A few days ago, on 16 November, it was announced that Iran had reached agreement with France, Germany and the United Kingdom, "with the support of the High Representative of the European Union", on various matters related to the pursuit of the goal of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Our movement and government welcome this agreement, and believe that it provides the correct basis for the final resolution of the matter that has been at issue, focused on Iran.
In terms of the agreement, the parties reaffirmed their commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The Western countries and the EU expressed their recognition of the rights of Iran arising from its membership of the NPT, "exercised in conformity with its obligations under the Treaty, without discrimination."
The statement went on to say: "Iran reaffirms that, in accordance with Article II of the NPT, it does not and will not seek to acquire nuclear weapons. It commits itself to full cooperation and transparency with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). Iran will continue to implement the Additional Protocol voluntarily, pending ratification."
It further said: "To build further confidence, Iran has decided, on a voluntary basis, to continue and extend its suspension to include all enrichment related and reprocessing activities, and specifically: the manufacture and import of gas centrifuges and their components; work to undertake any plutonium separation, or to construct or operate any plutonium separation installation; and all tests or production at any uranium conversion installation."
Accordingly, the IAEA has been invited to verify and monitor the voluntary suspension undertaken by Iran. It has also been agreed that further negotiations will take place "with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on long term arrangements. The agreement will provide objective guarantees that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes. It will equally provide firm guarantees on nuclear, technological and economic cooperation and firm commitments on security issues." These negotiations will begin during December 2004.
Our government has kept regular contact with all the countries engaged in the discussions that led to the announcements to which we have just referred. We have been very concerned that the dispute relating to Iran should be solved without confrontation. Apart from anything else, we were and are convinced that such a confrontation would further undermine global peace and the possibility of reducing global tension, against the interests of all countries and peoples.
Addressing a September 2004 meeting of the Board of the IAEA, the representative of our government on the Board said: "South Africa is concerned that we should not seek the path of confrontation but that of negotiation. We would call on all involved to co-operate in good faith so that this matter can be resolved in a manner that will contribute to maintaining the solidarity of the Board and the strengthening of the Agency."
The discussions over the Iran matter had to address two important matters, among others. One of these concerned the need for Iran to assure the international community that in keeping with its obligations under the NPT, it does not have any programmes aimed at the production of nuclear weapons. The other concerned the protection of the rights of Iran granted by the same NPT.
With regard to these two matters, our government representative speaking at the same September 2004 IAEA Board meeting to which I have referred, said:
"South Africa has always held the view that States have the responsibility of building confidence with the international community so as to remove any legitimate concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation. This requires transparency and full co-operation with the Agency. In this regard, South Africa welcomes the report by the Director General (of the IAEA) to the effect that the Agency has been able to verify Iran's suspension of enrichment related activities at specific facilities and sites, and has also been able to confirm that it has not observed, to date, any activities at those locations inconsistent with Iran voluntary decision.
"In terms of confidence-building measures, South Africa wishes to reiterate, once again, that it cannot support unwarranted restrictions on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) guaranteed access to such capabilities for peaceful purposes by States that are fully compliant with their obligations under the NPT. The imposition of additional restrictive measures on some NPT States, while allowing others to have access to these capabilities, only serves to exacerbate existing inequalities that are already inherent in the NPT and undermines one of the central bargains that are contained in the Treaty."
The 16 November statement to which we have referred addresses both these issues. The permanent agreement that will be negotiated from next month will also have to respect both these positions. We will also make certain that we follow these negotiations as well.
Some may think these matters should be of distant concern to us, and thus that we should leave them entirely to others to resolve. This would be an entirely mistaken view. Apart from anything else, our government serves on the Board of the IAEA. This body has Treaty obligations to address the Iran affair, and has been doing so. Necessarily, therefore, as Members of the Board with other countries, we have been involved in discussions relating to this matter.
But the issue goes beyond this. For many decades, from the 1950s, our movement has been an active opponent of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). From those early post-War years, we became part of the global peace movement that demanded complete nuclear disarmament, peaceful coexistence among the nations and the resolution of conflicts through negotiations.
Because, from the very beginning, our struggle was about saving lives, an objective that has found its place in our national Constitution, which includes the right to life, our movement was appalled by the threat to human existence posed by the use of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Like the rest of humanity, our people had also witnessed the carnage caused by these weapons when the United States dropped them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan towards the end of the Second World War.
We attended the Afro-Asian Bandung Conference of 1955, which gave birth to the non-aligned movement. As we all know, this movement defined the countries of the South as non-aligned between the Western and Eastern power blocks, both of which had nuclear weapons. It called for nuclear disarmament and the redirection of the resources that would thus be saved to the task of defeating poverty and underdevelopment.
The apartheid regime opposed these positions. Determined to perpetuate the apartheid system at all costs, it engaged in an extensive programme to equip itself with the whole spectrum of weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical and biological. As the democratic revolution was approaching its victory, the regime was still working hard to develop the missiles that would be needed to deliver these weapons to their targets - the African countries that were united in the opposition to the apartheid system and their support for our movement and struggle.
As it became ever clearer that our national liberation movement would emerge victorious, the apartheid regime and those in the rest of the world who had assisted it to develop the weapons of mass destruction, decided that the democratic government should not inherit these weapons. The regime therefore felt obliged to carry out the programme of complete disarmament for which our movement had campaigned for many decades.
Despite the obviously racist impulse that drove this decision, our movement nevertheless supported the complete destruction of the weapons of mass destruction that the apartheid regime had manufactured and accumulated. We supported the accession to the NPT and the Conventions governing the control and elimination of chemical and biological weapons.
