Remarks to the press by the Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN Vitaly Churkin following UN Security Council consultations on Iran
March 14, 2016
V.Churkin: First thing which I think we (members of the UNSC) agreed on is that the ballistic missile launches that were conducted by Iran have nothing to do with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions. It’s a separate matter which is reflected in resolution 2231 but it does not affect the implementation which started well and is one of the major achievements of the international community of the past five years. We need to keep working on its implementation. The other thing - whether it is a violation of 2231 – it is not. And I think we did agree that it’s not a violation. There is an important legal distinction. Resolution 2231 did change quite a bit the language on ballistic missile launches as compared to what was the case in previous resolutions adopted by the UNSC. After the Joint Plan was adopted all sanctions were lifted. Resolution 1929 banned Iran from any ballistic missile activity. Resolution 2231 called upon Iran not to engage in launching ballistic missiles designed to be capable to deliver nuclear weapons. A call is different from a ban. So, legally you cannot violate a call. You can comply with a call or ignore it but not violate. The legal distinction is there.
Another important issue. Resolution 2231 was drafted extremely carefully. So it’s certainly not by accident this rather complicated term “designed to be capable” is used. The standard term which is generally used in arms control resolutions “capable of delivering”. So “designed to be capable” clearly raises the requirements of proof. And we, Russia, do not have this information. The Iranians are of course denying that this missile is “designed to be capable”.
And there are some other things which we need to keep in mind. Unfortunately, there is no ban on medium range ballistic missiles. Several years ago Russia proposed to make a treaty that we have with the US banning our country and the US from developping intermediate range ballistic missiles - universal so that no other country would develop a missile over the range of 500 km. Our proposal didn’t gain enough international support. So there is no legal ban on such ballistic missiles launches.
Some colleagues raised the impact of those launches on international stability and the whole thing – security of the region. And this takes us to another dimension of the situation – this very important initiative of creating a zone in the Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction and means of their delivery. But unfortunately as you know for many complicated reasons this initiative has not advanced very far. Some colleagues suggested that we continue this discussion in this new format which was created in 2231. We didn’t object. The US delegation and some other delegations may provide their information which will take this discussion to the next step. Anyway the most important aspect in this discussion for me was that we concluded – and there was no objection to the fact – that this aspect has nothing to do with the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan.
Q. Do you believe that your position may encourage Iran or another country…
V.Churkin: We are not encouraging or discouraging anybody. The regional situation is very complicated. There are so many destabilizing factors now in the region that we need to keep all the things in prospective. Our preference would be for countries of the region to reach agreement at some point on creating this zone free of weapons of mass destruction and the means of their delivery. But for that they need to continue work…
Q. Did the people (in the UNSC) share your position.
V.Churkin: I repeated this idea 2-3 times and I registered the fact that towards the end of those discussions we seemed to have an agreement on these two things at least: Joint Action Plan is not something we are discussing, it’s a separate issue; and there is no legal violation of 2231. I saw no objections around the table. For me it was a very satisfactory outcome of this discussion.
Q. And the missiles have these (offensive) writings…
V.Churkin: We generally disapprove any threatening statements. Unfortunately from time to time we hear those. The other day the commander of the US forces in Europe said that they need to prepare for fighting and winning a war against Russia. All sorts of statements have been made. We are against one country threatening another.
Q. Should the UN Secretariat formally report back to the Council?
V.Churkin: The UN Secretariat should stick to the resolution. Resolution 2231 says it should report in the six months. So in six month we’ll see what report they are going to write.
Q. If there is a violation is there an obligation on the part of Iran?
V.Churkin: There is a certain clause in this resolution. One needs also to discuss whether those missiles are really designed to be capable to deliver a nuclear weapon. If there is proof that somehow those missiles have been designed to be capable to use nuclear weapons then you might suggest they’ve not been respectful of this particular clause of resolution 2231. But one step after another.
Q. Who has the authority to investigate such a thing?
V.Churkin: The US said that they are going to take it to 2231, this new format. So we’ll see what happens, in what way they raise this issue.
Q. You don’t think there should be a special report from the Secretary-General.
V.Churkin: No. This is not something which is provided for in 2231.
