Return to Transcripts main page

DIPLOMATIC LICENSE

U.N. Reviews NPT

Aired May 6, 2005 - 21:00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMAL KHARRAZI, IRANIAN FOREIGN MIN.: It is unacceptable that some tend to limit access to peaceful nuclear technology to an exclusive club of technologically advanced states.

MARIAN HOBBS, NEW ZEALAND MIN. OF DISARMAMENT: This is about trust, the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. It's about each one making one step forward, just a small step, to build that trust.

YOKO ONO, SONGWRITER: If we drop the bomb anywhere, we are dropping it on ourselves.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD ROTH, CNN ANCHOR: You remember North Korea's missile test last weekend, similar to this launch in their rocket hall of fame. Well, did you noticed a lot of stories spread from United States and Asian intelligence, stories that there might be a nuclear weapons test by the secretive and erratic North Koreans within a year?

Welcome to DIPLOMATIC LICENSE. I'm Richard Roth.

For most of us, a scary proposition, but for people from the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a horrifying nightmare. The United Nations, if it was listening, saw a vivid reminder from the General Assembly roster this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TADATOSHI AKIBA, MAYOR OF HIROSHIMA: I have in my hand a monstrously thick, deformed, black fingernail fallen from the middle finger of a survivor. It grows in a crooked way -- as you can see, it is bent -- piercing the skin, then falls off after reaching a certain length.

This nail is an elegant symbol of the cruel, endless and mysterious suffering the survivors of the atomic bombing have struggled with for 60 years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: The mayor of Hiroshima at the start of a review for the next month of one of those cornerstone disarmament treaties. NPT, Nonproliferation Treaty. North Korea, not there. It pulled out of the NPT two years ago.

So the field was clear for a public airing of differences over Iran's nuclear ambitions. The United States demanded that Iran get rid of all nuclear facilities and fuel, not trusting what the motives are for Tehran's uranium enrichment program.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE RADEMACHER, U.S. STATE DEPT.: Iran must provide such objective and verifiable guarantees in order to demonstrate that it is not using a purportedly peaceful nuclear program to hide a nuclear weapons program or to conduct additional clandestine nuclear work elsewhere in the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: Iran vowed it has every right to develop sensitive technology. Don't believe me? Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told me that and more this week.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KHARRAZI: We're not really speaking of the framework of legalities. This is a legal, legitimate right, to have nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Including producing fuel that we need for our power plants, provided it is under proper supervision of the IAEA as a watchdog.

And we have been ready to do that, and since we signed additional protocol, there has been more than 1,000 mandated inspections in Iran, and that has been very helpful in coming to this position by IAEA that there has been no evidence in Iran that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

ROTH: Right. IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has not said that they have found anything. Yet the years of secrecy in some aspects of the nuclear program is what leads people to suspect something. Does your country regret that now?

KHARRAZI: No. Let me explain that before signing additional protocol we were only supposed to inform IAEA of any new installation which was going to be operational 180 days before its operation, and none of the installations that we were constructing were to that certain point.

But after signing that additional protocol, we are supposed to inform IAEA of our intentions of our programs in advance, before the start of the construction. So this is a difference. But some failures have been there. This is true. But now those failures have been corrected and I believe the start of cooperation which has been developed between Iran and IAEA has been quite comprehensive.

The question is why we did not inform, you know, before signing the additional protocol. It was because of the sanctions which was put against Iran.

ROTH: How long are you going to wait before restarting? In the General Assembly speech that you gave, you made it seem that time is running out on your patience with these negotiations with the European Union countries.

KHARRAZI: This is a matter of (INAUDIBLE) with European countries in order to arrive to some mechanism that could ensure that Iran is not going to divert toward nuclear weapons, which is called objective guarantees.

Therefore, we have not been interested to engage in negotiations for the sake of negotiations. Negotiations have been supposed to lead us to something tangible. And we put a timeframe of three months to evaluate that, if it has been positive in that respect or no.

Now we believe that the time has been passed. We have not arrived to any conclusive revolve. Therefore we believe that it is time to decide how we want to -- do we want to continue with these negotiations? For sure, from our side, these negotiations have to be able to arrive us to something conclusive, to something tangible, in order to let us continue with our legitimate right, which is using this technology for peaceful purposes.

ROTH: Secretary of State Rice said after your remarks, there are opportunities or advantages that Iran should take and seize with the European Union negotiations, though economic incentives. What is your response to her?

