MP’s Letter to Kofi Annan
The full text of the letter follows. Dear Mr. Kofi Annan,
I, as a representative of the Iranian nation, was going to write a letter to a representative of the people of a country whose government considers itself to be the owner of the world and claims to be spearheading democracy, its values, and manifestations but should be held accountable for the prevailing chaotic situation in the world. And this was before hearing the unexpected news of the IAEA issuing a resolution against Iran calling on the Islamic Republic to suspend all its peaceful nuclear programs and setting a deadline for the immediate signing of the 93+2 Protocol of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) –- a resolution employing the toughly worded rhetoric used by certain countries against Iran in recent months.
Of course, writing a letter to the representative of a country that has regretfully based its foreign policy on coercion and humiliation of other states and has spared no hostile policy in its animosity toward the Islamic Republic over the past two decades is against the current moral beliefs of Iran.
Still, the almost moderate positions of certain members of the U.S. Congress and Senate who have repeatedly expressed willingness to enter talks with the representatives of the Iranian nation was a good motivation to write this open letter in the name of God and address it to those U.S. representatives hoping that I may inform them, as well as the American nation, of the logic and rightfulness of Iranians regarding an issue which is strongly disputed between Iran and the U.S. and certain Western states. I thought this could also prevent abandoning international rules and global norms for the extremist policies of President George W. Bush and the atrocity which is thus carried out against free and independent states.
However, I refused to send the letter after I realized that in today’s world even the most powerful and independent countries turn a blind eye to the most basic principles of international law and issue a resolution which overlooks the least international standards to threaten the sovereignty and independence of a country for their illegitimate demands.
I hope that you, as the secretary general of the United Nations, would convey the voice of the Iranian nation to the representatives of the American nation as well as the representatives of other countries.
As you know, nuclear technology is used for generating energy, with thousands of times the output of fossil resources. Besides, fossil fuel energy resources are not permanent and will end one day. This has encouraged countries to struggle to develop nuclear technology to satisfy their energy needs.
There is no doubt that nuclear technology lays the groundwork for any country to use it for military purposes, as well. This has made the world’s major powers use all facilities within the framework of international treaties to develop nuclear military capabilities to maintain their dominance in the world and prevent possible threats from other countries.
In fact, the goal of treaties such as nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), and the additional protocol to the NPT is to control the military ability of other countries and to maintain lasting security and nuclear superiority for the Zionist regime in the Middle East. Iran signed the NPT in 1967 on condition that the signatory parties provide it with the three following prerequisites: - Making the Middle East a nuclear-free zone - Establishing four nuclear power plants like the Bushehr Plant - Receiving nuclear technology from the drafters of the NPT However, it is regrettable that certain signatory parties of the NPT have failed to observe the commitments of the treaty by continuing the nuclear arms race, helping the Zionist regime to develop nuclear capabilities and adopting a biased attitude toward the Islamic Republic. This has made us declare:
1- Iran’s membership in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is to be regarded as suspended or terminated because of violations of the treaty and the failure to materialize the prerequisites for signing the treaty. This is in line with the contents of Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
2- There have been major changes in circumstance in Iran and the world since Tehran signed up to the NPT in 1967. Therefore, according to Part 1 of Article 61, and parts 1, 2 and 3 of Article 62 of the convention, and by taking into account that the subjects that were mandatory for implementing the NPT have changed, Iran reserves the right to declare the impossibility of implementing its commitments toward the treaty and proclaim as suspended or terminated its membership in the treaty. The Islamic Republic can at least use Part 1 of Article 10 of the NPT to pull out of the treaty because of the recent IAEA resolution that has challenged Iran's interests.
3- Adopting a biased decision to stop Iran's nuclear activities through the recent IAEA decision is against the spirit of the NPT, particularly Part 3 of Article 3. Furthermore, the failure to satisfy Iran's prerequisites for signing the NPT could be regarded as an act of fraud, as is highlighted by Article 49 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This could be a further reason for Iran to declare the treaty to be terminated. Dear Mr. Annan,
Considering the above points, you might have already realized that Iranians regard the NPT as null and void before its 25-year expiry date is due and this is all the result of discriminatory behavior toward the Islamic Republic by the drafters of the treaty.
