April 23, Wang Yi, a member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Minister of Foreign Affairs, held talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Amirabdollahian in Beijing. Both sides exchanged views on the latest developments regarding the Iranian nuclear issue and expressed their intention to maintain close communication and coordination on the Iran nuclear issue.
On April 19, the second round of indirect talks between the United States and Iran about the nuclear issue concluded in Rome, the capital of Italy. According to the relevant plans announced after the meeting, the third round of nuclear talks between the United States and Iran will be held in Oman on April 26.
However, rumors that the United States and Israel might launch strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities have been widely circulated in various media outlets. The New York Times reported on April 16 that according to multiple government officials and informed sources, Israel had originally planned to attack Iran's nuclear facilities next month to delay the progress of Iran's nuclear program, but this plan was stopped by Trump. While pushing for negotiations with Iran, the United States is also attempting to pressure Iran into accepting American conditions.
In response to the future development of the Iranian nuclear issue, Observer Network invited Mr. Ali Asghar Sultanieh, chairman of the Vienna International Middle East Research Institute (VIIMES) and former Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, to interpret Iran's nuclear policy and the future security situation in the Middle East from the perspective of an international institution leader.
[Interview/Observer Network Tang Xiaofu]
Observer Network: You have worked at the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency and participated in many activities related to disarmament and international security. Could you introduce your work experience at the UN? What experiences or events have deeply influenced you and made you more determined to promote international peace and security?
Ali Asghar Sultanieh: First of all, it is a great honor to meet everyone here. I am currently working in Vienna as the chairman of the Vienna International Middle East Research Institute (VIIMES), and I am here as a guest invited by the Shanghai Academy of International Studies. My following remarks represent only my personal opinions and do not represent the official positions of my country or the organization I belong to.
Ambassador Ali Asghar Sultanieh
I have over forty years of work experience in the United Nations and other international organizations. It can be said that these international organizations have not met the expectations of the international community. In other words, many international organizations, especially those that should be technical institutions such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, have now been politicized, and even frequently陷入 division and confrontation internally when dealing with different issues. This kind of opposition between countries has not created a favorable environment for technical work for the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is just a microcosm of the current state of the United Nations system.
In addition, we have witnessed that the United Nations is almost paralyzed and powerless against the genocide and bloody atrocities happening in Gaza for a long time, which constitutes an unprecedented human tragedy. Therefore, these international organizations, especially the United Nations, have failed to fulfill the expectations of the international community.
After working in these organizations for forty years, I couldn't help but feel disappointed. People originally expected them to take the right actions at the right time, but reality is often different. But even so, these organizations still exist, and countries are still members of relevant treaties and organizations. We must work with these organizations. Despite all the problems, I still do my best to solve them. I firmly believe that we must continue to strive and try our best to bring everything back on track.
Observer Network: At present, the international community is still under the threat of nuclear weapons, especially since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, discussions about nuclear war have even become popular. Do you think it is still possible for us to fall into a nuclear shadow similar to the Cold War era? For nuclear disarmament and preventing nuclear proliferation, what specific suggestions or opinions do you have?
Ali Asghar Sultanieh: Although we indeed have our own understanding of nuclear arms control, nuclear disarmament, and non-proliferation, sometimes people cannot even distinguish between the differences among these three concepts. For decades, the United States has conducted long-term negotiations with the Soviet Union and later with Russia regarding arms control.
Former President George H.W. Bush and President Boris Yeltsin signing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II (START II)
Regarding this, I hold strong criticism. Because when discussing nuclear arms control, it actually means that these countries tacitly acknowledge the legality of nuclear weapons during the negotiation process. They claim that nuclear weapons should exist, we will not give up, but we can take control measures for these weapons.
In addition, we lack corresponding international verification mechanisms for their commitments. It is well known that they have signed bilateral agreements such as the first and second phases of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties, but the problem lies in the fact that although they have reduced the number of nuclear weapons, they have upgraded the quality of nuclear weapons. There is no corresponding verification system internationally to verify the authenticity of the nuclear weapon data of the US and Russia. Regrettably, they have not truly committed themselves to advancing the process of nuclear disarmament.
Currently, there is a treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons - the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). According to Article 6 of the treaty, nuclear-weapon states as parties to the treaty have the obligation to "eliminate nuclear weapons" (Article 6原文: Each party to the treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control).