KHARRAZI: I don't think that our rights can be compensated by economic incentives. Economic incentives are good to establish really strong ties between Iran and the European countries as two partners which can deal with different issues, crises, technologies and cooperation. That is for good. But it cannot be to compensate for our legitimate right, which is based on NPT, which is based on safeguards, and it is based on additional protocols.

Therefore, as long as it is with the supervision of IAEA, there should not be any concern.

ROTH: What is your country going to do if the matter is referred to the Security Council by the Board of Governors of the IAEA? It has been out there for a couple of years now.

KHARRAZI: Well, first of all, in terms of legalities, there is no way it can be referred to the Security Council. If there is political pressure (INAUDIBLE). But we have been used to sanctions, we have been used to pressure and, in fact, during the war we have been sanctioned, and that in fact helped us to develop war capabilities inside to the extent that we are manufacturing and producing most of our needs.

Therefore, we are not afraid of more sanctions and more pressure. The Iranians are ready to defend themselves.

ROTH: Are you secretly gleeful -- you had the United States for years saying Iraq had a program of weapons of mass destruction. Nothing turned up. Here, United States keeps the pressure on saying there is all kinds of nefarious nuclear activities going on.

KHARRAZI: That is exactly what we say, that if they make allegations, the burden to prove those allegations is on the shoulder of the United States.

ROTH: Why don't you open up the facilities more to the satisfaction of the United States and the Europeans?

KHARRAZI: It is quite open enough. Exactly we are doing like the Japanese (INAUDIBLE). The Japanese do not have any weapon program. We do not have any weapon program. The Japanese are producing the fuel they need for their power plants. We intend to produce the fuel we need for our power plants. The Japanese are the only country which has accepted the permanent residence of inspectors. We have done so, and we have been said that we are ready to have inspectors permanently in Iran, 24 hours, with full cameras, to make sure that everything is safe and everything is legal.

So exactly the model that the Japanese have been developing, we are going to develop, and we find it quite ironic --

ROTH: Is it a double standard, that they don't think --

KHARRAZI: Yes. If they say the Japanese can do it and Iran cannot do it, this is certainly a matter of a double standard, which is unacceptable.

ROTH: Can you elaborate? You were quoted as saying you are facing pressure, the negotiators are facing pressure, regarding the presidential elections, elections in Iran, and media pressure. How does that effect you?

KHARRAZI: Oh, intensive pressure, not only in the media but in the parliament, in public opinion. Heavy pressure on Iran of how long do we want to wait, how long do we want to engage in negotiations?

Negotiations are good, provided they take you to somewhere tangible. And this is the reality that we are facing, and whomever would be in office as the new president, certainly, cannot ignore this national pride of Iranians who have been able to develop this domestic technology and, certainly, this is something that the government cannot do anything about.

ROTH: So, very briefly, some analysts say Iran is dragging its feet, buying time, that you have only to gain by stalling. Is that true?

KHARRAZI: No. Actually, since time that we decided voluntarily to suspend enrichment, we have not been doing anything, because it is under the supervision of the IAEA, but certainly this cannot be continued for sure.

ROTH: Do you have any other secret strategies that you want to share with us at this point on how you are going to deal with --

KHARRAZI: If it is secret, I cannot share it with you, but I don't have anything secret. Everything is transparent.

ROTH: Kamal Kharrazi, Iran's foreign minister, and former ambassador here at the United Nations, thank you for stopping by here on DIPLOMATIC LICENSE.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: The foreign minister met the leader of the U.N. agency that is supposed to keep tabs on his country, Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA. His agency says Iran does just enough to cooperate, but doesn't go out of its way to be more open. Don't think that approach wins support from the nuclear watchdog from the United States. Washington opposes a third term in office for ElBaradei.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MOHAMED ELBARADEI, IAEA DIRECTOR: In their view, I have served with distinction. They want a rotation of that job. I take their word for it. But, frankly, we have much more important issues to discuss -- nonproliferation, arms control -- than discussing whether I am staying for a third term or not. To me, it is either way. I would be very happy to continue in public service. I will be even more happier, you know, to go and explore other possibilities, which I have a lot of them on offer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROTH: Getting rid of all nuclear weapons in the world is more than just a stumbling block, but a global youth campaign backed by Germany has constructed a wall of blocks to stand for people using international law to protect the world against nuclear weapons. There are 50,000 signed blocks and this symbolic wall stood near the United Nations this week.