Still, Iran's full commitment to the NPT only illustrates Iran's goodwill, which itself is based on the religious teachings and moral beliefs of Iranians, to the effect that no Muslim should pursue or use weapons of mass destruction. Our actions during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war testify to this.
You are well aware of the fact that avoiding interference in other countries' domestic and foreign affairs is a fundamental principle and high on the agenda of United Nations documents. International laws and regulations, particularly the United Nations General Assembly resolutions and the International Court of Justice verdicts strongly and clearly condemn any interference in the internal affairs of other countries and consider it to be a violation of basic international laws. In this regard, reference could made to General Assembly resolutions 2625 and 3191, Article 3 of the member states' duties and responsibilities, Article 2 of the UN Charter, Articles 16, 18, and 19 of the American Countries Organization Charter, Article 8 of the Warsaw Pact Organization, Point 6 of the 1975 Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the 1986 International Court of Justice verdict on the Nicaragua file against the U.S.
It might be argued that in cases where a country does not follow the regulations set by the international community, interference in that country would be legitimate and permissible. Although, as a legal expert, I personally believe that "humanitarian interference" is a term fabricated by Western countries, and the only advocates of such interference are the theoreticians of those countries. By no means has it been proven that the 93+2 Additional Protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) should be regarded as an authoritative international law. Your Excellency, you are well aware of the fact that the aforesaid protocol could not be included in international regulations due to the following reasons:
1- Presently, there are countries which in addition to producing nuclear arms, also use the weapons in threatening other countries.
2- Refusal of a great number of the world’s countries, such as Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and the U.S., to accept the aforementioned protocol.
3- The assistance given by countries such as the U.S. and France, that basically laid the foundations for the NPT, to the regime in Israel in order to help it gain nuclear military capabilities.
4- The use of tactical radioactive weapons by the U.S. in the wars in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and the recent operations in Iraq.
5- The lack of the inclusion of the use of nuclear arms in the list of war crimes during the meeting of the plenipotentiary representatives of 160 countries in Rome in 1998.
6- The lack of a ban on the use of or threats with nuclear arms in international conventions or international common laws declaring a comprehensive and global ban on the use of nuclear arms.
7- The Hague International Court of Justice verdict on the interpretation of Clause E, Section 2 of Article 105 in 1996, regarding the production and use of nuclear arms.
8- Article 10 of the NPT regarding voluntary membership in the treaty, which allows the interested side to freely withdraw from the treaty in the event that membership in the NPT is contradictory to the country's sovereignty.
Thus, with regard to the aforesaid premise, the Iranian people, whether they be inside or outside of the country, including those living in Western countries and particularly those residing in the U.S., whether for or against the Islamic Republic system, all have one precious thing in common: national pride and love for their motherland, Iran.
Nevertheless, the Iranian people believe that the international community can only realize coexistence through peace and friendship.
Moreover, the pressure imposed on Iran by the West, including the recent ultimatum in which it is held legally responsible to sign the additional protocol to the NPT and opposition to Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities, is against international norms and regulations.
However, it should be noted that the Islamic Republic is not ruled by aristocrats and wealthy bourgeoisie with the ability to endanger their national prestige and give away the country's independence for nothing without consulting their parliament (the Majlis) and obtaining its consent.
Meanwhile, we admit that our world is the world of realities. The reality is the fact that gladiators are ruling the world, not what is right or should be right. In the resolution of the IAEA Board of Governors concerning Iran, we clearly saw that if the interests of the countries possessing nuclear arms called for it, they would issue a death sentence for all international laws and regulations in a matter of seconds, and, as a result, chaos would prevail in the world.
Regarding the fact that your Excellency is the secretary general of an institution basically founded in order to safeguard global peace and security with the promotion of friendship among nations at the top of its agenda, you are expected to make the outmost efforts to safeguard the national sovereignty of countries. Otherwise, expecting lasting security -- the most important thing the current materialistic world thirsts for -- to prevail in the world is nothing but an illusion.
Hoping for the abolition of discrimination and the establishment of lasting peace in the world. Sincerely, Member of the Majlis (Iranian Parliament) National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Akbar Alami