Unfortunately, since the entry into force of the NPT, decades have passed, and no nuclear-weapon state has taken substantive measures towards complete nuclear disarmament, which is very worrying. Meanwhile, they use non-proliferation as an excuse to impose extreme and intrusive inspections on countries like Iran that do not possess nuclear weapons, which is indeed a serious problem.
In summary, I believe that currently global countries overemphasize the importance of arms control and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which sacrifices the ultimate goal of nuclear disarmament. Countries no longer talk about nuclear disarmament, but only about arms control, which is misleading the public in some ways. But ultimately, what we should pursue is not arms control, but nuclear disarmament - even the complete elimination of all nuclear weapons in the world.
Therefore, when talking about countries with nuclear weapons, controversies always arise. They claim that nuclear weapons are necessary for their defense and deterrence. If nuclear weapons are indeed important factors in national security and defense, then why do we need a non-proliferation mechanism?
Considering the painful lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we must take practical measures to promote nuclear disarmament, and the countries with nuclear weapons must also move in this direction. We should not merely stay at the "arms control" level, but should earnestly fulfill the obligations under Article 6 of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This is pragmatic, legal, and feasible, and will ultimately contribute to building a more peaceful and less nuclear-threatened world.
Observer Network: Another issue is that security is critical for every country. How can we break the vicious cycle of nuclear proliferation and the "security paradox"?
Ali Asghar Sultanieh: First, discussions about establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones have always existed. Many years ago, initially proposed by Iran and later followed by Egypt, the proposal to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East has been unable to materialize due to Israel's refusal to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), its insistence on maintaining nuclear weapons, and its refusal to accept any inspection. This has led to a severe deadlock in the practice of nuclear disarmament in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, in other regions where nuclear-weapon-free zone agreements have been reached, there is usually a clause called "NSA" - Negative Security Assurance. This clause requires nuclear-weapon states to guarantee that they will never use nuclear weapons against these non-nuclear states. Of course, this is just the first step toward achieving security guarantees.
In addition, there is an important topic that needs to be discussed here - the "no-first-use" policy. This policy requires nuclear-weapon states to commit to never using nuclear weapons for an attack under any circumstances. Currently, China is the only nuclear-weapon state that has publicly declared its adherence to the "no-first-use" nuclear policy.
An Iranian underground missile city
For countries that have abandoned the nuclear weapons option, security issues indeed exist, which is a common concern among non-nuclear states. Therefore, these countries should have the right to use non-nuclear means, including missiles, to defend their own security. For example, based on the religious decree of their leaders, Iran has decided not to develop nuclear weapons, but Iran still takes serious measures to maintain its national security through missile capabilities.
However, due to time constraints, I cannot go into detail about specific aspects. However, I would like to point out that there is currently no international treaty regarding conventional missiles. Therefore, any country, including Iran, has the legitimate right to protect and defend its own security through missiles rather than nuclear weapons, which is beyond doubt.
As for the issue of nuclear weapons, I suggest that all non-nuclear-weapon states or non-nuclear states should take joint actions in international organizations, especially at the Review Conferences of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to seriously warn other nuclear-weapon states through concrete measures and urge them to abandon nuclear weapons, otherwise the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons will be difficult to sustain.
Observer Network: In recent years, Iran and Israel have continued to confront each other in the Middle East. Although ordinary Chinese people generally hold a positive attitude towards Iran's support for Palestine against Israel, they do not fully understand what Iran's true goals are in the Middle East. From your perspective, how does Iran view its relationship with Israel? Where does Israel stand in Iran's planning?
Ali Asghar Sultanieh: The question is actually quite simple. Since Palestine was occupied, unprecedented security problems have arisen in the Middle East. Historically, people of different religions, including Jews, Christians, and Muslims, have long coexisted peacefully in the Middle East. However, since Palestine was occupied and the local people were driven out of their homes, the Middle East has been in a state of continuous insecurity.
The key issue is that while occupation and military intervention have historically existed in the Middle East, the current occupation is unprecedented because it is an occupation justified by religion. Those who call on Jews around the world to come to this region obviously cannot accommodate everyone, so their occupation will become increasingly rampant.