Only one country claims to have someone with a title of disarmament minister. That's New Zealand. She's Marian Hobbs, a former teacher. She met with the Iranian foreign minister and other delegates at the nuclear review session in New York. I talked to the minister in the bucolic gardens of the United Nations. We strolled past a statue titled "Let Us Beat Swords Into Plow Shares," a gift from the former Soviet Union.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARIAN HOBBS, NEW ZEALAND MINISTER OF DISARMAMENT: The nuclear weapons states are only slowly living up to their promises, and some might really question that. I mean, there were 30,000 nuclear weapons in 1970 when it was finally ratified. There are still 30,000 nuclear weapons, even though some have been destroyed. So some have been made in the meantime.

And the other thing is, is that there are real concerns now, whereas many states have not moved towards gaining nuclear weapons, North Korea has. And there are huge doubts, or there have been doubts, about Iran, because they are trying to get nuclear energy, which is a right under the Nonproliferation Treaty.

ROTH: So this grand bargain formed 35 years ago really has lost its worth.

HOBBS: No. I think the grand bargain has actually worked. You know, 30 years ago there was at least the threat of 20 more states getting nuclear weapons. That hasn't happened. And right now there are 40 states who have the ability, if they wanted to, to enrich their uranium up to weapons grade standard, and they're not.

We've only got five -- three outside the NPT, that's five nuclear weapons states, and Israel, Pakistan and India, and on its own word, North Korea.

ROTH: But do you think the leaders, the political leadership in the world, is recognizing the nuclear issue as one of the more important items on the agenda?

HOBBS: No, I don't think they are, and I don't think they are because I don't think the public actually realizes the seriousness of this. And the seriousness of the fact that as more people gain enriched uranium and gain nuclear energy, it is just a hop skip and a jump and they can get nuclear weapons, and we have to find a way around that.

Mohamed ElBaradei, bless his cotton socks --

ROTH: The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I didn't know his socks were cotton, but --

HOBBS: Well, he is coming through with the whole package, which is talking about the nuclear fuel cycle and maybe we put this under multilateral control.

ROTH: Well, he wants to have a moratorium on development of new nuclear facilities, but there aren't many countries who want to go along with that. Why is that?

HOBBS: Well, that's the balance, you see, because those countries who want to go to that say, "Hey, we've got a right to do it, and why don't you people really start disarming."

So that's the trickiness of this particular meeting. There is almost a standoff between the two groups.

ROTH: You know, in the United States, where this conference is being held, there was not that much television coverage of this conference. There was a story about something almost just as explosive as a nuclear bomb -- a runaway bride in the southern part of the United States.

HOBBS: Don't set me off, actually. I was really quite -- I just thought that was the epitome of not playing a role of educating people. Because there was, I think, a poll only two weeks ago that said that many Americans did not want to have nuclear weapons in the world.

Now I think if our legislators are listening to this, they should take that onboard.

ROTH: So what do you want, as a disarmament minister for New Zealand? Do you want any nuclear weapons to exist in the world?

HOBBS: No. Absolutely no. And not only that. When I sat with your ambassador in New Zealand --

ROTH: I don't have an ambassador. I have a news bureau chief.

HOBBS: I'm sorry. When I sat with an American ambassador in New Zealand, I actually said to her, "Let's find a common ground. Do you want a world with nuclear weapons?"

And she said, "I want a world without nuclear weapons, ultimately."

So I think it is a question of pace, and I really want the pace up, because there has been an agreement made by the nuclear weapon states, that that is the ultimate goal.

ROTH: But what kind of timeline do you see? I mean, do you really see big powers giving up their nuclear weapons, which they believe are needed for their own protection, somewhere down the road?

HOBBS: Well, I think for their own protection there should be no nuclear weapons and there should be a way of managing the nuclear fuel cycle.

ROTH: What are you going to say to people who say, listen, you are way down there in New Zealand. You don't even have to worry about anything, and stop bothering us about -- you know, we're in a post-9/11 world.

HOBBS: True, and I totally accept the 9/11 world, which affected us too, but nowhere near as much as the good people of this city.

But nuclear weapons are environmentally damaging to the whole atmosphere that goes around the whole planet. And, secondly, we're a trading nation. If you wipeout cities and countries, you wipeout trade opportunities. So it is economically and environmentally damaging, not just to those hit.

ROTH: You think the money could go elsewhere.

