Remarks to the Press by Chargé d'Affaires a.i. Dmitry Polyanskiy on Iran's Nuclear Program
Dmitry Polyanskiy: Dear Colleagues,
I want to make an important announcement. About an hour ago, Russia and China put into blue a draft Security Council resolution. It’s very short, so I will read it aloud. I think you will bear with me.
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolution 2231 (2015),
Acknowledging the importance of finding a negotiated diplomatic solution to the issues related to resolution 2231 (2015),
Recognizing the necessity of allowing additional time for negotiations on this matter,
Decides to technically extend for 6 months, till 18 April 2026, the ten-year term after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) Adoption Day, indicated in resolution 2231 (2015) and its Annexes, with a possibility for a further extension;
Urges all initial participants of the JCPOA to immediately resume negotiations on the matters related to the resolution 2231 and the JCPOA.
That’s it. It’s a very short text. I think it’s absolutely clear, self-explanatory, unlike many other Security Council resolutions. And I will make some additional comments.
Now the world is at a crossroads. It’s quite clear. One option is peace, diplomacy, goodwill, normal human contact. Another option is a kind of diplomacy at the barrel of the gun, hence extortion and blackmail, and all other things. The second option is clearly represented by the action that was triggered today by France, the UK and Germany. You all know that they circulated a letter triggering “snapback”.
I will not explain this procedure to you in detail, I think everybody who is knowledgeable of this fact doesn’t have such a necessity. But I will say that this move by the European countries, in our view, has absolutely no legal bearing, because they were not implementing resolution 2231 in good faith.
For example, they did nothing in terms of lifting sanctions against Iran during the so-called Transition Day two years ago. They are acting absolutely in breach of the JCPOA in each and every sense, in letter and in spirit of this document. They have not exhausted the mechanisms foreseen by the JCPOA, first and foremost the dispute resolution mechanism. Thus, we do not think that this move by these three countries should entail any action from the Council. This is our very strong and principled conviction.
Of course, it will affect the overall climate over the issues related to the Iranian nuclear program. It will complicate international cooperation in this regard. Thus, we think that the option proposed by Russia and China today is the way that everybody should follow in order to avoid complications, in order to avoid serious problems for international peace and security, in order to give some chance and breathing space for diplomacy.
So once again, we believe that the move by the E3 cannot and should not entail any legal or procedural effect. It’s a mere escalatory step. It’s something that is absolutely showing that the Western countries do not know what diplomacy is about. They don’t care about diplomacy. They care only about blackmail, threats and coercion vis-à-vis independent countries.
Q: Have you requested a vote?
A: Not yet. We are thinking about it. You know that when a resolution is put into blue, the vote can be requested at any moment. That is something we are now thinking over with our partners. And the countries that support us are much more numerous than simply Russia and China.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, if you really believe that the countries who started this snapback process are just interested in making problems, what hope do you hold for your draft resolution to pass in the Security Council? And do you really believe that in six months all these problems with Iran and their violations of the JCPOA will be solved?
A: We believe in common sense. We believe in diplomacy. We believe in the fact that many countries understand what can follow if this situation goes into the spiral of violence and further breach of international law. I also need to remind you about the context in which all this is happening. The IAEA has repeatedly failed to notice any threats [in terms of nuclear proliferation] stemming from the Iranian nuclear program.
Q: Have they confirmed the violations by Iran?
A: This is the matter of interpretation. And we all know that Iran’s measures in terms of uranium enrichment were taken in response to the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, and these measures can easily be reviewed.
Iran was always open to a diplomatic solution to this issue. The United States abandoned the JCPOA, and since then the situation started deteriorating. So, we should not confuse the real source of the problem, which is what happened in 2018.
Also, we shouldn’t forget about the context of absolutely unlawful strikes that were conducted against the Islamic Republic of Iran in June by Israel and then by the United States, including against the objects that are placed under the IAEA safeguards. This was, and still is, a serious breach of international law. And we cannot ignore this context.
