About  |  contact  |  Search  |  RSS
Last Update: 23 Hour and 56 Minute ago
News code: 25512
Published Date: Wednesday 9 May 2018 - 10:55:07
Print 
Iran's HR chief:

Trump's withdrawal 'symbolic'; US never complied with JCPOA

Trump's withdrawal 'symbolic'; US never complied with JCPOA
IRAN  - Head of Iran’s High Council For Human Rights Mohammad Javad Larijani says Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA after Trump’s withdrawal can prove to be ‘a very serious mistake’.

Mohammad Javad Larijani is a senior expert in interior and international affairs and an experienced ex-diplomat at the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Over the past years, he has provided criticisms of Iran's nuclear negotiation process with corrective suggestions which can still be found in the archive of news agencies.

Dr. Larijani is also the chairman of the Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM) which is an advanced public research institute in Tehran, Iran. Tasnim News Agency has conducted a comprehensive interview with Iran's Human Rights Chief Dr. Mohammad Javad Larijani asking his views on Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and possible options available to Iran as well as assessment of the stances taken by the Iranian government. What follows is a detailed description of the interview:

Can Iran benefit from the Iran Nuclear Deal also known as JCPOA in the absence of the US? Are Europe's objections to Trump real or are the two sides, like many other projects, dividing their roles against the Islamic Republic of Iran?

Part of our vulnerability in the JCPOA in an outcome of the treaty itself and is due to the inaccuracy and mistakes made in the context of the deal with regard to the United States and Europe. Of course, by Europe, I mean the three countries present in the agreement, and although the rest of European countries have their share, these three remain as the main actors.

For example, articles 21-26 of the Nuclear Deal specifically refer to US responsibilities in removing sanctions and abuses within the framework of the JCPOA. The point of vulnerability is that we differentiated the US government with other government (federal or local) institutions, and article 25 states that if there is a national or local law that blocks the US government from fulfilling its obligations, then the government of the United States will take all necessary steps to remove these obstacles. The key question is that is which is more important, the result of the efforts or a report on the efforts?

Especially with regard to the imbalance in the deal, Iran was obliged to carry out all obligations immediately, but actions of other parties were gradual and even with ifs and buts. It would have been better to accept the deal under supervision of the Parliament, and the Parliament would allow a gradual method of taking action.

On the other hand, the United States has clearly failed to fulfill important commitments in the JCPOA, but our government has decided not to document these violations of agreement. Some say that the United States has not violated its obligations 'very deeply', or they say otherwise that Americans have acted contrary to their commitment but not in a crystal-clear way! All this was to encourage the United States to stay in the deal, yet it proved to be a very strategic mistake, while we could have documented the slightest breach of promise on the part of the US. We should not have waited for Mr. Trump to decide whether to stay or leave! If the US had the right to withdraw from the agreement, then why did we implement it in the first place?!

The most important question is what will happen if any of the parties to the contract and especially the US pull out? The obvious answer is that, in that case, the JCPOA will no longer exist. This is a very clear issue. The Iran Deal made among seven parties, and it is therefore natural that commitments are for everyone present, and if one side pulls out, the obligations are not fulfilled, but whether countries can withdraw individually or not is another debate. Most importantly, if one of the countries and especially the US withdraw from the agreement, we will no longer be obliged. To make the point vague, some say that it is an international agreement, and a country does not have the right to say whether it abides by the contract or not. I must say that the JCPOA is not as 'international' as it is claimed to be; rather, it is a multilateral agreement approved by the UN Security Council.

An instance of international agreements is the Rio Climate Agreement. In such contracts, the first step is to obtain the necessary approval for the deal, and subsequently the countries are required to comply with the terms of the international agreement. The issue of withdrawal is not at stake in these types of contracts, and this is the rule of international agreements; but the JCPOA is not at all similar to international agreements, and there is no need for arbitrariness; in other words, seven countries are in a contract and are committed to its implementation. .

For example, recently some government officials have claimed that "we will remain in the Deal as long as we have economic gains, while such a claim is completely false in nature. Everyone must be present on the basis of their 'commitments' regardless of the profits and losses that they bear on their commitments, but if the issue of economic benefits is raised, some obligations will go away and countries will be abandoned!

I think the stance of Iran's Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who said, "if Americans tear the contract, we will burn it" is a very prudent point. Americans and any country that wants to get out of the Deal must know that we are no longer committed and there will remain no obligation for Iran. But what are the options left for Iran? The government must clearly state its position, and it would be unfair if Iran considers remaining committed to the agreement while Trump has pulled the US out of the deal.

Of course, elimination of the JCPOA does not mean that we will no longer have nuclear negotiations with the world; if it is over, we can negotiate at a later time, which is, of course, a separate argument. I do not say that we should not have a negotiation, we can negotiate anything, but the JCPOA no longer exists in the current situation. On the other hand, waiting for Mr. Tramp's official announcement on the deal, and then taking an appropriate position is not a suitable approach. The important fact is that the United States clearly and unequivocally acts contrary to the JCPOA. So what are we waiting for? We should announce today and before the dates announced by Trump that, for example, if the United States does not fulfill all its obligations for another month, Iran will all visits and monitoring systems of the International Atomic Energy Agency and if the United States officially declares its withdrawal from the agreement, Iran needs to declare the end of monitoring and resume its suspended activities. And finally, if the catastrophic mechanism of the US triggers UN sanctions, the full exit from the NPT is a very reasonable option.

We should not be afraid of being sanctioned. We have to practice self-medication so that the enemy is sure that we are ready to face sanctions. Several clues indicate that other countries did not fulfill their obligations. Europeans are worse than the Americans, for example, the German government says that "since Americans will boycott us, so we will not comply with the JCPOA." Our response to Germans is that you made the mistake of signing the deal. You could have withdrawn your signature and put the signature of the US instead; in that case, our position would be clearer.

Generally speaking Europeans did not fulfill their commitments; either because of weakness or because of their hostility or both. We have to go ahead with the Deal by taking the right action; otherwise, we be only keeping one broken deal. Therefore, we should not repeat old mistakes and we have to establish a very strong self-reliant system and ignore sanctions.

Another important point is that post-JCPOA era will be totally different from the pre-JCPOA one. Today, we have to make a new statement in the world; everyone is aware of the false claims of the US that Iran is moving towards a nuclear weapon, and we must come up with a new horizon, logic and debate. Now that we have been through grave technical and professional damages, we can launch nuclear negotiations with the world, but negotiations must take place after a long period of time.

We can overcome all possible sanctions, each one has its own way, and a powerful country like Iran must show that the United States cannot restrict us with sanctions.

We should never take military threats seriously since they merely aim to weaken our spirits inside the country and we should not be afraid of them.

HA

News Code: 25512
Published Date: Wednesday 9 May 2018 - 10:55:07
No Comment,Be the first one who comments.
Comments

Name

email  

website

Comment  

Security code [*]: Please enter correct answer in security box.:

 = 7-3