HOBBS: Oh, you bet I do.

ROTH: Where should it go?

HOBBS: Oh, well, you see, one of my other hats is minister for development. And we've got a lot to do in this world to bring up nations so they become good traders with us, so that they don't have to spend money combating AIDS, so that they can get rid of malaria, polio, you name it.

ROTH: But why doesn't the public grab hold of it? I mean, they're aware of it --

HOBBS: The public did. On the tsunami, the public went for it, didn't they?

ROTH: Because they saw a fashion model being swept away.

HOBBS: No, no.

ROTH: They saw humanity there.

HOBBS: They saw humanity, and they saw no politicians around, and they saw nature at its most devastating, and they decided to come in. But they did care. They cared for those villages. They cared for the people there. And actually they took the lead over governments. I would love that to happen again on this issue.

ROTH: So you think the people in that building behind you, who are speaking and making speeches every five years at the conference, they may wake up too late? Tsunami, you could at least see the damage and people can still get to the scene. It may be too late if one goes off.

HOBBS: I want these people to really concentrate and I want them to hear the voices out there in the community, which say we don't want this kind of society. We want a society where we can stroll under the blossom in New York and enjoy life. We don't want a society where we are threatened by this enormous cloud sitting over us.

They might negotiate in that building, get an agreement amongst nations, but unless there is a real movement out there from the people, that won't get ratified in any sense.

ROTH: You heard a comment, I'm told, from a Japanese man the other day, who offered thanks for the dropping of the bomb in '45.

HOBBS: Yes, he -- I didn't think he was quite -- what he said was that people came up to him and said thank you because you ended the war, World War II. And I think that the question that should be asked then, and not in any way a personal question, but when we are studying this in history in our schools, the question should be asked what then began. Yes, the war ended. What then began? And what began was the powerful and the powerless. And an imbalance in the world. And we want that balance back.

ROTH: But hasn't this nuclear standoff, as you indicated in a way, I mean, it has kept the world safer from the larger global war?

HOBBS: Well, it may, but I don't think it is going to remain that way because there is this ability to get nuclear energy, to get nuclear fuel, and unless we see some movement -- this is about trust, the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. It is about each one making one step forward, just a small step, to build that trust.

ROTH: We're taking small steps here along New York's East River. But that is pretty hard trust to build up in this world where agreements are broken and elections take place and suddenly new people are in charge every three years.

HOBBS: We've had 35 years with these agreements largely being kept, apart from the slowness in the disarmament area. We really have had. We haven't had a bomb, apart from tests, since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We haven't had a bomb dropped in anger. There is a tribute to what the United Nations has paralyzingly achieved and we should acknowledge that, but we need to push the envelope a bit further.

ROTH: Marian Hobbs, disarmament minister, development minister, for New Zealand. Here at the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York. Thank you very much for stopping by in the gardens here on DIPLOMATIC LICENSE.

HOBBS: Thank you. I enjoyed it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: Another guest in the General Assembly warned of the dangers of nuclear weapons. Her late husband had written and sang about giving peace a chance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YOKO ONO, SONGWRITER: We must give this planet one more chance. Let us wake up, come together and work on cleaning and healing our planet instead of further destroying it. Let's not waste one more day in creating a machinery of destruction.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROTH: Inside the United Nations, speeches and wrangling over words at the nuclear review meeting. Outside, a solemn but simple protest against the weapons. Trust me, in our CNN office you could hear the drums. Inside the General Assembly, though, no.

The United Nations and Secretary-General Kofi Annan have been beaten like a drum over the Oil For Food scandal. Even when an independent inquiry led by Paul Volcker issues a major report on Annan and his son, the debate rages on, whether it was too soft or too hard.

Now a new huge battle brews. A former FBI agent who was a lead investigator for Volcker but resigned in protest over the report's conclusions, has, under subpoena from a Congressional committee, turned over documents on the case despite a confidentiality agreement for Volcker panel employees. Now Volcker is angry. He is offering to let his former investigator testify if the committee's papers are returned.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL VOLCKER, U.N. OIL FOR FOOD INVESTIGATOR: In the limited time that remains, our aim remains to provide a full and accurate story of the management and results of the Oil For Food program. That work must not be impeded.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROTH: Paul Volcker insists he knows of no evidence that would challenge his panels findings on Annan.

That is DIPLOMATIC LICENSE. I'm Richard Roth in New York. Thanks for watching.

END

TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com