This poses a survival threat to countries in the Middle East, including Iran. Therefore, Iran has always opposed the so-called Zionism ideology that occupies land under the guise of religion, as this behavior is extremely dangerous. If other religions imitate this approach in other parts of the world, then there will be no safe place in the world. This is the first point.
Israel's arbitrary massacres in Palestine
Furthermore, unfortunately, as long as the Palestinian people fail to rebuild their homeland and the issue of Palestinian statehood remains unresolved, the Middle East will continue to be plagued by turmoil, wars, conflicts, and bloodshed. The root cause of the unprecedented genocide and humanitarian disaster currently unfolding in the Gaza Strip is simple enough - the Palestinian people simply want to safeguard their homeland peacefully, but they cannot achieve it.
Iran opposes this massacre and humanitarian tragedy and hopes to end the situation of racial segregation and occupation. I would like to remind everyone that Iran opposed the apartheid regime in South Africa, and after South Africa ended apartheid, Iran established good relations with the South African people and government.
Therefore, the best solution to the Palestinian-Israeli issue is to hold democratic referendums together in Palestine and Israel, allowing Jews, Christians, and Muslims to vote, so they can have their own democratic systems, thereby achieving a one-state solution. In short, enabling Palestinians, Jews, and other religious groups to live in peace and return to the peaceful life they have enjoyed for centuries is the only viable solution.
Otherwise, the unstable situation in the Middle East will continue. At our Vienna International Middle East Research Institute, we host relevant activities and receive interns, students, professors, and scholars from all over the world. We still hope that scholars, college students, and think tanks worldwide will work together to explore innovative ideas for peacefully resolving the Middle Eastern issue and seek effective solutions.
Of course, raising awareness of the dangers of current trends is also important. The urgent task is to quickly achieve a ceasefire and find a long-term, sustainable solution for the Palestinian people to ensure their safety and legitimate rights. This is the only way forward.
I will not elaborate on the specific positions of Iran or other countries here, but as a member of the institute, achieving peace in the Middle East is our common concern. Therefore, we must strive to achieve sustainable peace and prosperity for the Palestinian people and all the people of the Middle East, ensuring that everyone has a safe and stable living environment.
Observer Network: In recent years, the United States and Israel have continuously launched airstrikes against the Houthi armed group, and now it seems that the United States and Israel are planning a large-scale strike against Iran and the Houthis. What do you think of this risk of war? If the strike occurs, will the Iranian government and the Revolutionary Guard Corps make a tough response?
Ali Asghar Sultanieh: I don't intend to discuss the responses of various parties in detail, as it is not my responsibility. Iranian officials have already stated their stance and will announce the measures they intend to take. However, I would like to tell a story based on my own experience and professional insights.
About 35 years ago, in 1990, I represented my country at the International Atomic Energy Agency. I am proud to say that I proposed a resolution draft at the International Atomic Energy Agency, which was later adopted as the famous Resolution No. 533.
According to this resolution, any attack or threat of attack on nuclear facilities in operation or under construction seriously violates the Charter of the United Nations, international law, and the statutes of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United Nations Security Council should immediately take action.
Nuclear facilities outside Isfahan, Iran
Regrettably, the United Nations has taken no effective measures against the public threats from the United States and Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. However, the threat of attacking Iran's nuclear facilities clearly violates Resolution No. 533, and the United Nations Security Council should immediately convene a meeting to publicly condemn the threats from Israel and the United States against Iran's nuclear facilities. Such threats undoubtedly constitute a blatant violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
This is the important message I wish to convey. Of course, as for how Iran will respond to threats from the United States or other countries, the official side will certainly respond. Historical experience shows that whether it is the eight-year war imposed on Iran by Saddam in the 20th century or any other form of aggression, our Iranian nation with thousands of years of civilization heritage will resolutely defend national sovereignty, national security, and territorial integrity, which is beyond doubt.
From the perspective of international law, I believe these threats clearly violate international law and the Charter of the United Nations. The United Nations Security Council should immediately take action.
This article is an exclusive article of Observer Network, and the content purely represents the author's personal views, which are not necessarily the views of the platform. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, otherwise legal liability will be pursued. Follow Observer Network WeChat (guanchacn) to read interesting articles daily.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7496757979967095333/
Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's views. Welcome to express your attitude in the buttons below [Support/Disapprove].