Before our liberation in 1994, the US Government engaged our movement in discussions aimed at persuading us to discontinue the programme for the production of the missiles the apartheid regime had intended to use for the delivery of the WMDs.
We agreed to this and kept our side of the bargain. The US Government had undertaken to provide the new democratic government in our country with the resources we would need to ensure the redeployment to other high-tech projects of the scientists, engineers and technicians who had been involved in the missile development programme. Sadly and regrettably, the US Government never gave us a single cent of the money it had promised, which necessarily impacted negatively on the development of science and technology in our country.
Because of our unwavering commitment to the objective of the elimination of WMDs, and our constant pursuit of the objective of the resolution of conflicts by peaceful means, we also intervened to help find a peaceful solution to the crisis that finally led to the 2003 Iraq war. Our government dispatched to Baghdad the team of experts who had handled the disarmament programme in our country, including the discontinuation of the missile programme.
Over a number of days this team interacted with the Iraqi team working with the UN Weapons Inspectors and the IAEA. Our people advised their Iraqi counterparts of the work they would have to do to satisfy the Inspectors, the UN Security Council and the rest of the world that they were cooperating fully and unreservedly with the Inspectors in a manner that would enable these Inspectors accurately to verify whether Iraq had WMDs or not.
Subsequently we sent a report to the UN Secretary General indicating the extent of the work that had been done by our team and our conviction that Iraq was ready to cooperate unreservedly with the UN Weapons Inspectors, hopefully to their satisfaction. Unfortunately this advice was ignored. Had it been respected, it would not have required a war to establish that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
This time round, the Government of Iran has also given an undertaking that it has no intention to produce nuclear weapons, and has committed itself to cooperate with the IAEA to enable this Agency to monitor compliance with this undertaking.
As early as 1997, the Foreign Minister of Iran, Kamal Kharrazi, had said: "We are certainly not developing an atomic bomb, because we do not believe in nuclear weapons.We believe in and promote the idea of the Middle East as a region free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. But why are we interested to develop nuclear technology? We need to diversify our energy sources. In a matter of a few decades, our oil and gas reserves would be finished and therefore we need access to other sources of energy. Furthermore, nuclear technology has many other utilities in medicine and agriculture."
Ironically, it was Iran under the Shah that was interested in developing nuclear weapons. As part of this, Anthony H. Cordesman of the US Centre for Strategic and International Studies has reported that "in 1976, Iran signed a secret contract to buy $700 million worth of yellow cake from South Africa, and appears to have reached an agreement to buy up to 1,000 metric tons a year. It is unclear how much of this ore South Africa shipped before it agreed to adopt IAEA export restrictions in 1984, and whether South Africa really honoured such export restrictions. Some sources indicate that South Africa still made major deliveries as late as 1988-1989. Iran also tried to purchase 26.2 kilograms of highly enriched uranium; the application to the US for this purchase was pending when the Shah fell."
The Foreign Minister of Iran, Kamal Kharrazi, pointed to an important element in the consideration of the matter of non-proliferation of WMDs in the Persian and Arabian Gulfs when he said, "We believe in and promote the idea of the Middle East as a region free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction."
Israel has developed nuclear weapons, at one stage in collaboration with apartheid South Africa, arguing that it needs these weapons to deter attacks by the Arab countries. Its determination to maintain a monopoly in this regard was confirmed by its destruction of the Iraqi Osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981. The suggestion is made constantly that other countries in the region will always consider it necessary to develop their own nuclear weapons, to achieve a strategic balance relative to Israel. Fears and allegations about Iranian intentions to develop nuclear weapons arise from this proposition.
Scepticism about Iran's commitment not to produce nuclear weapons was stated as recently as Thursday, 18 November. An editorial in the 'International Herald Tribune' said: "Nobody knows whether Iran is really ready to give up its ambitions to have nuclear weapons.For now, there is no real assurance that Iran is not secretly moving ahead with enrichment experiments at a still secret location."
It is precisely this kind of speculation, driven by one strategic goal or another, whether stated or not, that led to the 2003 Iraq war. What is required is that the December negotiations on Iran should commence, based on the framework contained in the 16 November statement, which includes Iran's right to peaceful uses of nuclear technology. It is also necessary that these negotiations should respect the critically important principle and practice of multilateralism, in this case represented by the IAEA.
It is also vital that the fundamental cause of the conflict in the Middle East should be removed. This is the denial to the Palestinians of their right to an independent state of Palestine, as well as the final settlement of the conflicts between Israel and other Arab countries. As part of this process, Israel must also be guaranteed its existence and safety, within internationally recognised and secure borders. With the removal of these sources of conflict, there would be no need for any country in the region to arm itself with WMDs.
The 16 November statement also says: "Irrespective of progress on the nuclear issue, the European3/EU and Iran confirm their determination to combat terrorism, including the activities of Al Qa'ida and other terrorist groups such as the MeK. They also confirm their continued support for the political process in Iraq aimed at establishing a constitutionally elected government."
These commitments indicate the complex interconnections among the various issues facing the peoples of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. They emphasise the importance of working for inclusive negotiated agreements that respect the legitimate sovereign interests of all the countries concerned, as well as the imperative to reduce regional and global conflicts and tensions.
Next year the international community will convene once again at the five-yearly Review Conference of the NPT. Important as the issue on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is, it will be necessary that the world community should once again focus on the challenge of nuclear disarmament.
The situation should not be allowed to continue that the Nuclear Weapons States oblige everybody merely to focus on the issue of non-proliferation, while completely ignoring the demand of the overwhelming majority of humanity for the complete abolition of WMDs, an objective which our country has already achieved.