Thus, these countries that want to follow further on the path of escalation continue breaching international law. Maybe they still believe in the so-called “rules-based international order,” but in their actions they show that this “international order” has nothing to do with international law – this is very obvious.
We believe in common sense, we believe in peace, we believe in diplomacy, and the option that Russia and China are now providing for the whole world should lead us to this aim without further problems.
Q: As for the extension, do you think it's consistent with your argument that this is not a legal move. If it's not legal, why are you trying to extend it? Is there an inherent clash there? If you don't think they're not members of the JCPOA anymore, or the E3, and they have no legal basis to even trigger snapback, so why are you extending it?
A: Make no mistake, our move is not linked to snapback. It's just coincided. First, we started working on this resolution a long time ago, even before the intention of the E3 countries to launch snapback. Second, if you were listening to me attentively, I quoted para two of our resolution where we call for initial participants in the JCPOA. This implies that now, of course, certain countries cannot be considered to be members of the JCPOA. For example, the United States. I haven't heard about these three countries leaving the JCPOA, but by their actions they’ve already put themselves outside of the legal framework of this document. This is true. So, the call is for the initial participants in the JCPOA to come back to where we started and to find a solution to this issue.
Q: And if this snapback goes through and they veto your resolution, does Russia find itself obligated to the previous sanctions? Do you think that is legal? Will those previous sanctions hold water? Are you going to implement them?
A: This question has no legal bearing because their move is legally null and void. And we are hypothetical so far because we haven't called for a vote yet, and we don't know what will follow then. We hope that common sense will prevail even with these three countries that have already made this absolutely illegal move. But we are not bound by this move in any way in the Security Council.
Q: So, if the draft resolution is adopted, will the 30 days deadline for the snapback also be stopped and extended?
A: We call for the extension of the provisions of Resolution 2231. It means, of course, that any considerable action within the framework of Resolution 2231 will also be suspended and prolonged to the next stage. But again, don't forget that we do not acknowledge the legal grounds behind this snapback. So, for us, nothing happened. What we are speaking about is the extension of Resolution 2231 as such.
Q: What was your reaction about the snapback?
A: Our reaction? Yeah. Disappointment, of course, because we believed that we’re dealing with serious people with serious intentions, and it looks like that we’re dealing with some kind of, I don't know, gangsters. So that's it.
Q: If snapback happens in 30 days, will Russia not implement the UN sanctions?
A: Snapback has not happened. It has not been launched.
Q: I know, but in 30 days, if this process comes to a conclusion?
A: How can it come to a conclusion if it has not started? Be consistent in your assumptions.
Q: Would Russia implement the UN sanctions on Iran again?
A: And they are not being introduced.
Q: And if they are?
A: How can they be introduced if snapback that is being launched right now is illegal?
Q: Why do you call it illegal?
A: I explained to you – because these countries were breaching the JCPOA. They were not observing the provisions of the JCPOA, and they have not exhausted the mechanisms that are provided by the JCPOA, first of all, the DRC [Dispute Resolution Clause]. So that's why they don't have any reasons to appeal to this document because they were not implementing it, not in good faith, not technically in any way. I think that's what international law prescribes to us. If it's about the rules-based international order, if they live in this paradigm, it's up to them. But we live within the paradigm of international law.
Q: Ambassador, do you have any comments about the timing of the E3 doing this right now, one month before the High-level Week and before the Russian Federation as a presidency of the Council in October? Do you have any comments about the timing of this at all?
A: I didn't think about it frankly, because we do not consider it as a legal move. Timing is very secondary in this regard.
Q: Is it possible that Russia can bring a new draft resolution to the Security Council in order to lift snapback?
A: We've just presented a resolution.
Q: Would you request a meeting even this weekend for this? Or what's the urgency?
A: I heard that there’s some kind of request for consultations for tomorrow, but I have no confirmation. Of course, the Council will discuss this issue for sure. But I think that our position is clear right now.
Q: So, there is no vote on the resolution scheduled for tomorrow?
A: It may happen. I don't know. Every option is on the table.
Thank you.
