|
 Council diplomats said the case for sanctions was weak, hinging on
interpretation of ambiguous language in a resolution adopted by the
15-member body last July, part of an historic deal to curb Iran's
nuclear work.
International sanctions on Tehran were lifted in January under the
nuclear deal brokered by Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and
the United States. Diplomats said all six countries agreed the
ballistic missile tests do not violate the core agreement.
However, the Security Council resolution "calls upon" Iran to
refrain for up to eight years from activity, including launches,
related to ballistic missiles designed with the capability of
delivering nuclear weapons.
Key powers agree that request is not legally binding and cannot be
enforced under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which deals with
sanctions and authorization of military force. But Western nations,
which view the language as a ban, say there is a political
obligation on Iran to comply.
Britain said the missile launches show Iran's "blatant disregard"
for the resolution, while France said it was "a case of
non-compliance." The United States initially deemed the tests a
violation, but has softened that stance, calling Iran "in defiance"
of the resolution.
Russia, which has Security Council veto power, says Iran has not
violated the resolution. Russia opposes new U.N. sanctions, but
acknowledged that if the missiles were proven capable of carrying a
nuclear weapon, it could be suggested Tehran has not been
"respectful" of the council.
"A call is different from a ban, so legally you cannot violate a
call, you can comply with a call or you can ignore the call, but you
cannot violate a call," Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said
on Monday. "The legal distinction is there."
Laura Rockwood, former chief of the legal department at the
International Atomic Energy Agency and now head of the Vienna Center
for Disarmament and Nonproliferation, said of the U.N. resolution:
"This was probably a classic case of language negotiated with
'constructive ambiguity' in mind."
In a 2010 resolution, the Security Council decided Iran "shall not"
carry out activity related to ballistic missiles capable of
delivering nuclear weapons - a clear, legal ban.
The United States agreed to soften the language on ballistic
missiles in the July resolution, largely because Russia and China
insisted, diplomats said.
"When you look at your hand, and you can't even bluff ... you fold,"
said a U.S. official.
Despite Russia's opposition to new sanctions, the United States has
vowed to continue pushing for U.N. Security Council action on the
ballistic missile tests. Instead of sanctions, the council could
decide to issue a statement rebuking Iran, not only for the missile
tests, but for threatening another state.
[to top of second column] |
The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards' missile battery said
the missiles tested were designed to be able to hit U.S. ally
Israel. The United States condemned the remarks and Russia said
countries should not threaten each other.
Churkin also argued the U.N. resolution required a heavy burden of
proof that the ballistic missiles were "designed to be capable of
delivering nuclear weapons." The United States and its European
allies are expected to make a technical case to the council about
how Iran failed to abide by the U.N. resolution.
"These were designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.
This merits a council response," U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations, Samantha Power, told reporters on Monday.
According to the International Missile Control Regime, ballistic
missiles are considered nuclear capable if they have a range of at
least 300 km and can carry a payload of up to 500 kg.
Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic
Studies said he did not believe Iran's missile launches were a
violation of the "ambiguous" resolution because the "missiles in
question can't be proven to have been designed to deliver nuclear
weapons."
Iranian officials, including pragmatist President Hassan Rouhani,
insist Tehran's missile program does not violate the nuclear deal or
the U.N. resolution.
"With Russia and China on Iran's side, there will be no resolutions,
sanctions or any action against Iran over its missile or aerospace
programs," said a senior official in Tehran, speaking on condition
of anonymity.
Now that sanctions on Tehran had been lifted, the official said
Western countries were keen to do business in Iran.
"Iran is not being seen as a danger any more even for the Western
countries," the official said. "Iran is like a gold mine for them.
They need us and we need them. So, why endanger this situation?"
(Additional reporting by Arshad Mohammed in Washington, Parisa
Hafezi in Ankara and John Irish in Paris; Editing by David Gregorio)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
