capability at the present time?
This level of uranium enrichment is one of the key points at the heart of the negotiations. I'm not one of the negotiators so I can only speak personally and I'd be grateful if you could make that clear. I'm a member of the opposition in the British Parliament. I think that there is a clear recognition, certainly by the United Kingdom and actually by John Kerry, of Iran's right to civil nuclear and civil application for nuclear power, and in principle the corresponding right to enrichment for those purposes. So I think the negotiations are to some extent focused on 20 percent enrichment, what is its purpose and can that be under some kind of international scrutiny. The crucial thing here is that the international community will need to be reassured that a nuclear weapon is not being pursued by the Islamic Republic. Personally I think that with willingness on both sides, the issue is capable of a resolution without undermining Iran's undoubted right, under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to a civil nuclear program.
How much do you think the ongoing debates on the UK and Iran exchanging non-resident chargés d'affaires are effective on détente between the two countries? In your opinion what steps should the two countries take in order to restore their relations to the highest level?
I think a useful start has been made including the two meetings that were held between Dr. Zarif and the British Foreign Secretary William Hague at the United Nations General Assembly. I was not at these meetings, but I think they were helpful. There is now a program of confidence-building, it's been agreed that, as you know, the two countries should exchange non-resident chargés d’affaires, which is an important step. I hope that we can pretty quickly reopen our embassies.
The Iranians believe that during these years the West has humiliated them in different ways. Do you think that the West is willing to speak the language of respect instead of the language of sanctions?
Well, I hope so. That is something that I repeatedly emphasize in all my writings and speeches about Iran - that we will not make any progress unless the West is able to show respect towards Iran. We also have to see Iran's position from how the West appears in Iran to the Iranians.